image001

AGENDA

Ordinary meeting of the

 

Nelson City Council

 

Thursday 8 August 2019

Commencing at 9.00a.m.

Council Chamber

Civic House

110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

 

Pat Dougherty

Chief Executive

 

Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Mel Courtney, Bill Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson, Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Mike Rutledge, Tim Skinner and Stuart Walker

Quorum: 7

 

Nelson City Council Disclaimer

Please note that the contents of these Council and Committee Agendas have yet to be considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision.

 


N-logotype-black-wideNelson City Council

8 August 2019

 

 

Page No.

Opening Prayer

1.       Apologies

Nil

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1       Updates to the Interests Register

3.2       Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Nelson Music Festival Trust, trading as the Adam Chamber Music Festival - funding application lodged with the Nelson Regional Development Agency (Bob Bickerton)

4.2       Dan McGuire - the climate emergency declaration, and the expenditure.

4.3       Action for the Climate Emergency (ACE) - issues relating to transport, public education, council policy and timeframes in regard to the climate emergency (Lindsay Wood)

4.4       Peter Kortegast - Custom House heritage verandah and Haven Road cycle facility

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       20 June 2019                                                                        14 - 38

Document number M4290

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 20 June 2019, as a true and correct record.

 

5.2       27 June 2019                                                                        39 - 67

Document number M4318

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 27 June 2019, as a true and correct record.

     

6.             Recommendations from Committees     

6.       Community Services Committee  - 11 April 2019  68 - 69

Founders Heritage Park Strategic Focus Areas and Timeline

As requested by the Community Services Committee, the 10 year vision statement has been updated and attached to reflect the proposed 5 focus areas. It has also been shared with iwi via Te Ohu Toi Ahurea, and community heritage stakeholders, with none of these groups requesting changes or raising concerns as to the proposed areas.

Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.       Approves the proposed five focus areas of the Founders Heritage Park plan as enhancing the visitor experience, building Iwi partnerships, heritage protection and sector integration, venue development and financial sustainability; and

2.       Approves the updated 10-year vision statement (A2183151) for Founders Heritage Park.

6.1     Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 25 June 2019

6.1.1    Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan - 30 June 2020

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.       Approves the Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan - 30 June 2020 (A2202709).

 

 

6.2     Regional Transport Committee - 1 July 2019

6.2.1    Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Nelson State Highway Speed Management Guide Implementation

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.     Approves that the Nelson Regional Land Transport Programme 2015-21 is varied to include a total of $1.26M for Nelson State Highway Speed Management Guide Implementation over 2018-2021 with a 100% Funding Assistance Rate  

 

 

6.3     Sports and Recreation Committee - 2 July 2019

6.3.1    Cawthron Reserve (Cawthron Crescent) - Wastewater Easement

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.     Grants the easement in gross, meaning granting the easement to Nelson City Council rather than to property, in favour of Nelson City Council over the area shown in red on the plan (A2194740) of Cawthron Reserve (NL2C/108) for wastewater purposes. 

 

 

6.4     Governance Committee - 25 July 2019

6.4.1    Nelson Regional Development Agency - draft Statement of Intent 2019/20

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.     Agrees that the Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2019/20 meets Council’s expectations and is approved as the final Statement of Intent for 2019/20.

 

 

7.       Council Status Report                                           70 - 72

Document number R10381

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Council Status Report (R10381) and its attachment (A1168168).

 

 

8.       Mayor's Report                                                     73 - 159

Document number R10371

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R10371) and its attachments  (A2209899 and A1546381); and

2.     Approves the payment of a Childcare allowance as per the Local Government Members (2019/20) Determination (A2209899) at an hourly rate of up to the Living Wage; and

3.     Adopts the amended Nelson City Council Elected Members Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 2016 (A1546381)

 

 

9.       Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions                                                             160 - 195

Document number R10337

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions (R10337) and its attachments (A2222281, A2223596 and A2220460); and

2.     Approves the Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme Action Plan.

 

 

 

10.     Parking Meter Renewal                                        196 - 218

Document number R9935

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Parking Meter Renewal (R9935) and its attachments (A2149051, A2148865, A2228122); and   

2.    Approves that the existing parking meters be renewed using Pay-by-Plate technology and that tenders be called for on this basis; and

3.    Determines that amendment of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (No.207) is the most appropriate way of ensuring that it will support pay-by-plate technology and that the proposed amendments would be the most appropriate form of bylaw and would not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and   

4.    Determines the most appropriate form of consultation for the proposed amendment to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (No.207) that will support pay-by-plate technology, is under s82 of the Local Government Act 2002 and as set out in this report R9935; and     

5.    Notes that, following completion of the consultation process, a report will be brought back to Council to decide on changes to the Bylaw

 

 

 

 

 

6.       Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward  219 - 270

Document number R10038

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward (R10038) and its attachments (A2223677, A2223678,  A2223679 and A2230776); and

2.    Notes that officers do not support continuing with using Diatomix; and

3.    Approves progressing Options 3 and 4 of Report R10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate to preliminary design at an additional unbudgeted cost of $160,000; and

4.    Requests Council officers bring a report back to the Sports and Recreation Committee detailing the findings from preliminary design for Options 2, 3 and 4 of Report 10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate before proceeding to public consultation.

 

 

12.     Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020                                                                      271 - 282

Document number R10360

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020 (R10360) and its attachments (A2203993 and A2203994); and

2.     Notes that consultation with the Saxton Field Committee has taken place, and the Committee has expressed its support for camping to return to Saxton Field; and

3.     Consents to the temporary use of Saxton Field Reserve as a camping ground for up to 3,500 campers, associated with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 - 5 January 2020 under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977; and

4.     Notes that the Chief Executive will grant exclusive use of Alliance Green and the football pitches of Saxton Field for the Bay Dreams South festival 2020 in accordance with section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

5.     Agrees to impose a temporary ban on the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5 January 2020 pursuant to clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.

 

 

7.       Naming Policy Review Options                             283 - 298

Document number R10142

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Naming Policy Review Options (R10142) and its attachments (A306318 and A2227857); and

2.     Agrees that officers draft a new Naming Policy for Council approval.

 

 

14.     Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve                   299 - 332

Document number R10247

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve (R10247) and its attachments (A1903135, A2230208 and A2237459); and

2.      Declares the stopped road land as marked purple on Attachment 1 (A1903135) of report (R10247) to  vest as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977, to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve; and

3.      Approves the change in specified purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve as marked green on Attachment 1 (A1903135) of report (R10247) to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve under section 24A of the Reserves Act 1977; and

4.      Delegates the authority to the Chief Executive to take the steps necessary to prepare and place notices in the Gazette in order to vest the stopped road land as reserve and change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose Reserve; and

5.      Delegates the authority to the Chief Executive to take the steps necessary to complete the road stopping process under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 and amalgamate the reserve.

 

  

Public Excluded Business

15.     Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes -  20 June 2019

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

·        Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

2

Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes -  27 June 2019

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

3

Recommendations from Committees

Audit, Risk and Finance Committee 25 June 2019

Bad Debt Write Off for Year Ending 30 June 2019

Works and Infrastructure Committee 27 June 2019

Part of Princes Drive – proposed road stopping

Sports and Recreation Committee 2 July 2019

Land purchase – Grampians extension, Brook Valley

Governance Committee 25 July 2019

Nelmac Director Appointment

Nelson Regional Development Agency Director Appointment

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·        Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

4

Council Status Report - Public Excluded

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

5

Mayor's Report

 

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)(b)(ii)

     To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

6

Community Housing: Negotiating Brief and Proposed Divestment Process

 

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)

7

Legal Advice on Brook Reserve Management Plan

Legal advice

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

8

Event funding - Adam Chamber Music Festival

 

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:

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

·             Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

·             Youth Councillors Emma Barnes-Wetere and Alex Hunter will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

 

 

  


Nelson City Council Minutes - 20 June 2019

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Thursday 20 June 2019, commencing at 9.03a.m.

 

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

In Attendance:     Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Acting Group Manager Environmental Management (M Heale), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Adviser (E Stephenson) and Youth Councillors Cassie Hagan and Ryan Martyn

Apologies :       Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Rutledge for lateness

In the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair.

Opening Prayer

Councillor Skinner gave the opening prayer.

1.       Apologies

Resolved CL/2019/094

 

That the Council

1.     Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship the Mayor Reese and Councillor Rutledge for lateness.

Matheson/Courtney                                                                          Carried

 

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

The Deputy Mayor acknowledged the English Language Training for Officials NMIT group in the public gallery and Councillor McGurk welcomed the group who were from Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.

            Attendance: Councillor Fulton entered the meeting at 9.06a.m.

 

3.       Interests

Councillor Matheson subsequently declared an interest in the 1 Kinzett Terrace item on page 17 of the Council public excluded status report.

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Action for the Climate Emergency (ACE) - to introduce and inform Council about ACE

Lindsay Wood, Convenor for ACE, provided a PowerPoint presentation and  introduced ACE, its background and activities. He noted the other councils in New Zealand that had now declared a climate emergency and the increase in global declarations. He spoke of the economic benefits of investment in flood resilience and the costs of not investing early in climate responses. He advocated for encouraging electric vehicles. Mr Wood answered questions regarding his presentation.

 

Attachments

1    A2211754 Lindsay Wood PowerPoint presentation

 

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 9.19a.m.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor entered the meeting at 9.20a.m. and assumed the Chair.

4.2       Nelson Residents Association - Financial position of the Trafalgar Centre, factual information on storm events and tide records, and reference to recent public statements on perceived sea rise

Kerry Neal, from the Nelson Residents Association provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke about recent public statements on perceived sea rise, climate change and historical weather events.

 

Attachments

1    A2211631 - Kerry Neal PowerPoint presentation

 


 

 

4.3       Nelson Women's Club - Upper Trafalgar Street Closure

Kaye McNabb, President of the Nelson Women’s Club, provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke about the Upper Trafalgar Street closure. She provided a brief history of the Club, its membership and activities.

Ms McNabb said that access was vital for the club and its members, many of whom had mobility difficulties. She noted that the club’s chairlift could only be accessed through the Trafalgar Street door.

Ms McNabb spoke of the effect of the street closure, noting that all were supportive of the atmosphere produced by the closure but highlighted that the loss of disabled parking spaces meant a longer walk for those with disability issues and affected deliveries. She felt that the installation of a bollard in January with no discussion, was an impediment, and that single lane access could allow trade deliveries. She felt that traffic issues could be dealt with by bollards or planters and a drop off zone, with more disability car parks. Ms McNabb answered questions regarding her presentation.

 

Attachments

1    A2212279 Kaye McNabb PowerPoint presentation

 

Attendance: Councillor Acland returned to the meeting at 9.47a.m.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1     29 April 2019

Document number R10285, agenda pages 35 - 35 refer.   

Councillor Noonan requested that the title of the draft recommendation from the Community Services Committee (5.5.1 – Stoke Library Remediation), which was  no longer required, be added to the minutes.

Resolved CL/2019/095

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the amended minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 29 April 2019, as a true and correct record.

 

Courtney/Her Worship the Mayor                                                     Carried

 


 

5.2       2 May 2019

Document number M4196, agenda pages 19 - 34 refer.

Resolved CL/2019/096

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 2 May 2019, as a true and correct record.

Barker/Her Worship the Mayor                                                         Carried

    

6.       Recommendations from Committees

6.1     Civil Defence Emergency Management Group - 22 May 2019

6.1.1    Civil Defence and Emergency Management Removal of Requirement for Annual Audit

Resolved

 

That the Council

1.     Agrees that a separate audit of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Annual Report is not necessary and will not be required from the 30 June 2019 financial year onwards, subject to approval by Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council and Audit New Zealand; and

2.     Agrees that the operation of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group should be included in the audit of the Administering Council and that any additional cost incurred as a result should be recovered from the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton

 

6.2     Sports and Recreation Committee - 23 May 2019

6.2.1    Item 6.2.1 - Fees and Charges relating to Sports and Recreation 2019/20 was deferred until later in the meeting.


 

 

6.3     Works and Infrastructure Committee - 23 May 2019

6.3.1    Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2019-20 Business Plan

Resolved CL/2019/097

 

That the Council

1.        Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2019-2020 Business Plan (A2170038).

 

Walker/Lawrey                                                                                    Carried

 

 

6.3.2    Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2019-2020

Resolved CL/2019/098

 

That the Council

1.      Approves the proposed fees and charges as per Attachment (A2167740) of Report R9920, effective 1 July 2019.

 

Walker/Lawrey                                                                                    Carried

 

 

6.3.3    Parking Meter Renewal - Referral of powers

Resolved CL/2019/099

 

That the Council

1.     Considers the matter of the renewal of parking meters.

 

Walker/Lawrey                                                                                    Carried

 


 

 

6.4     Planning and Regulatory Committee - 28 May 2019

6.4.1    Waimea Inlet Action Plan

Resolved CL/2019/100

 

That the Council

1.        Approves Nelson City Council as lead or support agency to the specific targets identified in Report R9513 (highlighted in green in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

2.        Approves that Nelson City Council supports, in principle, specific targets identified in Report R9513, subject to future funding decisions (highlighted in yellow in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

3.      Adopts the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 (A2099296).

 

McGurk/Dahlberg                                                                                Carried

 

6.4.2    Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (LDM) - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27

Councillor Barker requested that his concerns regarding the lack of governance involvement in the development of the LDM and that Council’s policy for developing pedestrian footpaths was not included, be recorded in the minutes.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, clarified that when Council  built or reinstated a footpath it would be in accordance with policy and that Council would do everything it could to achieve a high level of service, and would depart from the LDM when it needed to. In response to a request that Council further consider mountable kerbs as an answer, Ms Parfitt said that level of service was Council’s priority and that may be an option.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, reiterated that the LDM was not the only set of standards, and not ‘one size fits all’. She noted that the LDM provided for anyone to take an alternative design and seek the approval of the Group Manager Infrastructure.

Discussion took place regarding changing the term ‘mandatory’ to ‘minimum’ standards and whether this could be changed under the delegation for ‘minor technical wording amendments’ and it was agreed that this would be explored.

It was noted that action on the issue of addressing climate change had only recently come to light and that this was a ‘point in time’ document. Addressing climate change would require a series of components and systems moving forward for stormwater management across New Zealand, with design profiles and criteria.

The importance of a consistent region-wide approach with Tasman District Council was noted. With the agreement of the mover and seconder, Clause 3. of the motion was changed from ‘Chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory Committee’, to ‘Councillor McGurk’.

Resolved CL/2019/101

 

That the Council

1.    Adopts the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 (A2184905) under the Local Government Act 2002, noting that it will take effect on 1 July 2019; and

2.    Adopts the practice notes on Coastal and Freshwater Inundation (A2184904), Bioretention (A2184908) and Wetlands (A2184906) as guidance documents; and

3.    Delegates Councillor McGurk and the Group Manager Environmental Management authority to approve minor technical wording amendments, or correction of errors to the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 and proposed Plan Change documents to improve readability and/or consistency prior to 1 July 2019.

 

McGurk/Lawrey                                                                                   Carried

 

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 10.25a.m.

 

6.4.3    Review of Building Unit fees and charges

In response to a suggestion that fees and charges should be increased by actual costs, rather than by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Her Worship the Mayor requested that officers investigate whether the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) could be used in future.

Resolved CL/2019/102

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 1 (A2145308) of Report R10231 to be effective from 1 July 2019.

 

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor                                                           Carried

 

6.4.4    Navigation Safety Bylaw review

Resolved CL/2019/103

 

That the Council

1.     Notes the review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218); and

2.     Determines amendments to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) are the most appropriate way of addressing the navigation safety problems identified by the review; and

3.     Determines the proposed amendments to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) 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

4.     Determines a summary of the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) is not required; and

5.     Adopts the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No.218) (A2178235); and

6.     Approves the commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2178235), with the consultation period to run from 21 June to 24 July 2019; and

7.     Approves the consultation approach (set out in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of Report R10026) and agrees:

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

 

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor                                                           Carried

 

6.4.5    Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 January-31 March 2019 – Approval of the Nelson Plan Vision, was deferred until later in the meeting.

 

6.5     Community Services Committee - 30 May 2019

6.5.1    Statement of Intent - Nelson Festivals Trust

Resolved CL/2019/104

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the Nelson Festivals Trust draft Statement of Intent 2019/20, with minor amendments, as the final Statement of Intent for 2019/20.

 

Noonan/Courtney                                                                                Carried

 

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 10.31a.m.

 

6.5.2    Fees and Charges relating to Community Services 2019/20

Resolved CL/2019/105

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the proposed fees and charges as per attachment (A2157289) of Report (R10060) effective from 1 July 2019.

 

Noonan/Courtney                                                                                Carried

 


 

 

6.6     Governance Committee - 13 June 2019

6.6.1    Uniquely Nelson Memorandum of Understanding 2019/2020

Resolved CL/2019/106

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the Uniquely Nelson Memorandum of Understanding 2019/2020 (A2181631).

 

Barker/Dahlberg                                                                                  Carried

 

6.6.2    Communications and Engagement Strategy

The importance of governance oversight of the strategy and the need to increase trust and confidence in Council was noted.

Discussion took place regarding how the strategy would achieve this and it was noted that the detail on how Council would deliver that would be in an action plan sitting below the strategy. The action plan would need to address some of the shortcomings and look at changing internal processes, giving media questions a high priority, telling Council’s story at the same time, and focusing on reducing chances of mistakes.

The importance of seeking political input before issuing media statements and the need to be aware of the Delegations Manual and the Code of Conduct was stressed. It was confirmed that the Communications and Engagement Strategy would be available on Council’s website.

Resolved CL/2019/107

 

That the Council

1.     Adopts the Communications and Engagement Strategy, with amendments (A2196740).

 

Barker/Dahlberg                                                                                  Carried

 

 

        The meeting was adjourned at 10.51a.m. and reconvened at 11.10a.m.

 

6.2.    Sports and Recreation Committee - 23 May 2019

6.2.1  Sports and Recreation Committee  - Fees and Charges: Supplementary Information

Document number R10294, supplementary agenda pages 2 - 20 refer.

Manager Parks and Facilities, Rosie Bartlett, spoke to the supplementary report, noting the background and the reason for the alternative recommendations. Discussion took place regarding the options in the supplementary report and the reasoning for the original proposed increase in fees for the Brook Camp of 20%, which was to recover an amount closer to the amount stipulated in the fees and charges recovery policy and to minimise the ratepayers’ contribution.

Group Manager Community Services, Roger Ball, clarified that a workshop was planned for 2 July, and that the campground review was due in December as part of the Activity Management Plan process.

Discussion took place regarding hire costs for Saxton Oval and the Trafalgar Centre, with further discussion to take place at the future Venues and Marketing 101 workshop in August.

Further discussion took place regarding the fees for Brook Camp permanent  residents and it was noted that officers’ original recommendation was to increase fees by 20% across the board and the option of excluding the permanent residents was made reflecting feedback from the committee meeting.

The Sports and Recreation Committee Chairperson, Councillor Skinner, noted that he supported the original recommendation to the committee for a 20% increase for the camp and moved option 2a in the supplementary report, seconded by Councillor Acland.

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Sports and Recreation Committee  - Fees and Charges: Supplementary Information (R10294) and its attachments (A2157708, A2203637 and A2210534); and

2.     Notes that further information has been received regarding the impact of not increasing fees for the Brook Camp; and

3.     Approves the proposed fees and charges as per Attachment 1 (A2157708) of Report 10236, effective from 1 July 2019, with amendments as follows:

a.       That the Brook Valley Holiday Park fees and charges increase by 20%; and

b.       That the fees and charges for Saxton Field Stadium have no increase for the 2019/20 year.

Skinner/Acland

The low level of fees for the Brook Camp and the option of increasing Brook Camp fees excluding permanent residents was discussed.

Clarification was requested regarding whether Council had a sinking lid policy by not allowing any further permanent residents into the Brook Camp.

The meeting was adjourned at 11.31.a.m. and reconvened at 11.40.a.m. Councillor Matheson was not present.

It was agreed that the issue of a sinking lid policy be covered at the workshop and a future committee meeting.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson returned to the meeting at 11.43a.m.

Further discussion took place regarding subsidies, recovery rates, community housing, length of stay restrictions, loss in revenue and the recovery and finance policy.

It was noted that the 2 July workshop would cover the need for a management and development plans and legal challenges.

Concerns were raised regarding a rise of 20% in fees for vulnerable members of the community and an amendment to raise the fees for permanent residents by the rate of CPI was moved by Councillor Courtney, seconded by Her Worship the Mayor.

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Sports and Recreation Committee  - Fees and Charges: Supplementary Information (R10294) and its attachments (A2157708, A2203637 and A2210534); and

2.     Notes that further information has been received regarding the impact of not increasing fees for the Brook Camp; and

3.     Approves the proposed fees and charges as per Attachment 1 (A2157708) of Report 10236, effective from 1 July 2019, with amendments as follows:

a.       That the Brook Valley Holiday Park fees and charges increase by 20%; and

b.       That the Brook Valley Holiday Park fees and charges for permanent residents increase by the Consumer Price Index; and

c.       That the fees and charges for Saxton Field Stadium have no increase for the 2019/20 year.

Courtney/Mayor

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Courtney

Cr Fulton

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Against

Cr Acland

Cr Barker

Cr Dahlberg

Cr Lawrey

Cr Matheson

Cr Skinner

Cr Walker

Absent

Cr Rutledge

 

 

The amendment was lost 5 - 7.

The substantive motion was put.

Resolved CL/2019/108

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Sports and Recreation Committee  - Fees and Charges: Supplementary Information (R10294) and its attachments (A2157708, A2203637 and A2210534); and

2.     Notes that further information has been received regarding the impact of not increasing fees for the Brook Camp; and

3.     Approves the proposed fees and charges as per Attachment 1 (A2157708) of Report 10236, effective from 1 July 2019, with amendments as follows:

a.       That the Brook Valley Holiday Park fees and charges increase by 20%; and

b.      That the fees and charges for Saxton Field Stadium have no increase for the 2019/20 year.

 

Skinner/Acland                                                                                         Carried

  

 

7.       Mayor's Report

Document number R10249, agenda pages 35 - 122 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report, noting the recent Eelco Boswijk awards ceremony and thanking the councillors involved.

The meeting indicated levels of support for the Local Government New Zealand AGM remits.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 12.22p.m.

 

Resolved CL/2019/109

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R10249) and its attachments (A2197280 and A2197215); and

2.     Supports the proposed remits to Local Government New Zealand as discussed.

 

Matheson/Walker                                                                             Carried

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12.47p.m. and reconvened at 1.15p.m. Councillors Acland, Fulton and Skinner were not present.

 

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 1.17p.m.

 

8.       Council Status Report - 20 June 2019

Document number R10286, agenda pages 123 - 124 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions regarding the Modellers Pond and it was noted that a report would be provided in August.

Resolved CL/2019/110

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Council Status Report - 20 June 2019 (R10286) and its attachment (A1168168).

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney                                                     Carried

 

       

9.       Planning and Regulatory Committee – Quarterly Report  - 1 January – 31 March 2019 (Agenda item 6.4.5) was considered.

 

Acting Group Manager Environmental Management, Matt Heale, tabled an updated, tracked changes Nelson Plan Vision document, noting that amendments largely updated the strategy regarding climate change and in line with Nelson as the ‘Smart Little City’.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 1.21p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Acland returned to the meeting at 1.22p.m.

An error was pointed out in paragraph 2 – The Vision for Nelson is:… committed to our their natural…

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 1.25p.m.

Resolved CL/2019/111

 

That the Council

1.  Approves the tabled updated Nelson Plan Vision (A2182016) as the working draft for the Nelson Plan.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk                                                           Carried

Attachments

1    A2182016 Updated tabled Nelson Plan Vision

 

10.     Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R10260, agenda pages 125 - 174 refer.

Acting Group Manager Environmental Management, Matt Heale, tabled the updated Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy and clarified that the updated strategy included Ngāti Kuri who were still in negotiations with the Department of Conservation when the strategy was presented to the committee and were now included, together with the addition of a paragraph ‘Rangatiratanga’, which acknowledged them.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 1.27p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge entered the meeting at 1.28p.m.

During discussion, it was noted that the strategy was a of key piece of work to align alliance members and that it was also useful to provide to philanthropists investing in conservation across the top of the South Island.

Resolved CL/2019/112

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (R10260) and its attachment (A2203854); and

2.     Adopts the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (A2203854).

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Acland                                                         Carried

Attachments

1    A2203854 - Updated Kotahitanga mō te Taio Strategy

 

 

11.     Statement of Proposal for Declaration of a Pedestrian Mall - Upper Trafalgar Street (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R10139, agenda pages 175 - 200 refer.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, summarised corrections to the agenda report:

·    p199 - paragraph 7.3 - the postal address should be Civic House, not Community Housing

·    P185  - paragraph 5.37 - since the report was written, there was now a provisional sum of $250,000, as a result of Annual Plan deliberations

·    P180 – Disadvantages, there was now a provisional budget, rather than no budget.

Ms Gibellini answered questions regarding the Statement of Proposal, and clarified that issues of design and consideration of matters raised in submissions would follow consultation and that emergency services would be made aware of the consultation.

The Chief Executive noted that legal advice would be sought regarding the addition of a question asking what people would want to see in the mall and the level of risk regarding public perception of pre-determination of the decision. He said that if the advice was that the risk was low, that was the only thing that would be added to the proposal under ‘minor amendments’.

Clause 3. of the recommendation was changed to ‘with minor amendments approved by Her Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive’.

Resolved CL/2019/113

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Statement of Proposal for Declaration of a Pedestrian Mall - Upper Trafalgar Street (R10139) and its attachment(A2176520); and

2.     Agrees that the Statement of Proposal for a Declaration of a Pedestrian Mall – Upper Trafalgar Street meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Pedestrian Mall Declaration - Trafalgar Street – Nelson City(A2176520), with minor amendments approved by Her Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive; and

4.     Agrees that a Summary of the Statement of Proposal for Declaration of a Pedestrian mall – Upper Trafalgar Street is not required, and

5.     Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 6 of this report R10139) and agrees:

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Lawrey                                                        Carried

 

12.     Order of candidates' names on 2019 Local Elections voting documents

Document number R9995, agenda pages 204 - 207 refer.

Resolved CL/2019/114

 

        That the Council

1.     Receives the report Order of candidates' names on 2019 Local Elections voting documents (R9995); and

2.     Approves, in accordance with Regulation 31(2) of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, the candidates’ names on voting documents for the 2019 triennial local election be in computerised random order.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Lawrey                                                        Carried

  

13.     Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy - Authority for Joint Council Committee (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R10164, agenda pages 201 - 203 refer.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 2.16p.m.

Discussion took place on Councillors’ availability for the joint meeting and the need for a strong consensus when the issue was considered by the Joint Committee at its public meeting.

In response to questions why the final decision was not being recommended back to Council, it was noted that this was a key regional approach to future development. It gave a strong signal that the two councils could work together and debate each other’s concerns in the same forum, but that a degree of compromise was required.

Resolved CL/2019/115

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy - Authority for Joint Council Committee (R10164); and

2.     Delegates all decision-making powers in relation to adopting the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy to the Joint Committee; and

3.     Updates the Nelson City Council Delegations Register to reflect the above changes.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Acland

Cr Barker

Cr Courtney

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr Matheson

Cr McGurk

Cr Rutledge

Cr Skinner

Cr Walker

Against

Cr Dahlberg

Cr Noonan

Abstained/Interest

 

 

The motion was carried 11 - 2.

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk                                                              Carried

 

14.     Exclusion of the Public (Agenda Item 13)

Wayne Wootten, of Telfer Young was in attendance for Item 2.2.3 of the Public Excluded agenda to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution is required to be passed:

Resolved CL/2019/116

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Wayne Wootten, of Telfer Young, remain after the public has been excluded for Item 2.2.3 of the Public Excluded agenda (Founders Park Property Purchase), as he has knowledge relating to the proposed Founders Park property purchase that will assist the meeting.

Acland/Walker                                                                                  Carried

Attendance: Councillors McGurk and Lawrey left the meeting from 2.40p.m. until 2.41p.m.

In response to an objection regarding the exclusion of the public for consideration of confirmation of the appointment of iwi representatives to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit, Her Worship the Mayor clarified that appointments were always made with the public excluded to protect the privacy of individuals.

 

Resolved CL/2019/117

 

That the Council

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

2.     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:

Acland/Walker                                                                                  Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes -  2 May 2019

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

     To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(h)

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

·    Section 7(2)(i)

 

2

Recommendations from Committees

Community Services Committee

Community Investment Funding Panel Appointments

Pet Cremations Activity Review

Founders Park – property purchase

Governance Committee

Nelson Centre of Musical Arts

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

3

Council Public Excluded Status Report 20 June 2019

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(h)

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

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

4

Confirmation of appointment of iwi representatives to Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

5

Update on Provincial Growth Fund applications

 

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)(b)(ii)

     To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

7

Bay Dreams Update and Next Steps

 

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 2.42p.m. and resumed in public session at 4.11p.m.

 

Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

 

2

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Confirmation of appointment of iwi representatives to Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

 

4.     Agrees that Report (R10218) and the decision (CL/2019/118) be made public once the representatives have been advised of the Councils’ decision.

 

 

3

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Update on Provincial Growth Fund applications

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Update on Provincial Growth Fund applications (R10241) and its attachment (A2198314); and

2.     Agrees that Report (R10241) and attachment (A2198314) be excluded from public release at this time.

 

 

4

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Bay Dreams Update and Next Steps

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Bay Dreams Update and Next Steps (R10252) and its attachment (A2203904), (A2203993), (A2203994); and

2.     Approves the Chief Executive entering into negotiations and, if successful, executing a contract with Bay Dreams South Ltd for a five-year agreement to host Bay Dreams South in Nelson, subject to annual reviews and all consents and permits being obtained; and

3.     Directs the Chief Executive to seek feedback from the Saxton Field Committee on proposed camping at Saxton Field; and

4.     Notes that approval for up to 1,500 people to camp at Rutherford Park from 3 – 5 January 2020 as part of the Bay Dreams event will be sought from the Chief Executive and considered in accordance with the Rutherford and Trafalgar Park Reserves Management Plan, and Council’s internal process requirements; and

5.     Notes that approval for exclusive use of Trafalgar Park and designated areas of Saxton Field will be sought from the Chief Executive and considered in accordance with section 53 of the Reserves Act, taking into account any feedback from the Saxton Field Committee for Saxton Field; and

6.     Notes that a future report will be brought back to Council to enable consideration of granting consent to the temporary use of Saxton Field as a camping ground under s44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 and any other decisions required to be made by Council to enable the event to proceed; and

7.     Agrees that decision (CL/2019/126) be released from Public Excluded upon adoption; and

8.     Agrees that Report R10252 and attachments (A2203904, A2203993 and A2203994) be excluded from public release at this time.

 

 

6

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Community Investment Funding Panel Appointments

 

6.     Agrees that Report (R10075), Attachments A1854528 and A2093465 only and the decision (CL/2019/119) be released from public excluded business once candidates have been advised of the outcome.

 

 

7

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Pet Cremations Activity Review

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the cessation of pet cremations by Council at the Wakapuaka Crematorium; and

2.     Agrees that Report (R10140), excluding any  legal advice within it, the attachment (A2177474) and the decision (CL/2019/121) be released from public excluded business.

 

 

8

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Founders Park - property purchase

 

That the Council

1.     Defers the item Founders Park – property purchase to be considered at the Council meeting to be held on 27 June 2019.

 

9

PUBLIC EXCLUDED: Nelson Centre of Musical Arts - Appointment of Trustees

 

That the Council

1.  Approves undertaking a recruitment process to appoint two trustees to the Nelson Centre of Musical Arts; and

2.  Agrees that the decision (CL/2019/120) only be released from public excluded business.

 

  

 


 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.11p.m.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                   Date

        

 

 

 

 

 

 


Nelson City Council Minutes - 27 June 2019

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Thursday 27 June 2019, commencing at 9.00a.m. 

 

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

In Attendance:     Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Youth Councillors (O Ransom and J Hamilton)

Apologies :          Nil

 

Opening Prayer

Councillor Skinner gave the opening prayer.

1.       Apologies

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

 

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register. Councillor McGurk declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Community Housing section of Item 6 on the Agenda.

4.       Public Forum

There was no public forum.

     

5.       Confirmation of Minutes - Council 4 June 2019

Document number R10327, late items agenda pages 3 - 41 refer.

Resolved CL/2019/132

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of Council, held on 4 June 2019, as a true and accurate record.

Her Worship the Mayor/Walker                                                         Carried

  

6.       Adoption of the Annual Plan 2019/20, amendment to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and setting of the rates for 2019/20

Document number R10278, agenda pages 15 - 173 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison,  and Manager Strategy, Mark Tregurtha, presented the report. Ms Harrison tabled the following documents

·    A2215394 NCC Long Term Plan 2018-28 amended pages

·    A2215625 Long term Plan Audit opinion

·      A2218600 Updated Table - Summary of Capital Expenditure Over $100k 27 June 2019

Mr Tregurtha updated Council on  the Community Housing consultation impacts on the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan. He noted that the Long Term Plan amendments were audited and an additional audit report would be included in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Ms Harrison talked through the additional changes to capital expenditure, these related to accounting for the Four Seasons building demolition,  Elma Turner library redevelopment variance and the Joint Landfill upgrade not showing a variance. She noted these were changes to recording accounting calculations and there were no changes to the bottom line. 

Ms Harrison answered questions on the local government cost index, debt servicing, rating growth and funding targets.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, answered questions on consultation and the climate change emergency, he explained that Council passed a high level resolution to do some work but there was nothing to trigger a special consultative procedure.

The  meeting adjourned from 10.05a.m. to 10.25a.m.

Future  options for treatment of the Modellers Pond were discussed and Mr Dougherty explained that options would be put to Council in August, he expected this to stretch across multiple years and use capital and operational expenditure.    

Resolved CL/2019/133

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Adoption of the Annual Plan 2019/20, amendment to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and setting of the rates for 2019/20   (R10278) and its attachments (A2213052, A2212773 and A2121185)

Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton                                                          Carried

Her Worship the Mayor Reese moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor McGurk.

Recommendation

 

That the Council

2.     Adopts the Annual Plan 2019/20 (A2213052) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2019/20 to the public; and

4.     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 June 2020.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                                         $40,737,232

Uniform Annual General Charge                              $9,043,450

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge                $6,096,208

Waste Water Charge                                               $8,719,184

Water Annual Charge                                              $3,705,207

Water Volumetric Charge                                        $8,645,483

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver                 $402,996

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)                      $77,349,760

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                             $11,602,464

Total Rates and Charges                                       $88,952,224

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

•     a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

     a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

     a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

•     a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.42382 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 177.3% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.19636 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 133% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.96890 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 88.7% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.74092 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 44.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.87208 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 264.6% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.53268 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 198.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.19277 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 132.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.85337 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 66.2% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.81765 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 254% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.49160 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 190.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.16555 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 127% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.83951 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 63.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.33375 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.46211 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $435.22 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $330.47 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.93 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.48 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note:  a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                                      $200.40

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year                $2.137 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000
cu.m/year                                               $1.883 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year               $1.486 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over
10,000 cu.m/year                                   $2.010 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

 

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

Instalment 2

1 November 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

Instalment 3

1 February 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

Instalment 4

1 May 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·     a charge of 10% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·     a charge of 10% will be added on 5 July 2019 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 4 July 2019.

·     a further additional charge of 10% will be added on 8 January 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 January 2020.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

•      a charge of 10% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2019. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2019 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2019.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Thursday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due; and

5.     Adopts the amendments to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (A2212773) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the amended Long Term Plan 2018-28 to the public.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk

Councillor Courtney, seconded by Councillor Barker moved an amendment to include consultation on expenditure related to climate change (new resolution clause 6).

Point of Order: During debate a point of order was raised by Her Worship the Mayor against Councillor Barker, regarding a statement that was misleading.  Councillor Barker withdrew the statement and apologised.

The meeting adjourned from 11.08a.m. to 11.10a.m.

The amendment was put and a division was called.

Recommendation

 

That the Council

2.     Adopts the Annual Plan 2019/20 (A2213052) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2019/20 to the public; and

4.     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 June 2020.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                                         $40,737,232

Uniform Annual General Charge                              $9,043,450

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge                $6,096,208

Waste Water Charge                                               $8,719,184

Water Annual Charge                                              $3,705,207

Water Volumetric Charge                                        $8,645,483

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver                 $402,996

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)                      $77,349,760

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                             $11,602,464

Total Rates and Charges                                       $88,952,224

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

•     a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

     a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

     a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

•     a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.42382 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 177.3% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.19636 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 133% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.96890 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 88.7% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.74092 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 44.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.87208 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 264.6% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.53268 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 198.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.19277 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 132.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.85337 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 66.2% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.81765 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 254% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.49160 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 190.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.16555 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 127% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.83951 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 63.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.33375 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.46211 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $435.22 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $330.47 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.93 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.48 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note:  a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                                      $200.40

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year                $2.137 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000
cu.m/year                                               $1.883 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year               $1.486 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over
10,000 cu.m/year                                   $2.010 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

 

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

Instalment 2

1 November 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

Instalment 3

1 February 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

Instalment 4

1 May 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·     a charge of 10% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·     a charge of 10% will be added on 5 July 2019 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 4 July 2019.

·     a further additional charge of 10% will be added on 8 January 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 January 2020.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

•      a charge of 10% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2019. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2019 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2019.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Thursday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due; and

5.     Adopts the amendments to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (A2212773) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6.     Consults with the community before actioning the extra operational expenditure of $124,500 and the setting aside of a reserve of $500,000 coming  from Port Nelson Limited special dividend.

7.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the amended Long Term Plan 2018-28 to the public.

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Barker

Cr Courtney

Cr Dahlberg

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Against

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Acland

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr Matheson

Cr McGurk

Cr Rutledge

Cr Walker

 

The amendment was lost 5 - 8.

Courtney/Barker

The substantive motion was debated.

Point of Order: A point of order regarding misinformation was raised by Councillor Skinner against Councillor Dahlberg, in the comment that a request from Natureland Trust was ignored by elected members. The point of order was upheld. Councillor Dahlberg withdrew the comment.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 12.01pm to 12.04p.m.

The substantive motion was put and a division was called.

Resolved CL/2019/134

 

That the Council

2.     Adopts the Annual Plan 2019/20 (A2213052) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2019/20 to the public; and

4.     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 June 2020.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                                    $40,737,232

Uniform Annual General Charge                      $9,043,450

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge      $6,096,208

Waste Water Charge                                         $8,719,184

Water Annual Charge                                       $3,705,207

Water Volumetric Charge                                 $8,645,483

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver         $402,996

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)             $77,349,760

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                       $11,602,464

Total Rates and Charges                                $88,952,224

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

•    a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

     a rate of 0.51346 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

     a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

•    a rate of 0.56481 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.42382 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 177.3% differential on land value.

     a rate of 1.19636 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 133% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.96890 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 88.7% differential on land value.

     a rate of 0.74092 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 44.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.87208 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 264.6% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.53268 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 198.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.19277 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 132.3% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.85337 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 66.2% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.81765 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 254% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.49160 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 190.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 1.16555 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 127% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.83951 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 63.5% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.33375 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·     a rate of 0.46211 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $435.22 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $330.47 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.93 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.48 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note:  a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                              $200.40

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year         $2.137 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000
cu.m/year                                           $1.883 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year        $1.486 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over
10,000 cu.m/year                              $2.010 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

 

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

Instalment 2

1 November 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

Instalment 3

1 February 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

Instalment 4

1 May 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2019

20 August 2019

26 August 2019

August 2019

20 September 2019

26 September 2019

September 2019

21 October 2019

25 October 2019

October 2019

20 November 2019

26 November 2019

November 2019

20 December 2019

8 January 2020

December 2019

20 January 2020

24 January 2020

January 2020

20 February 2020

26 February 2020

February 2020

20 March 2020

26 March 2020

March 2020

20 April 2020

24 April 2020

April 2020

20 May 2020

26 May 2020

May 2020

22 June 2020

26 June 2020

June 2020

20 July 2020

24 July 2020

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·     a charge of 10% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·     a charge of 10% will be added on 5 July 2019 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 4 July 2019.

·     a further additional charge of 10% will be added on 8 January 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 January 2020.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

•      a charge of 10% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2019. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2019 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2019.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Thursday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due; and

5.     Adopts the amendments to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (A2212773) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6.     Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the amended Long Term Plan 2018-28 to the public.

The substantive motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Acland

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr Matheson

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rutledge

Cr Walker

Against

Cr Barker

Cr Courtney

Cr Dahlberg

Cr Skinner

 

The substantive motion was carried 9 - 4.

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk                                                              Carried

 

Attachments

1    A2215394 NCC Long Term Plan 2018-28 amended pages for Council 27 June 2019

2    A2215625 Independent Auditor's Report on the Nelson City Council's Amended 2018-28 Long-Term Plan Council 27Jun2019

3    A2218600 Updated Table summary of Capital Expenditure Over $100k 27Jun2019

 

 

The meeting adjourned from 12.13p.m. until 12.55p.m. at which time Councillors Acland and Skinner were not in attendance.

 

Attendance: Councillors Acland and Skinner returned to the meeting during the Public Excluded session at 1.04p.m.

 

 

 

7.       Exclusion of the Public

 

Resolved CL/2019/135

 

That the Council

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

2.     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:

Rutledge/Walker                                                                              Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Confirmation of Minutes - 4 June 2019

 

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

Deferred Item - Recommendation from Community Services Committee

Founders Park – property purchase. A report with further information is included in this Agenda

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)

3

Community Services Committee - Founders Park - property purchase: Supplementary information

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(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 12.55p.m. and resumed in public session at 1.35p.m.

 

 

 

Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

 

3

Community Services Committee - Founders Park - property purchase: Supplementary information

 

Agrees that the Report (R10314) its attachment (A2213216) and the decision be excluded from public release at this time.

 

  

There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.35p.m.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                   Date

        

 


Item 6: Recommendations from Committees: Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

Item 7: Council Status Report

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10381

Council Status Report

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To receive the Council Status Report.

 

 

 

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Council Status Report (R10381) and its attachment (A1168168).

 

 

 

 

Author:           Robyn Byrne, Team Leader Governance

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1168168 Council Status Report

   


Item 7: Council Status Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

Item 8: Mayor's Report

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10371

Mayor's Report

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To update Council on Remuneration Authority matters and to provide a report back from the 2019 Local Government New Zealand Conference.

 

 

 

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R10371) and its attachments  (A2209899 and A1546381); and

2.     Approves the payment of a Childcare allowance as per the Local Government Members (2019/20) Determination (A2209899) at an hourly rate of up to the Living Wage; and

3.     Adopts the amended Nelson City Council Elected Members Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 2016 (A1546381)

 

 

2.       Remuneration Authority Local Government Members (2019-20) Determination

Remuneration

2.1       The elected members’ determination has been received and is in two parts for 2019/20.  Part 1 applies from 1 July 2019 and Part 2 applies from the date after the date on which the official result of the 2019 triennial general election of members to a Council is declared. Copy attached (A2209899).

2.2       Elected members will consider remuneration at the first ordinary meeting of Council following the election.

2.3       The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) has advised that as a result of its review of the allowances payable to elected members it has maintained allowances for vehicle mileage, travel time and communications for 2019/20.

2.4       The Authority is introducing a childcare allowance from 1 July 2019, this is capped at $6,000 per child, per annum

Childcare allowance

The childcare allowance is only payable if

(a)       The member is a parent or guardian of the child, or is a person who usually has responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child (other than on a temporary basis); and

(b)      the child is under 14 years of age; and

(c)       the childcare is provided by a person who

(i)    is not a family member of the member; and

(ii)   does not ordinarily reside with the member; and

(d)      the member provides evidence satisfactory to the local authority of the amount paid for childcare.

2.5       Council submitted feedback in support of this allowance and the Authority has now given us the ability to follow through and formalise this support in our Policy.

2.6       Councils have taken a mixed approach to adopting the Childcare allowance, many have deferred the decision to the next triennium. Horizons Regional Council voted against an allowance while the Greater Wellington Regional Council has adopted the allowance and resolved to pay an hourly rate, before tax, of the living wage ($21.15).

2.7       Should Council implement a Childcare allowance at this time it would provide certainty for prospective candidates during the local government election period.

2.8       The payment of any or all allowances are at the discretion of each local authority.

2.9       NCC provides for elected member allowances though the Elected Members’ Reimbursement and Expenses Policy adopted by Council.

2.10     It is standard practice to review the Policy on Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses to provide for any new or changed allowances introduced by the Authority.  This Policy will be fully reviewed in the new triennium.

Proposed amendment to the current Policy

2.11     Should Council resolve to implement a Childcare allowance, one change is required to the current policy to align with the Authority’s decisions, using just the words of the determination as a guide. Officers could then clarify its application as part of the broader remuneration policy post-election. A draft policy showing changes is attached (A1546381).

2.12     Inland Revenue has determined that the payment of the childcare allowance will be subject to Withholding Tax deduction at the time of payment.

2.13     Any budget for Childcare payment allowances has not been included in the Annual Plan 2019-20. However, adoption of this allowance is not expected to have a significant effect on the existing Members’ Allowances budget.

3.       Local Government New Zealand Conference

3.1       Councillor Lawrey, Councillor Skinner, Chief Executive Pat Dougherty and I attended the Conference in Wellington in July.

3.2       I’ve invited each participant to give a brief report back on highlights and learnings, either verbally or as a tabled note, at this meeting.

 

 

Author:           Rachel Reese, Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2209899 Local Government Members (2019_20) Determination 2019

Attachment 2:    A1546381 DRAFT Amended Nelson City Council Elected Members Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 20162019.pdf

   


Item 8: Mayor's Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


Item 8: Mayor's Report: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 9: Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10337

Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To accept the 2017/18 baseline Emissions Inventory Report (EIR) of Council’s greenhouse gas emissions drawn up under the Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) protocol; and

1.2       To adopt the CEMARS Action Plan compiled by staff to enable Council to set an organisation-wide target by June 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2.       Summary

2.1       Climate change is a significant and urgent local, national and international issue. This has already been signalled both by Council declaring a Climate Change Emergency, and the upcoming Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill.  This Bill supports the need for urgent change through a transition to a low emissions and climate resilient New Zealand, with a focus both on mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (responding to changes caused by climate change).

2.2       Local government will have a key role to play with both mitigation and adaptation.  Councils, through the delivery of core services, are significant emitters of greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Councils need to be a role model for the wider community on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions (R10337) and its attachments (A2222281, A2223596 and A2220460); and

2.     Approves the Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme Action Plan.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       Council resolved on 3 May 2018, to commit to adopting and implementing a comprehensive plan to reduce carbon emissions (R9121).

4.2       On 16 May 2019, Council declared a climate emergency (A2191324) and requested that the Chief Executive develop a programme of Council actions that will support the aforementioned declaration.

4.3       The CEMARS project forms part of Council’s actions to respond to climate change.

5.       Discussion

5.1       International scientific advice confirms that it is vital to keep within 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming if we are to reduce the impact of climate change on current and future generations.

5.2       Background on the science can be found in the summary of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/climate-change-response-zero-carbon-amendment-bill-summary)

5.3       Responding to climate change requires multiple approaches across local, national and international communities. At a local level Council is working on both adaptation and mitigation, with an extensive work programme under development. ‘Walking the Talk’ by reducing its own emissions is a critical component of this programme.

5.4       Staff investigated options for reducing Council emissions. The Enviro-Mark CEMARS programme was identified as being used by a range of local government authorities, which ensured that the programme provider has experience of measuring the complex operations which are the nature of local government. This programme has the added advantage of its audit standards being verified through the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand, as well as adhering to international standards for greenhouse gas measurement protocols.

5.5       In order to start the CEMARS process it was necessary to identify a baseline year for measurement. The financial year 2017/18 was selected as this ensured that consistent data sets were available. 

5.6       To achieve certification, the CEMARS scheme requires a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely) reduction in emissions over a five year period subsequent to the baseline year (from 2019 to 2023).

5.7       The methodology for identifying which assets and activities should be included in the emissions boundary was ‘operational control’, e.g., assets and activities which are owned and/or controlled by Council. 

5.8       On this basis Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) were not included in Council’s operational carbon footprint, but an action has been identified to work with CCOs to encourage them to also measure, manage and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

5.9       Compiling the baseline assessment proved to be complex. Nelson City Council is a unitary authority, but some assets are jointly owned with Tasman District Council, which is not in the CEMARS scheme.  This means that investigations and decisions to reduce emissions from these assets would require approval by both Councils.

5.10     For this reason, two assets (Bell Island Waste Water Treatment Plant and the York Valley Landfill) have initially been excluded from the baseline assessment. These assets represent 86% of Council’s total emissions.  Discussions on collaboration with Tasman District Council will take place. 

5.11     The baseline assessment for 2017/18 showed that aside from the emissions from Bell Island Wastewater Treatment Plan and the York Valley Landfill, the next major sources of emissions are represented by Council’s electricity usage and emissions from the Nelson North Wastewater treatment plant.

5.12     The completed CEMARS baseline assessment is attached as Attachment One (EIR – Emissions Inventory Report).

5.13     Establishing the baseline assessment has highlighted opportunities to reduce Council emissions which now require further investigation. We will use the 2019/20 year to explore these opportunities and set an organisation-wide emissions reduction target by June 2020. This will allow time for investigating collaboration with Tasman District Council through the NTRBU and NRSBU, and investigation of options to reduce other major emissions. Pending the setting of the overall target, an interim reduction target for internal emissions such as car fleet, electricity usage and travel has been established in order to meet the programme’s certification requirements.

5.14     Through the 2019 Annual Plan, funding has been allocated to support the implementation of a CEMARS action plan which focuses on the primary opportunities for Council to reduce emissions. The CEMARS action plan is presented with this report for approval (Attachment Two).  As well as collaboration with Tasman District Council, the main actions identified include reviewing energy use across the organisation; investigating primary emissions sources such as the Nelson North Water; and investigating how to build carbon impact assessment into Council operations.

5.15     The projects and investigations identified in the CEMARS action plan are funded through existing funding (Long Term Plan or Annual Plan).  Opportunities to secure external funding, such as funding available through EECA (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority) will be explored as part of the action plan.  Delivery of projects to reduce emissions will be subject to the business case/Long Term Plan process.

6.       Options

6.1       There are two options for consideration. Option 1 is the preferred option by Officers.

 

Option 1: Receive and formally adopt the CEMARS Action Plan

Advantages

·   Council demonstrates leadership through its   commitment to taking action on climate change.

·   Council can start the work to achieve emissions reductions.

·   Emissions reductions investigations will present opportunities to create both carbon reduction and potential cost savings.

·   Council is delivering on the climate change focus in the Annual Plan.

 

Risks and Disadvantages

·   The full impact of resourcing emissions reductions has yet to be fully identified and could involve subsequent cost.

·   There may be impacts on current work programmes.

Option 2: Do not receive and formally adopt the CEMARS Action Plan

Advantages

·    No impact on current work programmes.

·    No risk of incurring additional cost.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Delays in identifying targets for emissions reduction will delay Council taking action to reduce its emissions.

·    Failure to deliver on actions requested by Council, including the strong focus on climate change in the Annual Plan.

·    Loss of credibility due to not meeting public expectations.

·    Loss of opportunity to create change.

 

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1       Council is playing a leadership role in encouraging our wider community to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of the CEMARS action plan will ensure that Council is seen to be taking action to reduce its emissions.

 

Author:           Karen Lee, Environmental Programmes Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2223596 Emissions Inventory Report 2017/18 (baseline year)

Attachment 2:    A2220460 CEMARS Action Plan

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The CEMARS inventory of Council’s greenhouse gas emissions and the associated action plan to reduce emissions supports Council work, and contributes to the current and future needs of our community.  It is also aligned to meet community needs through promoting the environmental, economic, cultural and social impact of responding to climate change, in the present and for the future.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The CEMARS Action Plan is consistent with the top four priorities of the Long Term Plan, in particular priority two – environment.

The Plan also aligns with the themes and goals of Nelson 2060 – in particular the goals relating to safeguarding our natural environment; encouraging leadership; adapting to change; moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources; building a thriving economy and reducing consumption.  In addition the plan supports the following community outcomes:

·    Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

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

·    Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

 

3.   Risk

The upcoming Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill will require action, and adoption of the CEMARS Action Plan puts Council in a good position. Not taking action will also miss an important opportunity to create change.

Due to the complex nature of Council operations, it may not be possible to deliver a reduction target which meets the community’s expectations.

As the measurement and reduction of emissions is still a relatively untested area, there are also risks relating to cost. Identifying methods to reduce emissions are likely to result in operational savings, the ongoing investigations should be monitored through the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process.

 

4.   Financial impact

Funding to investigate potential emissions reduction has been allocated through the Annual Plan deliberations. Projects identified for delivery of emissions reduction will be subject to the usual annual plan/long term plan process including providing a business case.  It is anticipated that these projects will have the potential to provide some economic benefits as well as cost, subject to investigations being carried out.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. It may impact on how Council will deliver services in the future but this is catered for through the existing annual and long term process. The matter does have potential to generate public interest, but these conversations will be integrated into the wider community climate change engagement programme which is planned in 2019/20.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report

7.   Delegations

The projects cross the responsibilities of more than one Committee, therefore the matter has been brought to Council for a decision.

 

 


Item 9: Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator PDF Creator PDF Creator PDF CreatorPDF CreatorPDF CreatorPDF CreatorPDF Creator


 


Item 9: Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) Emissions Inventory Report and Action Plan to Reduce Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 10: Parking Meter Renewal

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R9935

Parking Meter Renewal

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To agree to proceed to tender to renew the Nelson City Council’s existing outdated parking meters and enforcement system with an agreed operating system and to agree that the Parking Bylaw be amended accordingly. 

2.       Summary

2.1       The City Centre parking ticket meters are dated and have reached the end of their useful life. Additionally, the existing meters do not offer the payment flexibility and options now expected by the public for a Smart Little City.

2.2       Council signalled its clear intention to replace the parking meters in June 2019 as part of the Annual Plan and agreed to bring money forward from 20/21 to 19/20 to move this ahead.

2.3       A decision on what system to adopt is required to progress the tender for new parking meters.

2.4       A change to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (no 207) is required for any renewal option which no longer uses a Pay and Display (PAD) system

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Parking Meter Renewal (R9935) and its attachments (A2149051, A2148865, A2228122); and   

2.    Approves that the existing parking meters be renewed using Pay-by-Plate technology and that tenders be called for on this basis; and

3.    Determines that amendment of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (No.207) is the most appropriate way of ensuring that it will support pay-by-plate technology and that the proposed amendments would be the most appropriate form of bylaw and would not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and   

4.    Determines the most appropriate form of consultation for the proposed amendment to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (No.207) that will support pay-by-plate technology, is under s82 of the Local Government Act 2002 and as set out in this report R9935; and     

5.    Notes that, following completion of the consultation process, a report will be brought back to Council to decide on changes to the Bylaw

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       The City Centre parking ticket meters (106 multi bay meters, and 116 single head meters) are reaching the end of their useful life. They have recorded a 250% increase in down time due to faults over the last six years, together with an increase in maintenance and operational costs of 66% since 2013/14.

4.2       The current parking meters are dated and limited in their payment options and flexibility. The current Pay and Display system results in paper litter in the City Centre, and people taking repeated advantage of the one hour free parking has resulted in loss of income to the City.

4.3       Enforcement is carried out by three parking wardens on a daily basis, increasing to four in the summer months. Enforcement is a combination of ticket checking and tyre chalking to enforce the one hour free parking allowance. Enforcement is limited as officers have no knowledge of how many times a driver has used a one hour free parking in the City Centre in any one day. The current wording of the Bylaw does not adequately deal with the problem of repeated use of the free one hour.

4.4       Infringement notices are recorded and printed using a hand held device carried by each warden. Each day, infringements are physically downloaded into the Council IT system (MagiQ) for subsequent processing. MagiQ is Council’s preferred software for the recording and ongoing management of infringement notices. MagiQ interfaces with other Council systems, as well as the NZTA for infringement reminders and information. This system will remain in service with the Council for the foreseeable future and whatever parking system is employed will need to integrate with MagiQ.

4.5       In October 2018 a survey of on-street customers was undertaken to test assumptions and assess their wants and needs for inner city parking (refer to Attachment 1 for results).

4.6       In December 2018, a Council workshop received a presentation regarding the parking renewal options. The issues and objectives of the renewal were extensively discussed and some views expressed as to how the project should proceed (Attachment 2). The options for the renewal are documented in this report (Attachment 3) and a preferred course of action is identified for Council consideration and resolution.

4.7       A change to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (no 207) is required for any renewal option which no longer uses a Pay and Display (PAD) system. This is because the current wording is specific to the current parking system, and would not apply to a different system.

4.8       Section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that Council determine whether the proposed amendment to a bylaw is the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem before it commences the process for amending the bylaw. 

4.9       Section 155(2) of the LGA then requires Council to determine before making or amending the bylaw whether the proposed amendment is the most appropriate form of the bylaw and gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5.       Discussion

5.1       A number of objectives that the renewal of meters should achieve have been identified (including those discussed at the December 2018 workshop) and these have been used to assess and identify a preferred option

5.2       Key objectives of the renewal project are:

·    Reduced maintenance costs. Maintenance costs, machine faults and downtime are increasing with the age of the machines

·    An improved customer experience. The current system provides a poor user experience with complaints about usability, and the inability to use modern payment methods. Any new system needs to be user friendly given our ageing demographic and retain coins as a payment option

·    Increased turnover and smarter enforcement of parking in high demand areas. Technology offers the opportunity for smarter enforcement therefore encourages parking turnover

·    Improved environmental impact. The paper tickets used in the current pay and display machines continue to create a waste problem in Nelson

·    Better monitoring of parking utilisation. Council is interested in the potential for any future parking system’s technology to monitor parking utilisation. This provides information to support decision making and ongoing asset management.   

5.3       Modern parking solutions comprise a number of products and services that are integrated to provide an overall parking system. Each product provides only part of the overall parking solution, and as such needs to be integrated to enable the solution to function.

5.3.1    All systems require a parking meter, an enforcement system/interface and, if smart payment technology is required, the use of a Parking Application (Parking App), to enable payment via smart devices to integrate with the Council payment technology (eg Ezicom/MagiQ). It is envisioned that these aspects of the system will be tendered as one package.

5.3.2    In order to ensure a successful parking system the enforcement must integrate with all other aspects including the meters and mobile apps. This is achieved through a cloud based web portal that receives the data from the enforcement officers and the parking meters as an input. Currently the enforcement officers input this data (infringement data) manually each night into the MagiQ parking module. This can cause frustration when customers try to pay an infringement fee that has not yet been loaded into the system. Modern technology will allow this to occur in real time.

5.3.3    A review of a number of different charging and enforcement system options has been undertaken and is fully discussed in Attachment 2.

5.4       The existing casing of the NCC multi-bay parking meters are still in reasonable condition and with a refurbishment can be brought up to excellent condition. The meter suppliers have indicated a retrofit and refurbishment of the existing meters could cost approximately $5000 each compared to $10,000 for a new meter. Any tender will provide the option to replace or refurbish to encourage competitive pricing.

Systems Considered

5.5       In summary the review of the options in Attachment 3 indicates:

5.5.1    Pay and Display (PAD): This is the current NCC operating system, which is now considered an outdated system due to paper ticket pollution and poor enforcement of the one hour free parking. Whilst it is possible for the current meters to be upgraded to modern payment options and more reliable technology the paper tickets would remain and people would be required to return to the vehicle to extend the paid parking period. The cost for this option is within the current budget. Feedback from the December workshop was that a ticketless system should be explored. Continuing with what we have does not move us forward with our vision of being the Smart Little City.  

5.5.2    Pay by Plate (PBP): This option requires drivers to enter their registration plate number at the parking meter, and pay for the required parking time. There is no need to return to the car or for paper tickets to be displayed. Paid parking periods can be extended remotely via the Parking App, provided they stay within the relevant parking time limits.  Tauranga introduced PBP in 2014, Rotorua, Christchurch, and Auckland use PBP, and Blenheim has recently introduced PBP into some of its parking areas. The cost for this option is just outside of the current budget with a 30% contingency applied.

5.5.3    Pay by Space (PBS): This option requires each parking space to be numbered and fitted with a bay sensor which requires additional capital outlay. Drivers enter the space number at the parking meter and pay for the required parking time. Paid parking periods can be extended remotely via the Parking App. Palmerston North, New Plymouth and Wellington currently use PBS. Costs are not expected to be within the current budget. Known operational and maintenance issues with this system and a provisional costing of $1.35M places this option well outside current budget and for these reasons that it is not currently considered an appropriate option for Nelson.

5.5.4    Barrier Arms on the car parks: This option requires customers to pay for the parking they use on exiting the carpark. This results in reduced enforcement costs and increased payment compliance. This solution is limited to the parking squares and will not cater for the on-street parks in the city centre. The current configuration of our car park squares requires retaining private access and public road accessibility. There are currently nine access points into/out of the car park squares that would require barrier arms. Provisional costing of $1.8M indicate barrier arm control, together with the required onsite support for operation and maintenance places this option outside current budget. As a partial solution outside of budget this is not considered an appropriate option for Nelson.  

6.       Budget

6.1       Council at its 4 June 2019 meeting approved renewal of the parking meters at a total estimated budget of $867,000, noting that a report would be brought to Council prior to purchase, seeking approval of the preferred system. Council also approved bringing budget from 2020-21 forward into 2019-20 to carry out this project.

7.       Options

7.1       Continuing with the status quo and doing nothing is not an option and has not been considered further.

7.2       Three options have been considered and are summarised in Table 1 of Attachment 3.

7.3       These options include:

7.3.1    Option 1 - Replace or refurbish the existing parking meters and upgrade the parking payment and enforcement system to PBP is preferred.

7.3.2    Option 2 - Replace or refurbish existing parking meters with the upgraded parking payment and enforcement system of Pay by Space (PBS).

7.3.3    Option 3 – Hybrid: Replace existing parking meters with the upgraded parking payment and enforcement system (PBP) and barrier arms in parking squares.

 

Option 1: Replace or refurbish existing parking meters, with the upgraded parking payment and enforcement system of Pay by Plate (PBP).

Advantages

·    Updated technology

·    More efficient and targeted  enforcement

·    Increased and “smarter” payment options

·    Retains option of payment by coins

·    Reduced maintenance costs

·   Potentially lower initial costs due to reuse of existing cases.

·    Provides for future management scenarios eg change fees, time limits

·    Removes paper waste

·    Minimises abuse of 1 hour free parking

·    Has recently been implemented in a number of similar sized towns/cities so is trialled and proven

·    Known cost estimates for refurbishment are within allocated budget

·    Providing option to replace or renew ensures competitive tenders

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Will require a Bylaw change

·    Will require relocation of some parking meters to achieve efficient spacing.

·    Costs for new meter casings are not fully known and may exceed available budget.

Option 2: Replace or refurbish existing parking meters with the upgraded parking payment and enforcement system of Pay by Space (PBS).

Advantages

·    Updated technology

·    More efficient and targeted enforcement

·    Increased and “smarter” payment options

·    Retains option of payment by coins

·    Reduced maintenance costs

·   Potentially lower initial costs due to reuse of existing cases.

·    Provides for future management scenarios eg change fees, time limits

·    Removes paper waste

·    Provide significant opportunity to enable the collection of real time occupancy data

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Will require relocation of some parking meters to achieve efficient spacing.

·    Will require a Bylaw change.

·    Known operational difficulties with sensors (solar charging and expected life)

·    Sensors impact on road resurfacing costs. 

·    Does not address abuse of 1 hour free parking if drivers move locations

·    Cost of sensors are additional to the meters and significantly exceeds the available budget.

Option 3: Hybrid- Replace existing parking meters, with the upgraded parking payment and enforcement system (PBP) and barrier arms in parking squares.

Advantages

·    Updated technology

·    More efficient and targeted enforcement

·    Increased and “smarter” payment options

·    Retains option of payment by coins

·    Provides for future management scenarios eg change fees, time limits

·    Removes paper waste

·    Minimises abuse of 1 hour free parking

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Will require a Bylaw change.

·    Does not eliminate paper waste (tickets)

·    Public roads pass through the carpark squares in including Achilles Avenue, Wakatu and Alma Lane and barrier arms at entry to the squares could present a legal issue with the need for road stopping

·    A number of privately leased carpark spaces have legal access off the Squares and will require free access to the area

·    The number of entry points may require rationalisation which will impact wider city roading network

·    High levels of monitoring and maintenance required and issues must be addressed urgently to avoid tailback queues – this will carry a higher ongoing cost

·    The cost of the hybrid barrier arms and on street meters is estimated to be over $1.8M which exceeds available budget

 

8.       Procurement

8.1       Nelson’s Procurement Policy requires that this project be publically tendered. Prices for refurbishment of, or full replacement of, the existing meters to support PBP will be invited. The preferred supplier will be determined through tender evaluation. 

9.       Other considerations

Changes to the Parking Bylaw

9.1       A change to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (No. 207) is required for any renewal option which no longer uses a PAD system. This is because the current wording is specific to the current parking system, and would not apply to a different system.

9.2       Council is empowered to make and amend the Parking Bylaw under the Land Transport Act 1998, however bylaw making is a local authority process and the bylaw making requirements as set out in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) also apply.

9.3       Section 155(1) of the LGA requires that Council determine whether the proposed amendment to a bylaw is the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem before it commences the process for amending the bylaw. 

9.4       Officers consider that amendment of the Parking Bylaw is the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. The problem is that the current Parking Bylaw not adequately dealing with one of the problems arising under the current parking system (repeat use of free parking as noted in paragraph 4.3 above), and not being fit for purpose for any renewal system (as noted in paragraphs 4.7 and 9.1 above). Amendments are required to enable a new parking system.

9.5       If Council determines that amending the Parking Bylaw is the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem, it must then determine what level of consultation is required. The requirements are set out in s156 of the LGA. If Council considers that the bylaw concerns a matter of significant interest to the public as identified in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, or that there is or is likely to be a significant effect on the public, the special consultative procedure must be used.

9.6       Having considered the proposed amendments and Council’s Significance and Engagement policy, officers have concluded that the changes to the Parking Bylaw are of low significance and that the proposed changes to the Parking Bylaw are not likely to have a significant effect on the public. (see paragraph 9.7 below). Officers’ conclusion is that the special consultative procedure is not required.

9.7       Section 156 (2) of the LGA does, however, require consultation in a manner that gives effect to s82 of the LGA unless the proposed changes to the Parking Bylaw are minor. Officers do not consider the proposed changes to be minor and therefore consultation consistent with s82 of the LGA is required (details of the proposed s82 consultation are set out in paragraph 9.9 below). Changing wording in the Bylaw to facilitate use of future technology tools for parking regulation and enforcement does not change any levels of service, does not have significant financial impact, does not involve a strategic asset, will not impact on Council debt or rates, is a not an irreversible decision that would have high impact on future generations, builds on the existing Bylaw, and has no history of this matter generating widespread interest. The proposed change to the Bylaw has low impact on the community, as it changes only the mechanism of showing payment for parking, not the fees, or the parking schedules

9.8       It is important to note that the intention of the s82 consultation is not to choose a parking enforcement methodology, rather it is to update the Bylaw wording to allow any type of parking enforcement technology, rather than just PAD.

9.9       Draft amendments to the Bylaw will need to be available for the consultation and in this regard officers are recommending that feedback on the proposed changes is invited through a communications and engagement plan that will include Our Nelson, a media release, targeted newsletters (eg Uniquely Nelson) and social media. Consultation will be carried out for four weeks and a summary report will be bought back to Council for a decision to change the Bylaw early in the new triennium.

9.10     The two processes (i.e. consultation and procurement of new meters) can run side-by-side as changes to the Bylaw will be required before enforcement can take place. It is proposed to call for, evaluate but not award the tender until the change to the Bylaw has been confirmed. New hardware can then be ordered and the system rigorously tested with a goal of achieving installation in the current 2019/20 financial year.

 

 

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA)

9.6       Council officers have considered whether the proposed Bylaw changes give rise to any implications under the NZBORA. The Bylaw is considered an appropriate way of managing a range of road user behaviours in regard to parking and vehicle control. Bill of Rights considerations were made when the Bylaw was last entirely reviewed. The proposed changes will be limited allowing for a new system for Council to manage and enforce and poses no restrictions on individual freedom or movement. The proposed changes to the Bylaw are therefore considered consistent with the NZBORA requirements. This will be required to be considered by Council when it determines whether to amend the bylaw, following the LGA bylaw making process, including consultation.    

Integration with Financial Systems

9.7     Steps in the early procurement of the system prior to the Bylaw change and “go live” date allows adequate time for pre-implementation testing of financial systems. There is the need to robustly test integration between meters, enforcement equipment, the Parking App and the Council’s financial system.

10.     Next Steps

10.1     Proceed to Request for Tender – September 2019.

10.2     Advertise proposed changes to the Bylaw and consult to give effect to consultation provisions of section 82 LGA – September 2019  

10.3     Tenders close and evaluated - November 2019.

10.4     Consultation closes – October 2019

10.5     Report to Council providing community feedback and seeking a decision on the proposed Bylaw change - December 2019.

10.6     Award tender following Council meeting – December 2019.

10.7     Update financial systems and carry out pre-implementation/integration testing. January through to March 2020.

10.8     Commence community information and education programme.   April/May 2020

10.9     Change Bylaw and install machines with aim of having installed by June 2020 (earlier if possible depending on tender)

11.     Conclusion

11.1     Officers recommended that tenders be called for the replacement or refurbishment of the existing parking meters to PBP together with the introduction of a parking app for payment in the Central City area, and that concurrently consultation under s82 of the LGA commence to change the Bylaw to allow for alternative technology to support parking management and enforcement.

 

 

Author:           Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2228122 Customer survey feedback

Attachment 2:    A2149051 Parking Meter Renewal Objectives

Attachment 3:    A2148865 Parking meter renewal - Options evaluation

  

A

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This renewal project meets the current and future needs of the NCC for good quality infrastructure and performance of regulatory parking control and function.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This renewal project is a project within the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to provide smarter options for parking in the City Centre.

3.   Risk

This renewal should only proceed if it achieves good outcomes including smarter parking payment. Not proceeding will result in increased maintenance costs, continuing with paper tickets, loss of meter reliability, and limited enforcement of the parking limits and fees.

4.   Financial impact

Budget provision exists in the 2019/20 financial year for this renewal.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

Procurement of new parking meter infrastructure is of low significance. Having considered the proposed amendments to the Parking Bylaw (to enable a new parking system) and Council’s Significance and Engagement policy, officers have concluded this matter is of low significance and that the special consultative procedure is not required. Because officers do not consider the proposed amendments to be minor, a s82 consultation process is required.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7.   Delegations

This matter has been referred to Council by the Works and Infrastructure Committee.  

 

 


Item 10: Parking Meter Renewal: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


Item 10: Parking Meter Renewal: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 


Item 10: Parking Meter Renewal: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 11: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10038

Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve a way forward for resolving the historical algae and weed issues in the Tahunanui Modellers Pond (Pond).

2.       Summary

2.1       A trial using Diatomix (a diatom fertilizer) commenced at the pond on 20 August 2018 with a view to improving the water quality and amenity of the pond. This trial was planned to run for up to 18 months with a hold point at three months to determine the success of the Diatomix before proceeding further. The aim of the trial was to encourage the growth of diatoms to the detriment of the filamentous algae (algae) and aquatic weed ruppia (weeds).

2.2       Observations during this three month trial (ending November 2018) show that algae had continued to grow in the pond. Anecdotally this growth seemed to be at lower levels than previous years. It is unclear whether this was wholly the impact of the Diatomix, circumstantial and/or supported by an additional light midwinter clean out of algae as part of the trial preparation.

2.3       At its 13 December 2018 meeting, Council approved continuing the trial for a further five months. The Council requested that the findings from the five month extension be brought back to Council and that officers present alternative options for resolving the historic issue in the event the trial was not considered viable in the long term.

2.4       During the five month trial extension, algae continued to grow, however the Working Party is of the opinion that it is significantly less than previous years.  The weed has continued to grow and still renders the pond unusable by the Modellers Society for model boats.

2.5       NIWA has been engaged by the Council to provide an independent assessment of the trial.  Its assessment is that there were too many variables involved in the trial to be able to firmly conclude if Diatomix is responsible for limiting the growth of algae.  Furthermore, NIWA concluded that there was no measured increase in the proportion of diatoms within the pond during the trial, particularly at sites closest to where the Diatomix was added.

2.6       Officers note that algae has continued to grow, and due to the complexities associated with the Modellers Pond, issue with ruppia weed, no scientific confirmation of the efficacy of the product at the dose used and the likely impact on staff resources, officers cannot support continuing with Diatomix and recommend that alternative options be considered.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward (R10038) and its attachments (A2223677, A2223678,  A2223679 and A2230776); and

 

2.    Notes that officers do not support continuing with using Diatomix; and

 

3.    Approves progressing Options 3 and 4 of Report R10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate to preliminary design at an additional unbudgeted cost of $160,000; and

 

4.    Requests Council officers bring a report back to the Sports and Recreation Committee detailing the findings from preliminary design for Options 2, 3 and 4 of Report 10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate before proceeding to public consultation.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       The growth of weed and algae (which forms long strands and mats) has been a problem in the pond since the addition of copper sulphate was stopped. Officers have been working on a solution, but this has been a complex and protracted process.

4.2       Due to the historic use of copper sulphate, the base of the pond contains high levels of copper and is a designated HAIL site (Hazardous Activities and Industries List). 

4.3       A Working Party comprising the following members was established to assist in developing a solution.

·    Nigel Gibbs and Alan Malaquin from the Tahunanui Modellers Society; and

·    John Gilbertson from the Tahunanui Business Association; and

·    Councillors Stuart Walker and Tim Skinner, as Chairs of the Works and Infrastructure and Sports and Recreation Committees, respectively.

4.4       A potential solution using Diatomix was agreed to be trialled. This trial involved dosing the pond with Diatomix which encourages diatom growth (single celled algae of a variety of species). The presence of diatoms limits the nutrients available for the growth of other algae and weeds. The Working Party is supported by Dr Simon Tannock from AlgaEnviro, the Diatomix supplier.

4.5       WSP Opus was engaged by Council to process the resource consent and to monitor the resource consent conditions.

4.6       Following the granting of the resource consent to trial Diatomix at the pond, supporting equipment was installed (pond circulation and dosing pumps) and base testing carried out. The trial then commenced on 20 August 2018 for a period of three months.

4.7       In December 2018, officers brought a report to Council summarising the outcome from the three month trial, and a variety of options on how to proceed.  Whilst officers did not support continuing the trial, Council approved the option to continue the trial for a further five months at an additional operational cost of $130,000.

4.8       The Council requested that the findings from the five month extension be brought back to Council and that officers present alternative options for resolving the historic issue in the event the trial was not considered viable in the long term.

5.       Discussion

The Performance of the Extended Trial

5.1       As previously reported to Council, this trial has been challenging to manage due to the sensitivity of the pond environment. There are many variables that have affected the performance of the trial. These variables were either not known, or not able to be fully quantified before and during the trial.  These variables included:

·    The discovery of isolated groundwater springs (hot spots) within the pond that are contributing additional nutrients to the system, which encourage algae growth;

·    Stormwater events – these events add more nutrients into the pond than original test results indicated and this increase in nutrients encourages algae growth;

·    The need to maintain the water level within the pond. The water level in the pond drops depending on seepage, wind and evaporation and can drop by up to 10-15mm a day. When the water level drops too low it affects the pond circulation and the mixing of the Diatomix throughout the pond;

·    Greater circulation within the pond was required by AlgaEnviro and the Working Party developed and installed two modified outboard motors to address this issue.  The first motor was installed towards the end of the three month trial (November 2018) and the second motor was installed at the end of January 2019.   

5.2       The Working Party actively removed algae and weed from the pond from 5 November 2018 to 8 February 2019. The reason from the Working Party’s perspective for removing algae was to bring the condition of the pond back to a similar state prior to the start of the trial. 

5.3       Through January, February and March 2019, the region experienced a severe drought.  The effect of the drought on the trial resulted in the water level in the pond reducing and the salinity level increasing.

5.4       When the first major rainfall event arrived in March, the growth of algae increased.

5.5       The effects from the hotspots and storm events result in additional nutrients that encourage algae growth. These nutrient levels were not known or quantified when the Diatomix dosing limits were proposed during the resource consent application. Therefore, following the rainfall events in March 2019, there was no ability to increase the dosing of Diatomix.

            Ruppia weed

5.6       The aquatic weed ruppia (ruppia megacarpa) which is a native (though not endemic) coastal species has not been reduced or effected by the trial.  This weed has continued to grow and has rendered the pond unusable by the Modellers Society. This is a root based weed and needs sediment to grow, which is where it obtains its nutrients.

5.7       Council officers’ original expectation was that the Diatomix was meant to have managed this weed as well as the filamentous algae. The Working Party has a mixed opinion on this matter, and AlgaEnviro has since confirmed that the Diatomix would not control the ruppia, however it might help suppress it.

WSP Opus Assessment

5.8       WSP Opus has been engaged by Council to process the resource consent and to monitor the resource consent conditions.

5.9       At present, testing and observations indicate there has been no discernible or significant adverse effects on the downstream water quality and/or aquatic life.

5.10     There has not been a potential/actual toxic algae bloom in the pond or the downstream environment, since the addition of Diatomix.

NIWA Assessment

5.11     NIWA has been engaged by the Council to provide an independent assessment of the trial.  The appointment of NIWA was approved in consultation with the Working Party and AlgaEnviro. Other assessors had been considered and discounted following consultation with the Working Party and AlgaEnviro.

5.12     NIWA’s assessment is that there were too many variables involved in the trial to be able to firmly conclude if Diatomix was responsible for limiting the growth of algae. These variables include:

·    The physical removal of the algae by members of the Working Party prior to and during the trial would have significantly reduced the accumulation of biomass within the pond;

·    The increase in salinity during the drought, which could have restricted algae growth;

·    An inability to increase the Diatomix dose level due to resource consent restrictions meant the true effectiveness of Diatomix could never be tested.

5.13     Furthermore, NIWA noted that there was no measured increase in the proportion of diatoms within the pond during the trial, particularly at sites closest to where the Diatomix was added.

5.14     NIWA will be attending this meeting to answer questions regarding their review of the trial. The NIWA review of the trial is appended in Attachment 1.

AlgaEnviro Assessment

5.15     The overall assessment from AlgaEnviro is that the Diatomix treatment has been a success because there were long periods of low filamentous algae growth.

5.16     AlgaEnviro confirms that by addressing the issues relating to pond depth, pond mixing and greater flexibility to alter the dosing volume, the long-term outcomes relating to the filamentous algae control and improved water quality are exceptionally favourable.  A letter from AlgaEnviro is appended in Attachment 2.

5.17     AlgaEnviro also recommends the dosing limit be set to around 2.5 to 3.5 L/week (current resource consent limit is 1.5 L/week) and that a maximum limit of 10 L/week is allowed for within the resource consent.  AlgaEnviro note that the 10L/week is not expected to be used, but allows for flexibility and should have no environmental harm.

5.18     Increasing the dosing will require a variation to the existing resource consent.  Given the significant increase proposed by AlgaEnviro, officers anticipate this variation will required a detailed assessment of effects and ongoing monitoring in the short term to confirm effects are less than minor.

6.       Trial Finances

6.1       The total 2018/19 budget for the trial is $275,000.  This budget is split between two activities, stormwater ($175,000) and esplanade & foreshore ($100,000).  The extension of the trial has come in under the budget of $275,000 with an approximate spend of $228,000.  The primary reason for the financial underspend is due to simplifying the resource consent reporting process and key risks not eventuating, therefore leaving the contingency largely intact.  A summary of the budget is detailed below.

Description

2018/19

Actual

Five Month Extension

 

 

Diatomix product

$11,000

$11,000

Operational monitoring

$18,000

$18,000

Resource consent monitoring

$39,000

$26,000

Power costs

$3,000

$3,000

Improved circulation (pump etc)

$2,000

$-

Subtotal

$73,000 

$58,000

Contingency (30%)

$22,000

$4,000

Independent specialist

$5,000

$9,000

Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3 month trial to Council meeting in December

$10,000

$10,000

Manual cleanout of the pond post trial for remainder of 18/19 FY.

$5,000

$-

Allowance to close out the trial (disestablishment, resource consent monitoring & final report)

$15,000

$2,000

FIVE MONTH EXTENSION TOTAL

$130,000

$83,000

Initial three month trial cost

$145,000

$145,000

TOTAL COST

$275,000

$228,000

6.2       It is important to note that internal staff costs are not included within this budget.  Staff costs for operational work are typically funded at a cost centre level (i.e. Esplanade and Foreshore or Stormwater Activity) and not at a project level.

7.       Officers Assessment of the Trial

7.1       Due to the complexities associated with the Modellers Pond, issues with ruppia weed, no scientific confirmation of the efficacy of the product at the dose used, officers believe Diatomix is not a viable solution in the long term and should not be considered any further.  

7.2       Furthermore, the use of Diatomix as a long term solution will have a substantial impact on staff resources and time. The following activities will be required as a minimum: 

·    Weekly inspections to monitor the pond condition;

·    Regular sampling to monitor the water quality;

·    Ongoing monitoring and annual reporting on consent conditions;

·    Proactive management of the Diatomix dosing prior to and following all rainfall event;

·    Liaising with Councils O&M contractor and responding to alarms (water level issues, mixer issues, re-supplying the Diatomix doser);

·    Management of a potential algae bloom;

·    Ruppia weed management, including overseeing the quarterly clean out.

This additional work is anticipated to impact staff resources by approximately 10 hours per week. At present there is no available internal resource available to manage this additional work.

8.       Alternative Options

8.1       Six alternative options for the pond’s future have been considered and a brief summary of each option is summarised below:

·   Option 1 - Return to estuarine environment;

·   Option 2 - Full upgrade of the pond with a concrete base and circulation system;

·   Option 3 - Fill the majority of the pond and landscape to provide a shared community space, including a model boat pond;

·   Option 4 - Fill the majority of the pond and landscape to provide a shared community space, but not including a model boat pond;

·   Option 5 - Continue with the use of Diatomix and incorporate a new ruppia weed management system;

·   Option 6 – Do minimum.

8.2       Option 1 - Return to estuarine environment

This involves the removal of the pond and returning the area to a naturalised estuarine environment.  The current stormwater outfall would require alterations and a treatment facility would need to be included.  A concept of this option is detailed in Attachment 3. This option involves:

 

·   Removal and modification of the existing pond wall, footpath, access points, and other infrastructure;

·   Remediation of the existing tidal channel;

·   Filling depressions inside the existing pond to improve drainage;

·   Localised removal of contaminated material;

·   Filling the perimeter of the pond to create a beach form;

·   Replacing the existing pedestrian bridge;

·   Placing a cover layer of approximately 400mm thick suitable estuarine base material;

·   Construction of a new stormwater treatment facility.  This could include a discharge stilling pond, sediment basin, rubbish interceptor and estuarine channel; 

·   Re-routing of existing stormwater outfalls;

·   Adjustment of natural levels and landscaping with estuarine planting.

It is anticipated that funding for this option would be operational expenditure (opex) not capital expenditure (capex), as this option involves the removal of an asset, rather than the creation of a new one.

8.3       Option 2 - Full upgrade of the pond with a concrete base and improved circulation

This involves upgrading the current pond, primarily with a concrete base and improved circulation. A plan of this option is detailed in Attachment 3. This option involves:

 

·   Installation of a smooth concrete base to the pond that will drain to a sump.  This includes a pressure release system to prevent uplift of the pond when its empty;

·   Improved circulation with the installation of a large pump (lagoonmaster);

·   Centennial pump station and tide gate alterations to assist with filling the pond with seawater when the tides are not high enough;

·   The pond to be partially emptied and refilled 2~3 times per month at low tide via the new tide gates;

·   Full automation and telemetry for the tide gates, lagoonmaster and the existing stormwater outfall at Parkers Cove;

·   Replacing the existing pedestrian bridge;

·   The pond would need to be cleaned out quarterly with a light rubber-tyred vehicle (up to 6 ton total mass).

This option has been completed to detail design and has an approved resource consent.  It is anticipated that amendments would be required to the design to incorporate a new footpath around the perimeter of the pond and a new outfall concrete channel, which is currently not included in the design.  The new outfall channel would likely require a variation to the approved resource consent.

8.4       Option 3 - Fill the majority of the pond and landscape to provide a shared community space, including a model boat pond

 

This involves creating a new shared community space.  The majority of the pond would be filled in and a specific stormwater treatment facility would be built to treat and discharge stormwater from Centennial pump station.  The new landscaped community shared space would comprise of a picnic area and a 1000m2 model boat pond.  This solution provides the ability for the Modellers Society to extend the model train track in the future into the new available space.  A concept of this option is detailed in Attachment 3.  This option involves:

 

·   Infilling the current pond to match existing surrounding ground level;

·   Construction of a new stormwater treatment facility.  This could include a discharge stilling pond, sediment basin, rubbish interceptor and estuarine channel; 

·   Create a new small model boat facility of 1000m2 area, 600 mm deep.  It is assumed at this stage that this facility would need circulation, filtration and chlorination;

·   Landscape the new available area into a family picnic area

·   Replace the existing pedestrian bridge;

·   Rehabilitate parts of the area to a more estuarine environment.

8.5       Option 4 - Fill the majority of the pond in and landscape to provide a shared community space, but not including a model boat pond.

 

This involves filling in the majority of the pond and providing a blank canvas for a future use.  A specific stormwater treatment facility would be built to treat and discharge stormwater from Centennial pump station. This solution provides the ability for the Modellers Society to extend the model train track in the future into the new available space. A concept of this option is detailed in Attachment 3.  This option involves:

 

·   Infilling the current pond to match the existing surrounding ground level;

·   Construction of a new stormwater treatment facility.  This could include a discharge stilling pond, sediment basin, rubbish interceptor and estuarine channel; 

·   Landscape the new available area into a family picnic area;

·   Replace the existing pedestrian bridge;

·   Rehabilitate parts of the area to a more estuarine environment.

8.6       Option 5 – Formalise and make permanent the use of Diatomix and introduce a new weed management system

This involves continuing with the use of Diatomix to manage the filamentous algae and the introduction of a mechanical machine to physically remove/maintain the ruppia weed.  A concept of this option is detailed in Attachment 3.  This option involves:

 

·   Recontouring the base of the pond to a depth of 500 - 600mm. This base is free draining to the pond outlet;

·   Renew the concrete outlet from the pond;

·   New tide gates;

·   Two mechanical mixers to improved water circulation;

·   Increase the Diatomix dosing to a maximum limit of 10 L/week via a resource consent amendment;

·   Replace the existing pedestrian bridge;

·   Full automation and telemetry at the pond, Centennial pump station and existing stormwater outfall at Parkers Cove;

·   Mechanical dredger/machine is constructed/purchased and used quarterly for ruppia weed management.

·   Ongoing sampling and reporting as required by the resource consent.

8.7       Option 6 – Do minimum

This involves reverting back to regularly cleaning out the pond.  This will typically be a light clean that is repeatedly done throughout the summer period.  This light clean involves the removal of floating algae only, the ruppia weed would not be addressed.  Algae will continue to grow and is only removed when it is a visual nuisance.

 


 

9.       Options Summary

9.1       The six options are discussed in more detail below:

 

Option 1: Return to estuarine environment

Advantages

·   As there is no pond, there will be no issues with algae and weed.

·   Will complement the surrounding estuarine environment.

·   Small increase to back beach embayment area.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   No model boat facility.

·   Local playing fields and amenities will be less protected against high tide surges, extreme weather events and climate change.

·   Beach erosion will take place over time resulting in greater maintenance.

·   Increase in storm debris resulting in greater maintenance.

·    Tidal channel maintenance and greater safety issue.

·   Contaminated material could be exposed during extreme weather events.

·   Resource consent could be complex.

·   Anticipated to be opex funded only, due to no new asset being created.

·   Confidence in financial costs is low. 

·   Not supported by Council officers, Working Party and Modellers Society.

Financial

Opex Cost – $1.88M to $2.35M

·    Anticipated to be opex funded not capex, as no new asset is created.

·    A 20% to 50% cost contingency range has been applied due to low confidence in the estimate.

Ongoing Opex Cost

·      O&M Cost - $26k p.a.

Programme

Year

Stage

19/20

Preliminary Design

20/21

Detail Design

21/22

Consent/Detail Design

22/23

Construction

Option 2: Full upgrade of the pond with a concrete base

Advantages

·    The pond remains and able to be used for model boats.

·    No new stormwater treatment facility required.

·    Alternative uses for the pond can be explored assuming the water quality is satisfactory for recreational purposes (kayaking, pedal boats, paddle boards etc).

·    Contaminated material is contained.

·    Resource consent is approved – minor variation required.

·    Protection against storm-driven debris provided.

·    Supported by the Modellers Society and Working Party.

·    Moderate capex and opex cost.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Risk of increased opex cost if the frequency for pond flushing and manual cleanouts increases to stop algae and weed growing. 

·    Ongoing maintenance required to regularly clean out the base to stop sediment build-up.

·    The pond is susceptible to flood inundation and climate change.

·    The asset life for Centennial pump station will be reduced due to increase in salt water entering the pump station.

·    Confidence in financial costs (capex and opex) is medium. 

Financial

Capex Cost Range – $2.37M

·    A 20% cost contingency has been applied due to medium confidence in the estimate.

Opex Cost

·    Depreciation - $60k p.a. over 40 years

·    O&M Cost - $60k p.a.

·      Total Opex - $120k p.a.

Programme/Budget Phasing

Year

Stage

19/20

Finalise detail design and amendment to Resource Consent.

20/21

Construction

 

 

Option 3: Fill majority of the pond and landscape to provide a shared community space, including a model boat pond

Advantages

·    A model boat facility is created (albeit smaller).

·    Issues with algae and weed are removed.

·    Enables the modeller’s society to extend their rail tracks into this area.

·    Increased and wider public use of the shared space.

·    Opportunity to contain any potentially contaminated material within the site.

·    Protection against storm-driven debris provided.

·    Supported by the Modellers Society and Working Party

Risks and Disadvantages

·    High capex and opex costs.

·    Filled in area is susceptible to flood inundation and climate change.

·    Ongoing monitoring & maintenance of the model boat pond is required.

·    Resource consent could become complex.

·    Confidence in financial costs (capex and opex) is low.   

Financial

Capex Cost – $3.39M to $4.24M

·    A 20% to 50% cost contingency range has been applied due to low confidence in the estimate.

Opex Cost

·    Depreciation - $105k p.a. over 40 years

·    O&M Cost - $65k p.a.

·    Total Opex - $170k p.a.

 

Programme/Budget Phasing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

Stage

19/20

Preliminary Design

20/21

Detail Design

21/22

Consent/Detail Design

22/23

Construction

Option 4: Fill majority of the pond and landscape to provide a shared community space, not  including a model boat pond 

Advantages

·   Provides a blank canvas for reusing this space.

·   Issues with algae and weed are removed.

·   Enables the Modeller’s Society to extend their rail tracks into this area.

·   Protection against storm-driven debris provided.

·   Opportunity to contain any potentially contaminated material within the site.

·   Moderate capex cost.

·   Lower opex cost

Risks and Disadvantages

·   No model boat facility.

·    Filled in area is susceptible to flood inundation and climate change.

·    Resource consent could become complex.

·    Confidence in financial costs (capex and opex) is low.   

·    Not supported by the Working Party and Modellers Society.

Financial

Capex Cost – $2.29M to $2.86M

·    A 20% to 50% cost contingency range has been applied due to low confidence in the estimate.

Opex Cost

·    Depreciation - $70k p.a. over 40 years

·    O&M Cost - $30k p.a.

·      Total Opex - $100k p.a.

Programme/Budget Phasing

Year

Stage

19/20

Preliminary Design

20/21

Detail Design

21/22

Consent/Detail Design

22/23

Construction

Option 5: Formalise the use of Diatomix and new weed management system

Advantages

·    The pond remains and potentially able to be used for model boats.

·    No new stormwater treatment facility required.

·    Contaminated material is contained.

·    Protection against storm-driven debris provided.

·    Supported by the Modellers Society and Working Party.

·    Low capex cost.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    High opex cost.

·    Officers have low confidence that that algae and weed issue will be resolved. 

·    Eco system within the pond is delicate and could easily fail.

·    Risk of increase opex cost for cleaning out potential algae bloom.

·    Additional Council resource required to oversee the management of the pond.

·    Resource consent could become complex.

·    The pond is susceptible to flood inundation and climate change.

·    The asset life for Centennial pump station will be reduced due to increase in salt water entering the pump station.

·    Risk of a toxic algae bloom when operating at a higher dosing rate (there were no issues at a low dosing rate during the trial).

·    Not supported by officers.

Financial

Capex Cost – $1.89M to $2.37M

·    A 20% to 50% cost contingency range has been applied due to low confidence in the estimate.

Opex Cost

·    Depreciation - $60k p.a. over 40 years

·    O&M Cost - $155k p.a.

·      Total Opex - $215k p.a.

Programme/Budget Phasing

Year

Stage

19/20

Preliminary Design

20/21

Detail Design

21/22

Consent/Detail Design

22/23

Construction

Option 6: Do minimum

Advantages

·    A feature within Tahunanui remains.

·    The treatment of stormwater remains the same.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Cannot be used for model boats and recreational purposes due to the ruppia weed.

·   Algae will continue to grow and will only be removed once it’s a visual nuisance.

·   Not supported by officers, Working Party and Modellers Society.

Financial

Opex Cost

·    $45,000 p.a.

Programme/Budget Phasing

N/A

 

9.2       For options 1 to 5, it is important to note that regular algae removal, similar to option 6, will need to be carried out until these options are constructed.

9.3       A design life of 40 years has been assumed for all options due to anticipated effects from sea level rise and climate change.  In 2060, it is anticipated that this area is at risk of being inundated following a spring tide. 

9.4       A financial summary of the options is detailed below.

 

Option

CAPEX

OPEX*

NPV***

1 - Return to estuarine environment.

$0

$1.88M to $2.35M**

$26k p.a.

$2.11M to $2.58M

2 - Full upgrade of the pond.

$2.37M

$120k p.a.

$2.89M

3 - Fill the majority of the pond and convert the area into a shared community space, including a new model boat pond.

$3.39M to $4.24M

$170k p.a.

$3.95M to $4.80M

4 - Fill the majority of pond and re-landscape the new area with grass.

$2.29M to $2.86M

$100k p.a.

$2.55M to $3.12M

5 - Continue with the use of Diatomix and incorporate a new ruppia weed management system.

$1.89M to $2.37M

$215k p.a.

$3.23M to $3.70M

6 – Do minimum

Nil

$45,000 p.a.

$434,000

*based on 40 year design life

** Anticipated design, consent and construction would be opex funded.

*** Based on 10 years.

10.     Officer’s feedback on Options

10.1     Option 3, a shared community space with a model boat pond, satisfies the two main functions of the pond, providing a facility for model boats and the management of stormwater.  Officers believe this option has the potential to enhance the surrounding area and provides greater benefit to the wider community. As this option is only at concept stage, the confidence with the estimate is low and the price range is significant (from $3.39M to $4.24M).  To compare this option directly against Option 2 (Full upgrade) which has been completed to detail design could be considered misleading as the confidence in the costing is greater ($2.37M).

10.2     Option 4, as per Option 3 but without the model boat pond. This option provides the opportunity for a new shared facility to be considered in the future as well as the management of stormwater.  Furthermore, the Modellers Society has the ability to extend their rail tracks into this newly formed area. This option doesn’t necessarily preclude the Modellers Society from constructing a small model boat pond in the future.  This option is one of the cheapest options based on whole of life costs and should not necessarily be discounted and warrants further investigation.

10.3     Officers’ preference is pursuing Options 3 and 4 and recommend that these two options are moved into preliminary design where an understanding on costs, risk, stormwater treatment and effects from climate change can be better quantified.  Once these aspects are understood, a direct comparison against Option 2 can be made.  Officers will also engage NIWA to undertake a peer review of Option 2 with regards to its effectiveness in managing algae and weeds.

10.4     Prior to undertaking preliminary design, officers will consult with iwi on the project to identify any other option(s) that iwi consider should be investigated to preliminary design stage.

10.5     Officers would then report back on the results of the iwi consultation and preliminary design work to seek authorisation to start a public consultation process.

10.6     To proceed with preliminary design, an additional operational expenditure budget of $160,000 is required. This cost does not allow for detail design.

10.7     Officers propose that the future comparison between these options be a matter for the Sports and Recreation Committee to consider going forward rather than the Works and Infrastructure Committee as the primary purpose of the pond is for public use, not the treatment of stormwater. Options 1, 3 and 4 demonstrate that a pond is not necessarily required for the management of stormwater.

10.8     Officers do not support Option 1, Return to estuarine environment as this option exposes the surrounding area to greater risk from tidal surges and effects from climate change.  There are also issues surrounding the exposure of contaminated material into the estuary and increase in storm debris.  Furthermore, the funding structure for this option is anticipated to be opex, as no new asset is created. Officers do however see merit in some aspects of an estuarine environment that could be considered as part of stormwater treatment facility for Options 3 and 4.

10.9     Officers do not support Option 2, Full upgrade of the pond.  Other recreation facilities proposed for future investigation on Tahuna Beach Reserve, including surf lifesaving, would appear to support greater numbers of participants and are a higher priority for youth.  The potential number of users of the pond is uncertain.

10.10   Officers do not support Option 5, the continuation of Diatomix.  Due to the complexities associated with the Modellers Pond, no scientific guarantee of success and the likely impact on staff resources, officers believe it is not a viable solution in the long term and should not be considered any further. 

10.11   Officers do not support Option 6, do minimum, as this is nothing more than a temporary solution until a permanent solution is put into place.  This option still renders the pond unusable for model boats as the issue with ruppia weed is not addressed.  Algae will continue to grow and is only removed when it is a visual nuisance.  This option does not represent value for money in the long term.

11.     Working Party feedback on Options

11.1     The Working Party support Option 2, full upgrade. This is their preferred option and their second choice is Option 3. The Working Party have confirmed that they do not support Option 4.

12.     Modellers Society feedback on Options

12.1     The Modellers Society support Option 2, full upgrade. This is their preferred option and their second choice is Option 3. The society have confirmed that they do not support Option 4 as it leaves the club without a pond to support its members, as per their constitution. A letter confirming their feedback on the options is shown in Attachment 4.

13.     Conclusion

13.1     A three month trial commenced at the pond on 20 August 2018, to try and improve the water quality and amenity of the pond. This trial was extended for a further five months finishing at the end of April 2019. There were signs of improvement, but algae has continued to grow and NIWA has concluded that other factors including algae removal and increased salinity could have reduced the accumulation of algae in the pond. Moreover, without accurate measurement of the nitrogen load on the pond it was not possible to confirm the efficacy of Diatomix.

13.2     Officers’ preference is to proceed into preliminary design with options 3, 4 and any option iwi consider appropriate, where an understanding on costs, risk, stormwater treatment and effects from climate change can be better quantified. 

13.3     The Working Parties preference is Option 2, full upgrade.

13.4     The Modellers Society preference is Option 2, full upgrade.

Author:           David Light, Manager Utilities

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2223677 NIWA Report

Attachment 2:    A2223678 Letter from AlgaEnviro

Attachment 3:    A2223679 Visual Summary of Options

Attachment 4:    A2230776 Feedback from Modellers Society

 

 

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

The recommended approach minimises risk to the Council, as it provides an opportunity to further investigate options and quantify risks prior to proceeding.

4.   Financial impact

No capital expenditure is allocated for the upgrade of Modellers Pond in 2019/20. Any new budget will be unbudgeted and unprogrammed expenditure. An operational budget of $45,000 is allocated for ongoing maintenance of the pond.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance for the wider community but of high significance for the users of the pond. A Working Party has been established, and this includes representatives from the Modellers Society and the Tahunanui Business Association.

Officers see merit with consulting with the community with regards to the preferred options.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7.   Delegations

The Council has the powers to approve additional funding.   

·           Council has powers to approve additional funding.

 

 


Item 11: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 11: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


Item 11: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 11: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial - Way Forward: Attachment 4

PDF Creator


 

Item 12: Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10360

Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To agree that the 2020 Bay Dreams South festival can utilise the football fields at Saxton Field for camping.

1.2       To prohibit the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field, excluding a licensed area, over the period for which camping will be provided.

2.       Summary

2.1       Council has previously approved entering into negotiations and, if successful, executing a five year contract with Bay Dreams South Ltd (Bay Dreams) to host an annual music festival in Nelson. This report seeks consent   to the temporary use of Saxton Field for camping and a temporary alcohol ban for Saxton Field for the event, following consultation with the Saxton Field committee. 

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020 (R10360) and its attachments (A2203993 and A2203994); and

2.     Notes that consultation with the Saxton Field Committee has taken place, and the Committee has expressed its support for camping to return to Saxton Field; and

3.     Consents to the temporary use of Saxton Field Reserve as a camping ground for up to 3,500 campers, associated with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 - 5 January 2020 under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977; and

4.     Notes that the Chief Executive will grant exclusive use of Alliance Green and the football pitches of Saxton Field for the Bay Dreams South festival 2020 in accordance with section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

5.     Agrees to impose a temporary ban on the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5 January 2020 pursuant to clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       The Bay Dreams South festival in 2019 was a success and attracted 20,000 ticket holders during Nelson’s peak tourist season into the Nelson Tasman region. The event utilised a range of locations administered by Nelson City Council and Bay Dreams is seeking to do so again in anticipation of returning to Nelson for 2020.

4.2       On 20 June 2019 Council received Report R10252 and consequently approved, inter alia, the Chief Executive (CE) entering into negotiations for a contract to bring the Bay Dreams music festival back to Nelson for a five year period.  (Those negotiations are proceeding well.)  It was noted that approval for up to 1,500 campers at Trafalgar Park would be sought from the Chief Executive.  Regarding camping at Saxton Field, it was noted that a report would be brought back to Council for decision on this, and any other outstanding matters that required Council decision, once consultation with the Saxton Field Committee had taken place.

4.3       In relation to the use of Saxton Field for camping, the following decisions were taken by Council for the 2019 Bay Dreams South music festival.  On 13 December 2018, Council resolved:

Delegates the powers conferred on Council as administering body of recreation reserves by section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the Chief Executive.

Consents to the temporary use of Saxton Field Reserve as a camping ground associated with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 - 5 January 2019 under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Agrees to impose a temporary ban on the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5 January 2019 pursuant to clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.

4.4       Bay Dreams is seeking approval from Council as landowner to utilise the same areas at Saxton Field for the same purposes as last year, with a few changes for 2020 (see Attachments 1 and 2 for maps).  Bay Dreams has a valid resource consent for up to 3,500 campers to stay on this site (valid until 2023).

4.5       On the advice of the Police, Officers also seek the temporary ban on the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field (excluding any licensed area within the campground) for the duration of the festival.

4.6       All approvals will be subject to a signed contract with Bay Dreams and their acquisition of any other necessary permits, consents and licenses.

5.       Discussion

          Use of Saxton Field Football Pitches for Camping

5.1       Council’s consent for the use of tents at Saxton Field is required under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act. Under section 44, no person may use a tent on a reserve for temporary accommodation except with the consent of the Minister or under specified provisions of the Act. The Minister’s consenting power has been delegated to the Council as the administering body of Saxton Field.

5.2       On 20 June 2019, Council resolved:

Directs the Chief Executive to seek feedback from the Saxton Field Committee on proposed camping at Saxton Field.

5.3       With the agreement of the Saxton Field Committee Chair, the Saxton Field Committee has been consulted via email due to tight timeframes. The Chair and Committee members are supportive of the campground returning to the same site as in 2019 with the same permitted capacity of 3,500 individuals, and the No.1 football field being protected from use. This is on the condition that alternative campgrounds in Nelson are also promoted by Bay Dreams.  An earlier request from Bay Dreams to increase numbers at Saxton Field to 5,000 was not supported.

5.4       The Nelson Suburbs Football Club is supportive of the football fields being utilised for camping in the same manner as in 2019, with the No.1 football field being protected from use.

5.5       The Parks and Facilities Team for Nelson City Council and the Manager of Reserves and Facilities at Tasman District Council have been consulted and are supportive of the football fields being utilised for camping in the same manner as in 2019, with the No.1 football field being protected from use.

5.6       Alternative greenspace areas close to the current campground area have been considered, but bring the campers too close to the nearest residential boundary, making them unsuitable. Bay Dreams requested permission from Radio NZ to change the use of their aerial land from car parking, to camping, but this was not granted. This is due to concerns around driving metal tent pegs into their ground, which has earth cables radiating out from the central tower.

5.7       Bay Dreams is also required to have approval for exclusive use of the football pitches and Alliance Green at Saxton Field in accordance with Section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977.  This power has been delegated to the Chief Executive by Council (as noted in para 4.3 above).  This request will be approved by the Chief Executive taking into account all relevant matters under the Reserves Act, including the purposes of the reserve and relevant provisions of the Saxton Field Reserve Management Plan (RMP), and the support of the Saxton Field Committee as outlined above.

5.8       It is noted that Saxton Field is a recreation reserve and one of the primary purposes of recreation reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide “…areas for recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside, with an emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreation activities, including recreation tracks in the countryside (section 17(1)). 

5.9       The Reserves Act requires that the public shall have freedom of entry and access to recreation reserves subject only to the specified powers of administering bodies under the Act and the restrictions considered necessary for the wellbeing of the reserve and the public using it (section 17(2)). 

5.10     Officers consider that the proposed use of Saxton Field including the temporary use for camping aligns with the purposes of the reserve by supporting recreational activities and allowing public enjoyment of the reserve.  The proposed use is also consistent with the vision and relevant objectives and policies of the RMP which include promoting and using Saxton Field as a venue for events and selected forms of entertainment and providing for permission for commercial activities including concerts and events.  Provisions relating to circulation networks, transport and parking will be met by campers being required to park in designated areas adjacent to the campsite.    

5.11     For clarity, it is noted that the landowner approvals under the Reserves Act discussed above are valid for the 2020 Bay Dreams South event only and will need to be sought again each year that the festival returns to Nelson. This will include consultation with the Saxton Field Committee.

          Temporary Alcohol Ban

5.12     The Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 prohibits the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field from 9:00pm on any day to 7.00am on the following day. For the 2019 festival, Council agreed to impose a temporary alcohol ban on the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5 January 2019, on the advice of the Police.

5.13     The alcohol ban worked well and empowered the Police to manage alcohol consumption beyond the licensed area of the Bay Dreams campground, thus reducing the potential for pre-loading or interactions between groups of tickets holders and non-ticket holders in the area.

5.14     The Police recommended during the debrief for the 2019 festival that the alcohol ban be repeated if the festival were to return to Saxton Field for future years.  The requested prohibition will once again enable Police to respond to any alcohol related issues that may arise during the period 3 to 5 January 2020. Police powers of search, seizure and arrest will be extended over the entire camping period. 

5.15     Clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 allows Council to prohibit the consumption and possession of alcohol where it is appropriate for the safe and effective holding of a public event or gathering in a public place. The Council must publicly notify a resolution to this effect no less than 14 days before the event.

5.16     An application has been made by Bay Dreams to license the parts of Saxton Field where the campground will be hosted for possession and consumption of alcohol under the Sale of Alcohol Act 2012. If this area receives an alcohol licence, this area would be specifically excluded from the blanket alcohol prohibition for Saxton Field under clause 6.8 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.

5.17     It is considered appropriate to support the request by the Police, taking into account that a specific area of Saxton Field may be licensed for alcohol consumption over this time.  Tasman District Council supports this recommendation. There are no other events planned at Saxton Field from 3-5 January 2020 that would be affected by the prohibition

6.       Options

 

Option 1: Approve the temporary use of the football pitches at Saxton Field for camping and the imposition of a temporary alcohol ban. (Recommended option)

Advantages

·    Increases use of Saxton Field facilities

·    Utilises existing event templates and systems that we know work well

·    Allows all planning, consents and permits to be completed in a timely manner

·    Allows tickets to go on sale in a timely manner

·    Provides a safe, contained temporary camping location, reducing the burden on other campsites and helping to mitigate freedom camping

·    Empowers the Police to manage alcohol consumption onsite during the festival

·    Reinforces a positive relationship between Council and Bay Dreams South

·      Acknowledges Bay Dreams’ efforts to look after our assets in 2019

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Weather is out of our control

·    Relationship with Saxton Field Committee and Nelson Suburbs Football Club could be weakened if damage occurs

·    There is potential to cause disturbance to nearby residents

Option 2: Approve the temporary use of the football pitches at Saxton Field for camping but do not approve the imposition of a temporary alcohol ban.

Advantages

·    Increases use of Saxton Field facilities

·    Utilises existing event templates and systems that we know work well

·    Allows all planning, consents and permits to be completed in a timely manner

·    Allows tickets to go on sale in a timely manner

·    Provides a safe, contained temporary camping location, reducing the burden on other campsites and helping to mitigate freedom camping

·    Reinforces a positive relationship between Council and Bay Dreams South

·    Acknowledges Bay Dreams South Ltd.’s efforts to look after our assets in 2019

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Police have reduced ability to manage alcohol consumption onsite during the festival

·    Potential for increased intoxication and trouble as a result

·    Weather is out of our control

·    Relationship with Saxton Field Committee and Nelson Suburbs Football Club could be weakened if damage occurs.

·      There is potential to cause disturbance to nearby residents

Option 3: Do not approve the temporary use of the football pitches at Saxton Field for camping or the imposition of a temporary alcohol ban.

Advantages

·    No additional work for staff at Saxton Field

·    No risk of damage to land or facilities

·    Less stress on local infrastructure during peak tourist season

·    No need for a temporary alcohol ban onsite

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Alternative campsite(s) would need to be identified and approvals sought

·    Would slow contract renegotiation

·    Negative publicity from expectant ticket holders on social media etc.

·    Use of facilities at Saxton not increased

·      Reputational damage with event promoters/organisers

·      If alternate campsites cannot be identified, incentives to freedom camp would increase

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1       The Bay Dreams South festival campground at Saxton Field in 2019 was a success, and it is recommended that Council supports the return of the festival in 2020 by permitting the event to utilise the same area for camping at Saxton Field and by implementing a temporary alcohol ban on Saxton Field during the period the campground is in place.

8.       Next Steps

8.1       As noted in the earlier report R10252, community engagement with nearby residents and businesses surrounding Saxton Field will take place later in the year, in similar fashion to the lead-up to the 2020 festival.

 

Author:           Axel de Maupeou, Team Leader Events

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2203993 2019 Bay Dreams South Campground Layout at Saxton Field

Attachment 2:    A2203994 2020 Bay Dreams South Campground Layout for Saxton Field

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The decision facilitates the delivery of an event that supports the economic prosperity and creative identity of the city with a view to that event becoming an established annual event.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision is consistent with previous Council decisions about this matter and aligns with the following community outcomes: 

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

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

3.   Risk

 Risk of nuisance, disorder, damage to Council facilities and private property. Reputational risk to Council if this occurs.

The risks of nuisance, disorder and damage are being managed through consents, licences, agreements with the organiser, detailed event management plans, cooperation with Police and emergency services, and monitoring by Council staff.

4.   Financial impact

Negotiations are ongoing to recover costs through venue hire and associated fees. Bay Dreams South is required to lodge a bond and to hold insurance.

Economic benefits to Nelson from the 2019 event are still in the process of being quantified, but are expected to be considerable for this and future events of this scale. 

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because it may negatively affect users of Saxton Field and ratepayers/residents who live close by. Engagement with affected residents and business owners is planned to take place once the contract with Bay Dreams is in place and closer to the time of the event. It is not considered that engagement is required prior to this decision as Council has a good understanding of the potential impacts on affected residents and businesses from the last event. There may be other consultation processes required for other specific decisions, for example any temporary road closures.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7.   Delegations

This is a matter for Council as it relates to Section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

 


Item 12: Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


Item 12: Approval for Use of Saxton Field for Bay Dreams South 2020: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Naming Policy Review Options

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10142

Naming Policy Review Options

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the review of its Naming Policy and advise on options for responding to that review.

 

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Naming Policy Review Options (R10142) and its attachments (A306318 and A2227857); and

2.     Agrees that officers draft a new Naming Policy for Council approval.

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1       Council currently uses the Naming of Reserves and Other Features Policy and draft Road Naming Guidelines for the selection of names for roads and reserves. These have been in place for over ten years. Currently there is no policy on the naming of Council facilities except where sale of naming rights are involved. 

3.2       In 2016 Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō queried Council’s consultation process when naming new roads and requested an opportunity to have input to new applications.  At this time Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō was being notified about proposed names prior to their adoption by the Marlborough District Council and was interested in seeing if a similar process could be introduced in Nelson.

3.3       As a result a Council workshop was held in July 2017 to discuss some of the issues within the policy/guidelines, including the iwi request for greater involvement. At that workshop it was agreed that staff would report back to Council on options, including the benefits of a policy versus guidelines and the level of consultation each would require. Other priorities have meant this work has not been able to be advanced earlier but with the new policy resource recently recruited there has been capacity to make progress.

3.4       In the last twelve months, the Hearings Panel-Other has approved four naming applications.

4.       Discussion

4.1       Names provide residents of, and visitors to, the Nelson district with insights into its history, culture and identity. As such, place naming (such as for roads, reserves and/or buildings) can play a key role in creating social spaces and attributing meaning to a city. A clear naming policy or procedure is an effective mechanism to achieve this.

Review of Current Policy

4.2       Officers have completed a review of Council’s current naming policy/guidelines and options for improvement. In undertaking the review officers have sought early feedback from local iwi on the issues with current policy/guidelines and their preferred approach. Officers have also reviewed the approach of other territorial authorities in New Zealand.

            Naming of Reserves and Other Features Policy 2004 (A2227857)

4.3       The current policy was approved by Council in 2004 but has never been reviewed. The Policy sets out how Council will name reserves and reserve assets.

4.4       In 2016, Council received several suggestions from the public regarding potential names for assets. In response, a ‘name bank’ was created to store public requests. The name bank is referenced when considering names for reserves or other features.

4.5       The current Policy provides criteria for consideration when naming which are sympathetic to issues of equity and is low cost to implement as it provides a streamlined process for decisions. However, it provides no guidance on iwi engagement. The Policy also does not refer to the Reserves Act 1977 which requires Council to gazette a name prior to its adoption (s.16(10)). Furthermore, officers consider that the Policy could be improved by incorporating a clear process to explain how naming requests from the public (held in the name bank) are to be considered alongside other options.

Draft Road Naming Guidelines (A306318)

4.6       Council is responsible for naming (and renaming) roads within its boundaries as defined by section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 which provides;

to name and to alter the name of any road and to place on any building or erection on or abutting on any road a plate bearing the name of the road.

4.7       The draft Road Naming Guidelines have been developed over time, through discussions relating to road naming including those by the Hearings Panel – Other, however they have never been approved by Council. The draft Guidelines cover issues such as legislative authority, naming of private ways and roads, street and property numbering, road signage, criteria and procedures.

4.8       The current guidelines provide a streamlined low cost process, which is effective for developers when submitting names for selection, for staff when processing naming applications, and for the Hearings Panel - Other when making decisions.

4.9       However, the process to ensure that naming reflects the district’s history, culture and/or diverse interests of its residents is unclear. Under the current approach, the option for name selection and responsibility for liaising with iwi or other interest groups sits with the developer.  In practice, a developer’s interests can influence the name selection, and where Māori names are selected, there is no evidence that iwi are regularly consulted. Officers also consider improvements could be made to deliver equal treatment and equal reflection of those in the district, as represented through Nelson’s history, culture and diversity.

Iwi feedback

4.10     Iwi have signalled a desire to have more input into naming and have provided feedback on their preferences following a presentation to the Iwi Leaders Forum on 1 March 2019. In summary, iwi have requested:

·    Increased visibility of Māori, Māori history and te reo Māori

·    Representation on the Hearings Panel-Other

·    Council being proactive in understanding the significance of local sites to iwi

·    Correction of street and place names as found in the relevant Treaty Settlement claims

4.11     Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust believes that the right for Māori to be consulted on naming is clearly set out in section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991. This is the section on matters of national importance which states:

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:…….

(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga

4.12     In respect of Council responsibilities, officers note that naming decisions are primarily made under the Local Government Act 2002. This Act imposes obligations on Council to facilitate participation by Māori in local authority decision making. This includes taking into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga when making significant decisions about land or a body of water (s.77).

4.13     Iwi have asked that officers work with them to develop an agreed process for ongoing engagement on naming of roads, reserves and new Council facilities, and the Local Government Act provisions noted above support this request. Iwi have also asked that their engagement in the new naming process be remunerated. This would be something for Council to consider as part of the work of developing a new approach.

Other Councils

4.14     Officers have completed a desktop review of other councils’ naming policies and have found that approximately 40% of New Zealand councils have policies in this area. The majority of these are for road naming with some councils choosing to have separate policies for reserve naming and facilities or to have one combined overarching policy on naming.

4.15     More recent policies tend to have specific criteria (in some cases these are also weighted) to enable naming that reflects significant local content or meaning across domains like local history or geography and flora and fauna. Some policies provide a process for consultation with iwi prior to naming decisions.

5.       Options for responding to the review of the policy

5.1       As a result of the review, Council could choose to retain and adopt its current Reserve Naming Policy and draft Road Naming Guidelines (without change), or develop an alternative set of naming guidelines/procedures, or draft a new Policy. It could make that decision now, or it could decide to first carry out further engagement or consultation with stakeholders.

5.2       Options, including the advantages and disadvantages of a policy versus guidelines, are set out below:

 

 

 

Option 1: Adopt a new Naming Policy.

The new Policy would consolidate naming for roads, reserves, Council facilities and other features.

Advantages

·  Naming protocols could be consolidated into one  policy document which would provide greater certainty for applicants and the wider community

·  The content of the draft Road Naming Guidelines and Naming of Reserves and Other Features Policy could be updated to reflect legislative requirements and current best practice

·  More guidance could be introduced to ensure naming decisions provide a balanced representation of the district’s identity and act to strengthen Nelson’s sense of place

·  A process for consultation on naming with local iwi, and other stakeholders, could be developed which recognises their interests in the district

·  Stakeholders could be engaged on their views through a public consultation process

Risks and Disadvantages

·  Would involve a community consultation process

·  May be unpopular with developers if naming procedures resulted in them having less influence over the final decision

·  Likely to require additional processes for consultation on naming proposals and therefore higher ongoing costs to administer the final policy

·  May create difficulties for the Hearing Panel-Other if different community sectors support different naming approaches

·   Requires a greater amount of officer time to develop than procedures

Option 2: Develop a new set of naming guidelines/procedures.

Guidelines would provide best practice procedures for officers when making recommendations on the naming of roads, reserves, new facilities and /or other features. 

Advantages

·   Could provide flexible best practice guidance on naming across different naming domains

·   The procedures could be developed in consultation with key stakeholder groups without requiring the resources of a public consultation process

·   A procedure for consultation on naming with local iwi could be developed which recognises their interests in the district

Risks and Disadvantages

·   May be unpopular with developers if naming procedures resulted in them having less influence over the final decision

·   Less transparent as public consultation would not be undertaken

·   May result in additional processes for engagement on naming proposals and therefore higher ongoing costs to administer

·   May create difficulties for the Hearing Panel-Other if different community sectors support different naming options

·   Is more likely to result in inconsistencies for Council and developers

·    Requires a greater amount of officer time to develop than status quo

Option 3: Maintain Status Quo.

Retain the two separate policies /guidelines without change.

Advantages

·  No further work for officers

·  Easier for developers

Risks and Disadvantages

·  Naming decisions continue to be made across the district using current processes

·  Local iwi would not have the opportunity to be further consulted on this matter

·  Naming of Council facilities continues to be considered on a case by case basis

 

Consultation requirements

5.3       The level of consultation recommended for each option is noted in the table below.

Option

Consultation process

Option 1: Adopt a new Naming Policy

Engagement with iwi, and other stakeholders, on processes for feedback on naming options

Public consultation on draft Policy

Option 2: Develop a new set of naming guidelines /procedures

 

May, or may not, involve engagement with iwi and other stakeholders, on processes for feedback on naming options

Public consultation on procedures not required

Option 3: Maintain Status Quo

 

No further consultation required

5.4       Officers recommend that whether a policy or new procedure is the preferred option that public consultation is undertaken. Although this issue will be of low interest to the wider community there are still a number of groups and individuals interested in Nelson’s heritage that are likely to want input. Officers suggest that direct contact be made with stakeholders inviting written feedback and that this is supplemented by some general advertising of the opportunity via Our Nelson and the website.

6.       Conclusion

6.1       Council has asked officers to report back on policy/guidance options for naming and the level of consultation each would require.

6.2       Officers recommend option one, approval of a new Naming Policy.

7.       Next Steps

7.1       If Council decides to approve a new consolidated Policy officers will bring the draft back to Council for approval, including the process for public consultation. This would involve the following steps:

·   Engagement with iwi, and other stakeholders including developers, on  process

·   Draft Policy to Council for approval for public consultation

·   Public consultation (proposed to be without hearings)

·   Draft Policy to Council for approval

 

Author:           Gabrielle Thorpe, Policy Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2227857- Naming of Reserves and Other Features Policy (2004)

Attachment 2:    A306318 - Draft Road Naming Guidelines (2018)

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Council has responsibility for naming roads under the Local Government Act 1974, and the authority to name reserves under the Reserves Act 1977.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the following community outcomes:

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

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

3.   Risk

There is a risk in developing a new Policy that developers or other stakeholders, might not support the proposed changes. If Council decided an alternative action, such as to continue the status quo, there is a risk of damage to iwi-Council relations.

4.   Financial impact

Development of a new Policy is expected to incur staff and consultation costs, however these are proposed to be met through existing budgets.  Iwi have requested remuneration to participate in the new approach and this would be for Council to consider when a draft Policy is prepared. The new approach would also require increased staff time on an ongoing basis.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to most members of the public however would be of medium significance to some members, developers and iwi. Therefore consultation is recommended.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Officers have sought early feedback from the Iwi Leader’s Forum in preparation of this report.

7.   Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has the delegation to consider matters relating to naming features within the city. However, as no delegation for development or review of the Policy fits into Committee delegations, this matter is being brought to Council.

 

 

 


Item 13: Naming Policy Review Options: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 13: Naming Policy Review Options: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 14: Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve

 

Council

8 August 2019

 

 

REPORT R10247

Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To consider the recommendations from the Brook Reserve Hearings Panel (Hearings Panel) following hearing of submissions and deliberations on the proposed change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve. 

2.       Summary

2.1       Council has previously adopted in principle the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan (draft RMP). In 2018 Council resolved to proceed with notifying a road stopping process in order to incorporate the road in the Brook Reserve. Hearings were held in November 2018, and this report provides recommendations from the Hearings Panel. The February 2019 fires have delayed presentation of this report.  

 

2.2       The next step is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Hearings Panel.  

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve (R10247) and its attachments (A1903135, A2230208 and A2237459); and

2.      Declares the stopped road land as marked purple on Attachment 1 (A1903135) of report (R10247) to  vest as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977, to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve; and

3.      Approves the change in specified purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve as marked green on Attachment 1 (A1903135) of report (R10247) to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve under section 24A of the Reserves Act 1977; and

4.      Delegates the authority to the Chief Executive to take the steps necessary to prepare and place notices in the Gazette in order to vest the stopped road land as reserve and change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose Reserve; and

5.      Delegates the authority to the Chief Executive to take the steps necessary to complete the road stopping process under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 and amalgamate the reserve.

 

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       On 24 November 2014, the Council gave public notice under section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) and under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) of its intention to prepare a management plan for the area known as the Brook Recreation Reserve.  The need for a management plan was in response to the mix of land status and suggestions from the public for alternative uses for the Reserve.  This area included land held by the Council under the RA as Recreation Reserve, fee simple land vested in Council and legal road.  The area of land (albeit now with changed status under the RA) is shown in purple and green on Attachment 1 (A1903135) to this report. 

4.2       Following a period of “pre-consultation”, on 11 June 2015, the Council gave public notice of the draft Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan and called for submissions. 

4.3       At that time Council proposed to classify the land as Recreation Reserve, but following hearing submissions decided that Local Purpose Reserve would better fit the intended uses of the land.  In October 2015 Council adopted the draft RMP in principle on the basis of the proposal that all of the land would be classified as Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve and that it would commence the separate statutory processes to enable this to occur.

4.4       The Council then carried out public notification and hearing processes on its intention to:

4.4.1    Change the classification of the Recreation Reserve land to Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve under s24 RA

4.4.2    Declare the fee simple land to be Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve under s14 RA

4.4.3    Stop the road under s342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 74 noting the intention to amalgamate the land with the adjoining Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve.

4.5       These statutory processes all included public notification and hearing of submissions by a Hearings Panel.

4.6       The Brook Valley Community Group (BVCG) submitted that it had not been adequately consulted on the proposed change in classification of land from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose Reserve and objected to the road stopping. 

4.7       On 10 November 2016, Council resolved to seek further feedback on the proposed change of classification, including providing further information to the community on rationale and implications.  Council also decided to reject BVCG’s objection to the road stopping proposal resulting in it being referred to the Environment Court. 

4.8       Following consideration of the further feedback at a meeting on 23 March 2017 Council resolved to proceed with the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification.

4.9       Meanwhile, BVCG’s objection to the road stopping was resolved by Court assisted mediation.  On 30 November 2017 the Environment Court confirmed Council’s decision to stop the road, subject to Council resolving to declare the stopped road land reserve to be amalgamated into the Brook Recreation Reserve.

4.10     The Council had previously received comments from a submitter that the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification was potentially ultra vires the RA.  This confirmed some of the earlier concerns that staff had and the Council took legal advice on the matter.   Subsequently, the Council decided on 9 August 2019 to initiate the process to change the specified local purpose of the local purpose reserve to address the potential vires issue.  The Council decided to change the specified local purpose at the same time as the process to convert the stopped road land to reserve, so that the two processes could be run in tandem.

4.11     Therefore, on 9 August 2018 Council decided to publicly notify the intention to:

4.11.1  change the specified local purpose of the local purpose reserve land from “Recreation” to “Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education” under s24A of the RA; and

4.11.2  declare the stopped road land to be reserve to be held for this same specified local purpose under section 14 RA, to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve.

4.12     At the Council meeting on 9 August 2018 a Hearings Panel and Terms of Reference were approved for the hearing of submissions on these two processes.

4.13     The Hearings Panel met on 1 November 2018 to hear, and on 27 November 2018 to deliberate on, objections and submissions.  Delays to preparing this report arose as a result of the February 2019 fires and work on the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

4.14     The Chair’s Report (attachment 2 A2230208) contains the Hearings Panel recommendation that the Council:

4.14.1  Approves the change in specified local purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) under s24A of the RA; and

4.14.2  Declares the stopped road land to vest as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977 to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve.

4.15     Council now needs to consider the Hearing Panel’s recommendations. 

5.       Discussion

5.1       The Hearings Panel was in agreement on both the proposed change in specific purpose and for Council to proceed to vest and amalgamate the stopped road into the Reserve. 

5.2       The proposed change in specific purpose was unanimously supported as the Hearings Panel agreed that the change was more legally robust and is aligned with the vision contained in the draft RMP.

5.3       Vesting and amalgamating the stopped road into the Reserve was also unanimously supported as this would enable more effective and efficient management of the Reserve and would enable Council to meet the condition set by the Environment Court for the road stopping process.

5.4       The Chair of the Hearings Panel noted that many submitters were not against the proposals and that many of the objections raised were out of scope of the Hearings Panel’s terms of reference.  A summary of the views of submitters is outlined in the Chair’s report.

5.5       The Chair noted that there are a number of key values that would be supported through approving the proposed changes, including continued access for the public to the Reserve for a range of activities.

Alternative suggestions for the classification of the Reserve. 

5.6       The officers’ report (attachment 3 A2237459) to the Deliberations Meeting discussed the alternative suggestions for the classification of the Reserve arising from submissions. These alternatives are outlined below, along with the officers’ comments in italics. 

5.7       One submitter requested that the land “revert back” to Recreation Reserve, the classification of some of the land before it was changed to Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve.

Less than 1/3 of the land was previously classified as Recreation Reserve, the balance was freehold land and legal road.

5.8       Another suggestion was that the land that was previously classified as Recreation Reserve “remain classified” as such, and that the balance of the land be classified as proposed, Local Purpose (Outdoor leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education).

The Council is not able to consider alternative primary classifications for the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve land as part of this process under section 24A of the Reserves Act 1977.  Section 24A only allows the Council to change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose Reserve.

The Council may be able to consider an alternative primary classification, such as Recreation Reserve, for the vesting of the stopped road land as part of this process under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977.

The main advantage of a divided classification appears to be that it would meet some of the wishes of some members of the public who submitted. However, this would complicate the integrated management of the Reserve.  The Council would also be unable to amalgamate the Recreation Reserve into the adjoining Local Purpose Reserve raising questions about meeting the condition of the Environment Court for the road stopping. There would be ongoing complications for future decision making processes, as all decisions would need to be examined under both types of reserve classification and their restrictions.  There could be implications if activities straddled boundaries of the different reserve classifications.

6.       Options

6.1       Option 1 is recommended

 

Option 1:
i) Change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve; and

ii) Declare the stopped road land to be Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve.

Advantages

·   Meets the condition of the Environment Court and enables Council to finalise the road stopping and amalgamate this land into the adjoining reserve.

·   Enables Council to address the legal risk associated with the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification.

·   Enables Council to consider the next steps for the draft RMP. 

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Possible risk of legal challenge if any of the submitters disagree with the Council’s decision or decision making process.

Option 2:
 Agree to one of the alternatives classifications suggested by submitters as outlined in paragraph 5.6 to 5.8 above.

Advantages

·    Partly meets the requests of some submitters.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Complicates integrated management of the Reserve

·    May hinder the implementation the vision for the Reserve contained in the draft RMP

·    Risk that condition of the Environment Court is not met and road stopping cannot be completed.

·    No lawful basis for changing local purpose reserve to recreation reserve as part of this s24A RA process

·    Possible risk of legal challenge by other submitters who do not support recreation reserve status for any of this land.

Option 3: Do nothing at all

 

Advantages

·   No further work would be undertaken.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Does not meet the condition of the Environment Court and prevents completion of the road stopping process.

·   Ongoing legal risk associated with the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification.

·   Council unlikely to progress the final approval of the management and development plans and therefore Council will be unable to achieve the objective of integrated and appropriate management of the Reserve.

 

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1       Following consideration of the Hearings Panels Chair’s report Council now needs to decide on the proposed change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve so as to amalgamate it into the adjoining reserve. 

8.       Next Steps

 

8.1       If the Council resolves to declare the stopped road as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve, then the Environment Court’s condition is satisfied. Council can then proceed to complete the road stopping under the Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 and amalgamate the land into the adjoining reserve.

8.2       If the decision is made to change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Camping, Conservation and Education) Reserve then Council can place a notice in the Gazette and the change will take effect.

8.3   A report on next steps for the draft RMP is included in the public excluded section of this agenda.  Author:              Mark Tregurtha, Manager Strategy

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1903135 Brook Reserve Map

Attachment 2:    Brook Recreation Reserve - Chair's Report 20 July 2019 (A2230208)

Attachment 3:    Brook Reserve Hearings Panel Report 27 November 2018 Report Number R9723 (A2237459)

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Approval of the Road Stopping and Classification processes will enable Council to consider the next steps for the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan, and then the Development Plan for the Reserve.  These processes contribute towards Council providing good-quality local public services.   

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the Community Outcomes of “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected” and “Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities”.

3.   Risk

 Consultation has been carried out to determine the community’s views on the proposals. There is a risk that the recommendations and decision making process are not supported by some stakeholders or objectors. This might result in legal action. This risk can be partly mitigated through explaining to submitters why the recommendations were made.  There is also a legal risk if the current classification of Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve remains as this classification may be ultra vires to the Reserves Act 1977.

4.   Financial impact

There are no significant financial impacts from this part of the process. 

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to most members of the public. 

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken for this report.  

7.   Delegations

8.4       The amalgamation of the road within the Reserve and approval of the classification of the Reserve are decisions for Council.

 

 

 


Item 14: Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


Item 14: Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 14: Brook Reserve - change of specific local purpose and declaring stopped road to be reserve: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator