Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Infrastructure Committee

20 February 2020

Page No.

Karakia Tīmatanga

1. Apologies

1.1 An apology has been received from Her Worship the Mayor for early departure

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 Nelsust - Default Footpath Design

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 21 November 2019 6 - 13

Document number M4139

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 21 November 2019, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report 14 - 15

Document number R14808

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the Chairperson's Report (R14808).

7. Waste Disposal Landfill Levy: Submission to Ministry for the Environment 16 - 33

Document number R13706

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Waste Disposal Landfill Levy: Submission to Ministry for the Environment (R13706) and its attachment (A2336149); and

2. Approves retrospectively the Nelson City Council submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the Waste Disposal Levy (A2336149 - Attachment one of Report R13706).

8. Residents Only Carpark permit fees 34 - 41

Document number R13763

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Residents Only Carpark permit fees (R13763); and

2. Defers any decision on adjusting fees for Residents Only Carpark permits until further work on modal shift, including a Parking Strategy review, is carried out in the 2020/21 financial year subject to approval in the 2020/21 Annual Plan for this work; and

3. Approves a moratorium on issuing any new Resident Only Carpark permits until the Parking Review Strategy is undertaken.

9. Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 31 December 2019 42 - 99

Document number R13740

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 31 December 2019 (R13740) and its attachments (A2336640 and A2336638).

CONFIDENTIAL Business

10. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

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	Infrastructure Committee Meeting – Confidential Minutes - 21 November 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)(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)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Infrastructure Committee Meeting – Confidential Minutes - 21 November 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)(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)

Karakia Whakamutunga

Works and Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 21 November 2019

Minutes of a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee

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

On Thursday 21 November 2019, commencing at 9.01a.m.

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Chairperson), G Noonan, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor Reese, Councillor Fulton and Councillor Rainey (all on Council business)

1. Apologies

Resolved IC/2019/001

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship the Mayor Reese, Councillor Fulton and Councillor Rainey for absence on Council business.

Sanson/Skinner Carried

Councillor Rainey subsequently attended the confidential section of the meeting.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Chairperson's Report

Document number R13600, agenda pages 8 - 10 refer.

The Chairperson spoke to his report, highlighting the issues facing the committee in the triennium.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved IC/2019/002

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R13600).

Edgar/Noonan Carried

Resolved IC/2019/003

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Appoints the following Elected Member to a liaison role as follows:

Organisation/Group

Liaison

Accessibility for All

Mel Courtney

Noonan/Lawrey Carried

6. Council submission on Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Guidelines

Document number R10441, agenda pages 11 - 26 refer.

Resolved IC/2019/004

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the Report Council submission on Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Guidelines
(R10441) and its attachment (A2276930); and

2. Approves retrospectively the submission signed by both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council to the Ministry for the Environment (A2276930 - Attachment one of report R10441).

Sanson/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

7. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) 2020/21 Business Plan

Document number R11477, agenda pages 27 - 46 refer.

NTRLBU Acting General Manager, Don Clifford, and NCC Accountant, Andrew Bishop, answered questions regarding timeframes of deliverables.

Discussion took place regarding alignment of the NTRLBU Terms of Reference (TOR) and the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, noted that these two reference documents were not in total alignment. He noted that the upcoming review of the Activity Management Plans (AMPs) would present the opportunity to reflect what was approved in the Business Plan.

Further discussion took place regarding the Business Plan.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis advised that he would formally write to the NTRLBU Acting General Manager asking for the Committee’s comments to be included in the NTRLBU 2021/21 Business Plan, including:

· more details of the studies required for the Long Term Capital Programmes; and

· addition of when the Hazardous Activities and Industries List review would be undertaken.

Resolved IC/2019/005

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (R11477) and its attachment (A2279731); and

2. Provides comments back to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Acting General Manager on the draft 2020/21 Business Plan (A2279731).

Edgar/Courtney Carried

8. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) 2020/21 Business Plan

Document number R11478, agenda pages 47 - 72 refer.

NRSBU Acting General Manager, Don Clifford, and NCC Accountant, Andrew Bishop, answered questions regarding timing of the review of the AMPs and possible changes to the business plan as a result of resource consent conditions that might be imposed as part of the Bell Island resource consent renewal, currently underway.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, noted that he would formally write to the NRSBU Acting General Manager, requesting specifics of when the Business Improvement Plan was to due to commence.

Resolved IC/2019/006

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (R11478) and its attachment (A2279695); and

2. Provides comments back to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Acting General Manager on the draft Nelson Regional Sewerage 2020/21 Business Plan (A2279695).

Noonan/Edgar Carried

9. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2018/19

Document number R11481, agenda pages 73 - 110 refer.

NRSBU Acting General Manager, Don Clifford, and NCC Accountant, Andrew Bishop, were present for this item. Mr Clifford noted that the key message was that operating and maintenance costs were higher than budgeted, but capital spending was down.

Resolved IC/2019/007

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2018/19 (R11481) and its attachment (A2279751); and

2. Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2018/19 (A2279751).

Sanson/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

10. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2018/19

Document number R11482, agenda pages 111 - 135 refer.

NRSBU Acting General Manager, Don Clifford, and NCC Accountant, Andrew Bishop, answered questions relating to the Annual Report.

Resolved IC/2019/008

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2018/19 (R11482) and its attachment (A2279829); and

2. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2018/19 (A2279829).

Edgar/Courtney Carried

11. Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019

Document number R12536, agenda pages 136 - 203 refer.

A replacement agenda page 143, Opex expenditure for Infrastructure Quarter 1, (A2304702) was tabled. Manager Capital Projects, Lois Plum, Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, and Manager Utilities, David Light, were present for this item. Ms Plum advised of Infrastructure highlights. Questions were answered regarding the recommendations to Council for unbudgeted funding and its impacts. The reasons for requested additional funding rather than making reallocations within existing activities were clarified.

It was requested that future Quarterly Reports where additional funding was to be requested include the decision-making considerations, typically at the end of the report.

Further questions were answered regarding matters covered in the report and for clarification, the figure of $590,000 for the Awatea Pump Station was added to clause 2 of the motion.

Clarification was also added to clause 2 of the recommendation to Council that the additional funding of $700,000 in 2019/20 and $2,100,000 in 2020/21 meant an additional $1,800,000 from what was in the Long-Term Plan.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved IC/2019/009
	*That the Infrastructure Committee* *1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019 (R12536) and its attachments (A2291554, A2274684 and A2288750); and* 2. Notes an anticipated deferral of budget for Awatea Pump Station Upgrade of $590,000 in the 2019/20 Financial Year.
Noonan/Edgar Carried
Attachments 1 A2304702 - Opex Expenditure Infrastructure Q1 (replacement agenda page 143)
Recommendation to Council IC/2019/010
	*That the Council* *1. Approves the additional funding of $420,000 for St Vincent Sewer Renewal in the 2019/20 Financial Year; and* 2. Approves the funding of $700,000 in 2019/20 and $2,100,000 (an additional $1.8M from the Long Term Plan) in 2020/21 to complete the Saxton Creek Upgrade between Champion Road and Main Road Stoke; and 3. Approves the additional funding of $89,000 in 2019/20 to complete the Railway Reserve Underpass, noting that the culvert underpass has been ordered.
Sanson/Skinner Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 10.37a.m. and reconvened at 10.54a.m.

12. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved IC/2019/011

That the Infrastructure Committee

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

4. 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:

Edgar/O'Neill-Stevens 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	Recycling - The Way Forward	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Recycling - The Way Forward

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

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

· 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 confidential session at 10.55a.m. and resumed in public session at 12.59p.m.

Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

CONFIDENTIAL: Recycling - The Way Forward

That the Infrastructure Committee

8. Agrees that the decisions (IC/2019/012) be made publicly available following the release of the related Council decisions.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.59p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Waste Disposal Landfill Levy: Submission to Ministry for the Environment

Infrastructure Committee

20 February 2020

REPORT R13706

Waste Disposal Landfill Levy: Submission to Ministry for the Environment

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To retrospectively approve the Nelson City Council’s submission to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on the Waste Disposal Landfill Levy consultation document.

2. Summary

2.1 The Government opened consultation on Waste Disposal Landfill Levy on 27 November 2019 with submissions closing on 3 February 2020.

2.2 A pro forma submission in consultation with the Infrastructure Chair was prepared and submitted on behalf of Nelson City Council. Officers worked closely with staff from Tasman Council (TDC) in preparing a submission in light of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP). Each Council will submit separately. Retrospective approval of the submission is required from this Committee.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Waste Disposal Landfill Levy: Submission to Ministry for the Environment (R13706) and its attachment (A2336149); and

2. Approves retrospectively the Nelson City Council submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the Waste Disposal Levy (A2336149 - Attachment one of Report R13706).

4. Background

4.1 The waste disposal levy charged by Central Government is currently $10 per tonne (excluding GST) on all waste sent to landfill. The levy was introduced under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Disposal facility operators must pay the levy based on the weight of material disposed of at their facility. However they may pass this cost on to the waste producer such as households and businesses. Currently the levy applies only to any waste that is disposed of at a waste disposal facility as defined under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, which is essentially only municipal landfills.

4.2 The purpose of the levy was to encourage New Zealanders to take responsibility for the waste they produced and to find more effective and efficient ways to reduce, reuse, recycle or reprocess waste. It also creates funding opportunities for waste minimisation initiatives.

4.3 Half of the money levied goes to territorial authorities (city and district councils) on a pro rata population basis to spend on promoting or achieving the waste minimisation activities set out in their waste management and minimisation plans (WMMPs). The remaining levy money (minus administration costs) is put into the national Waste Minimisation Fund which is used for waste minimisation activities in New Zealand.

4.4 Nelson City Council (NCC) and Tasman District Council (TDC) share a Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (JWMMP). The Councils strongly agree that the total waste disposed to landfill in New Zealand needs to reduce. The Councils’ JWMMP, adopted in September 2019 states: “Our ambition is to eliminate unnecessary waste to landfill and our target is to reduce waste to landfill by 10% per person by 2030.”

4.5 While the Councils agree that waste to landfill needs to reduce, it is noted that that reducing waste to landfill is not the sole indicator of waste minimisation, and should not be an end in itself. The Councils consider that there needs to be a strong focus on waste avoidance rather than a single focus on reduced waste to landfill. This is illustrated in the goals in the Council’s JWMMP which are to:

• avoid the creation of waste

• improve the efficiency of resource use

• reduce the harmful effects of waste.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Government is proposing to increase the landfill levy and apply it to more types of waste. The consultation document which can be accessed at https://www.mfe.govt.nz/consultations/landfill-levy has been released and seeks feedback on proposals to:

· increase the levy for municipal landfills (those that take household waste); and

· apply the levy to all types of landfill except cleanfills (accepting only virgin excavated natural materials) and farm dumps; and

· apply the levy at different rates for different landfill types, to reflect different environmental and social costs of disposal, and different opportunities for recovery of different materials; and

· collect better waste data.

5.2 Full discussion is contained in the submission (Attachment 1). In summary, Council:

· Supports a proposed 2023 increase in levy of $50 per tonne for municipal landfills, and a widening of the levy to other classes of landfill;

· Strongly supports Central Government taking a more active role in progressing Product Stewardship, and encourages its instigation at the earliest opportunity;

· Strongly supports and encourages the increase in the disposal levy to be used to provide national and regional solutions for waste diversion;

· Strongly supports the inclusion of industrial monofills, construction and demolition fills, and contaminated soil fill sites in the levy programme;

· Supports for exemption from the levy for cleanfills, but considers it is essential for the Ministry to complete a stocktake and implement mandatory reporting for these facilities at no additional cost or resources from local authorities;

· Agrees that waste data in New Zealand needs significant improvement and strongly support the proposed data collection improvements.

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented to the Committee to either retrospectively support the submission or not to support the submission. Officers recommend Option one.

Option 1: Retrospectively approve the pro-forma submission on Waste Disposal Landfill Levy to the MfE
Advantages	· Signals support for changes to the Waste Disposal Landfill Levy. · Supports vision and goals of JWMMP
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Do not retrospectively approve the pro-forma submission on Waste Disposal Landfill Levy to the MfE
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Lack of clear position statement on Waste Disposal Landfill Levy proposals if submission withdrawn

7. Next Steps

7.1 MfE will prepare a report that summarises submissions and will then make recommendations to the Minister.

7.2 If Cabinet approves the policy proposals they will take effect in phases from mid-2020 or mid-2021 (depending on which option is chosen).

7.3 By July 2023 all new levy rates are proposed to be in place.

7.4 The Joint Regional landfill is aware of the proposed changes and will consider implications to the Business Plan following any decisions.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2336149 Waste Levy Submission from Nelson City Council ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The submission is aligned with the purpose of Local Government in enabling “democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities” as it reflects the consulted on JWMMP supporting waste minimisation. The longer term increased waste levy may also contribute to economic well-being, through supporting Council’s and the community’s cost of waste minimisation activity.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the following Nelson City Council Community Outcomes – “Our unique environment is healthy and protected”; “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”; “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient” and “Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”.

3. Risk

Not providing feedback on the Government proposal risks perception that Council is uninterested and/or that the final approved proposal will not have considered Council’s view.

These proposals have potential to improve the reduction and management of waste in our region.

By not supporting these proposals there is a risk that without a clear position, Council will not be best placed to engage on the development of waste levy programmes.

4. Financial impact

The proposed changes to the waste disposal levy are not anticipated to create additional direct costs to Council, but may result in additional funding support for waste minimisation work. There will be an increased cost to those disposing of waste with no reduction in volume.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. The Ministry for the Environment has opened engagement to all local/regional authorities. The submission supports the goals and aspiration of the JWMMP which was widely consulted on before adoption in September 2019.

6. Climate Impact

By reducing waste to landfill and subsequently reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increased landfill levy should improve environmental well-being.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider

Areas of Responsibility:

· Solid Waste management, including transfer stations and waste minimisation

· Regional Landfill

· Recycling

Delegations:

· The committee has all of the responsibilities, powers, functions and duties of Council in relation to governance matters within its areas of responsibility, except where they have been retained by Council, or have been referred to other committees, subcommittees or subordinate decision-making bodies.

· The exercise of Council’s responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes (but is not limited to):

· Approving submissions to external bodies or organisations, and on legislation and regulatory proposals.

Item 8: Residents Only Carpark permit fees

Infrastructure Committee

20 February 2020

REPORT R13763

Residents Only Carpark permit fees

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider an adjustment in fees for Residents Only Carpark permits for the 2020/2021 financial year.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Residents Only Carpark permit fees (R13763); and

3. Approves a moratorium on issuing any new Resident Only Carpark permits until the Parking Review Strategy is undertaken.

3. Background

3.1 During the Hearings Panel (Other) committee meeting held on 3 December 2019 and the Annual Plan workshop on 4 December 2019, officers were asked by Councillors to reconsider the fees applying to Resident Only Carpark permits. Comment from Councillors suggested the current scheme is out of step with Council’s desire to achieve modal shift.

3.2 The Resident Only Carpark permit scheme is designed to ensure that residents with significant parking constraints are able to park near to their properties. These constraints relate to properties located outside the Central Business district (CBD), where there is an on-street parking shortage and where formed off-street parking cannot be provided. In order to be eligible for a Resident Only Carpark Permit an applicant must have no off street parking nor the potential to create off street parking. There are currently 31 residential car park permits issued in Nelson City.

3.3 Currently there is no application fee for a Residents Only Carpark permit and hence no recovery of staff time costs for assessing and preparing the report to the Hearings Panel (Other) for consideration. If an application is successful a $350 fee applies, set five years ago to cover the cost of installing a permitted park (signage and line marking.) There is a $20 fee for annual renewal which covers some administration costs. These fees have not been reviewed in a number of years.

3.4 Under the existing Council Policy the resident only carpark is not available for general use – i.e. it is exclusively for those with Residents Only Carpark permits. There is no annual “rental” fee for the public space the permit relates to.

4. Discussion

4.1 Intensification is increasing demand for on-street parking across the city. The increase in the number of requests for Resident Only Carpark permits, which are approved by the Hearing panel (Other) Committee, has been noted and a refresh of the fees charged has been called for.

4.2 A change in eligibility criteria, or what a permit entitles residents to, is outside of the scope of this report, but refreshing the fees for any permit to recover costs is appropriate. A Modal Shift Strategy review is planned in the coming year which will explore future options for the overall scheme.

4.3 Officers have conducted a review of other Councils’ policies and practices when compiling this report and examples of fees from other Councils are provided below for information. Permits at other Councils do not provide a guaranteed park outside the applicant’s residence as the Nelson scheme currently does, nor do they reflect costs of dedicated signage and line marking.

Council	Annual fee
Christchurch City	$54
Wellington City	$195
Dunedin City	$205
Auckland City	$75
Marlborough District	Marlborough does not operate a scheme
Tasman District	TDC does not operate a scheme

4.4 Valuation advice - Preliminary investigation with registered valuers has provided the following broad information as the basis of which some fees could be set.

Zone		Weekly rental (plus GST)	Annual rental based on mid-point (plus GST)
Commercial car parking	CBD – inside ring road	$30-$40	$1,800
	Fringe CBD – outside ring road	$23- $30	$1,380
	Fringe Commercial	$18-$23	$1,070
Industrial Carparking	CBD and Port Nelson	$12-$15	$700
Residential (assuming 24 hour use as per current policy)	Outer CBD ring	$10	$520
	Inner CBD ring	$18	$940

4.5 Officers consider that some change to the existing fees charged for Resident Only Carpark permits is appropriate and propose consideration of a fee structure as outlined below. Based on existing numbers of permits this adjustment would fully recover installation costs and generate around $15,500 new income for Council.

Description	Current 19-20 fees & charges	Possible 2020-21 fees & charges
Initial application fee to cover admin/ processing and report writing. (Non-refundable if application does not progress)	Nil	$50
Installation costs (if successful) - Covers costs of line marking, signage install and reinstatement	$350	$1,000
Annual renewal fee Covers ongoing maintenance for renewal and “rent” for exclusive use of public space	$20	$500

5. Options

5.1 There are two decisions to be made:

5.1.1 To adjust fees or not adjust fees; and

5.1.2 When and how to adjust fees.

5.2 Each of the options is discussed below with their own recommendation.

6. Decision One – to adjust fees or not adjust fees

6.1 Officers support Option 2 - an adjustment in fees and charges.

Option 1: No adjustment in fees
Advantages	· No pushback from existing permit holders
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continued demand for Residents Only carparks will continue to be requested at a price that does not reflect exclusive use · Additional demand on rates
Option 2: Adjustment in fees
Advantages	· Recovery of costs from the private user will reduce cost to general ratepayer
Risks and Disadvantages	· Risk of pushback from existing permit holders who have not faced any significant cost for a dedicated on-street park for some time

7. Decision two – When and how to adjust fees

7.1 There are two options to consider

7.1.1 Option 1 - Agree an intent to adjust fees and consult on this matter with feedback to be reported back to a future committee meeting.

7.1.2 Option 2 - Defer any adjustment in fees decision and consultation until the Modal Shift Strategy review is carried out potentially in 2020/21 (subject to funding approval in the 2020/21 Annual Plan) and in the interim place a moratorium on issuing of new Resident Only Carpark permits until this work is completed.

7.2 Officers recommend Option 2 as it will avoid confusion and duplicated consultation if the proposed Parking Strategy review changes the criteria and the mechanism by which the Resident Only Carpark permit scheme operates.

Option 1: Approve consultation on proposed fees and report back to a future committee.
Advantages	· Provides for a communication plan to be developed that explains the rationale for fee adjustments in keeping with Council focus on Central City intensification and modal shift
Risks and Disadvantages	· Risk of push back from existing permit owners who have not faced any significant cost for a dedicated on street park for some time · Parking Strategy not yet done which may influence Council direction in this matter
Option 2: Defer any adjustment in fees decision and consultation until the Parking Strategy review to be carried out in the 2020-21 year, and place a moratorium on issuing of new resident parking only permits until this work is completed.
Advantages	· No additional installation costs to be borne by the general ratepayer · Allows for a complete review of the scheme that better reflects Councils desire of central city intensification and modal shift
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continued use of existing Resident Only carparks at a price that does not reflect exclusive use and is met by the general ratepayer

8. Conclusion

8.1 At the request of Council, officers have investigated changes to fees for Residents Only Carpark permits for the 2020/2021 financial year.

8.2 Investigation has shown that the Nelson scheme differs from other local authorities around New Zealand and that Nelson is not recovering its expenses in this matter.

8.3 However, rather than alter fees now, officers are of the view that a full review of the scheme is warranted and recommend that any review should be carried out as part of the Parking Strategy work next year, and that until this is done that no new permits are issued in the interim.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Fees and charges enables Council to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Approving fees and charges enables Council to carry out activity that is aligned with the community outcome “our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

3. Risk

The Resident Only car parking permit fees have not been reviewed for several years. If some adjustment is not approved at some point, the income generated from fees and charges may not cover actual costs incurred and result in a financial shortfall.

4. Financial impact

Any adjusted fees for Resident Only Carparks is not included in Council’s 2020/21 Annual Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matter of adjusted fees is overall of low significance for Council, but potentially of high significance for those with current Resident Only Carpark permits. Any proposed adjustment in fees may not be received well and targeted consultation is recommended.

6. Climate Impact

Increasing cost for car parking can influence travel behaviour that could have a positive impact on climate change and encourage modal shift.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

Areas of Responsibility:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

· Transport network, including, roading network and associated structures, walkways, cycleways and shared pathways, footpaths and road reserve, street lighting, traffic management control and parking.

Delegations:

Item 9: Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 31 December 2019

Infrastructure Committee

20 February 2020

REPORT R13740

Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 31 December 2019

1. Purpose of Report

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

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report to 31 December 2019 (R13740) and its attachments (A2336640 and A2336638).

3. Background

3.1 Quarterly reports on performance are being provided to each Committee on the performance and delivery of projects and activities within their areas of responsibility.

3.2 The financial reporting focuses on the year to date performance (1 July 2019 to 31 December 2019) compared with the year-to-date (YTD) approved capital and operating budgets.

3.3 Unless otherwise indicated, all information is against approved operating budget, which is the 2019/20 annual budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the Committee or Council.

3.4 More detailed project status reports are included (attachments) for the 34 projects that fall under the Infrastructure Committee. These have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2019/20, are multi-year projects with a budget over $1 Million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

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

4. Tenders Awarded

4.1 Tenders awarded under delegated authority in this quarter are listed below:

Project Name	Awarded to	Tender Price
St Vincent St Sewer Renewal	Tasman Civil Ltd	$617,366
Annesbrook Drive Watermain Renewal Stage Two	Nelmac	$645,456
Supply & installation of Princes Drive/Railway reserve underpass	Alpha Precast Ltd	$187,846
Parking Meter Replacement	Integrated Technology Solutions (ITS)	$716,000
Tahunanui Pathways Parkers Road to Beach Road	Downer	$1,477,048

5. Financial Results

Profit and Loss by Activity

Notes

· The “Total Operating Budget” differs from the “Total Annual Plan Budget” in that it includes carry forwards and reallocations made after the final approval of the Annual Plan.

· Base Expenditure is expenditure that happens year after year, for example yearly contracts or operating expenses.

· Programmed Expenditure is planned work, or there is a specific programme of works. For example, painting a building.

· Unprogrammed Expenditure is reactive or unplanned in nature, for example responding to a weather event. Budgets are included as provisions for these expenses which are unknown.

Operating Revenue (excluding rates)

Operating Expenditure (excluding internal interest)

Terms used

Ahead/behind – this indicates that the variance is due to timing, or that it is not yet known whether the variance will continue for the full year. This should be clarified in the commentary.

Over/under – this indicates that a budget has been overspent or underspent, and that it is likely there is an actual cost saving or overrun. This should be made clear by the commentary.

5.1 Staff Costs

Staff costs are overall behind budget by $326,000 across Infrastructure, including operating staff expenditure ahead of budget by $48,000 and capital staff expenditure behind by $374,000. Staff costs include all expenditure relating directly to the employment of staff, as well as some overheads which are allocated to cost centres on the same basis as staff time.

5.2 Transport

Subsidised Roading income is less than budget by $165,000. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) income is behind budget by $166,000 and is driven by expenditure. Subsidised Roading expenditure is less than budget by $310,000. Various expenditure codes are behind budget, notably street light power ($51,000), pre-seal repairs ($63,000), road marking ($122,000) and sealed pavement maintenance ($212,000). These budgets are on track to be spent for the full year.

Unsubsidised Roading expenditure is less than budget by $477,000. Champion Road Roundabout grant expenditure is behind budget by $235,000, the grant is now not planned until 2020/21 and at a reduced amount ($150,000). Depreciation is under budget by $100,000.

Parking Regulation income is less than budget by $51,000. Fees received to date are 16% lower than 2018/19, and are currently on track to be under budget by $115,000 for the full year.

Public Transport income is less than budget by $42,000. NZTA income is behind budget by $31,000 and is driven by expenditure. The income budget has not been phased in line with the expenditure. Public Transport expenditure is greater than budget by $33,000. Expenditure for the bus service is $146,000 ahead of budget, this relates to the additional costs of providing public transportation services, including allowances for driver rests and meal breaks. This additional expenditure has had additional subsidy approval by the (NZTA) however delays in moving to the gross contract may require an additional request to the NZTA to be made to assist covering additional expenditure.

5.3 Solid Waste

Waste Minimisation income is less than budget by $53,000. Waste minimisation income is driven by expenditure which is less than budget by $51,000. Areas where expenditure is behind budget relate to subsidies which are disbursed over the year and some developing initiatives such as the coffee cup rental scheme. A construction and demolition waste reduction programme will result in budget being fully spent.

5.4 Utilities

Wastewater expenditure is greater than budget by $57,000. Wastewater reticulation reactive maintenance is over budget by $112,000 due to the cost of reactive works, including Paru Paru pump failures, Nile Street gravity system blockages, and the Atawhai Rising Main leak in September. Officers have identified approximately $57,000 of this reactive work that can be capitalised, however there is a risk this reactive budget will be overspent for the full year. Insurance expenditure is behind budget by $91,000 due to timing. Nelson North Wastewater Treatment Plant base expenditure is $51,000 over budget due to increased costs for monitoring the pond health. Inflow and infiltration reduction programme costs are ahead of budget by $27,000 due to timing. Depreciation is under budget by $50,000.

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) expenditure is less than budget by $180,000. This is a timing variance relating to Council’s share of NRSBU costs.

Stormwater expenditure is less than budget by $196,000. Stormwater reticulation reactive maintenance costs are behind budget by $103,000 due to timing (works are predominately completed during the summer months). Insurance is behind budget by $42,000 due to timing. Depreciation is under budget by $35,000.

Flood Protection expenditure is less than budget by $97,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $48,000. Open Channel Programmed and Reactive Flood Protection Maintenance are behind budget by $41,000 due to timing (works are predominately completed during the summer months).

Capital Expenditure (including capital staff time, excluding vested assets)

6. Commentary on Capital Projects

6.1 All capital projects with a budget greater than $250,000 in this financial year have a project sheet in Attachment 1 of this report. Further details regarding the projects below can be found in Attachment 1.

Project Delays to 19/20 Capital Delivery Programme and Key Changes to the 2020/21 Annual Plan

6.2 Orphanage Stream bunding between Saxton Road East and Suffolk Road (a flood mitigation project following the extreme 2013 rainfall event) has been delayed into 2020/21 and 2021/22 to enable a review of the proposed location of the stop bank wall and a delay with landowner negotiations at Suffolk Road. These delays will result in the 2019/20 project forecast reducing from $823,000 to $200,000. Officers have requested approximately $500,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

6.3 Seafield Terrace Road Reinstatement is delayed due to complexities with the resource consent. Construction scheduled for 2019/20 has been delayed by a year and is now anticipated to be constructed in 2020/21. This delay will result in the 2019/20 project forecast reducing from $1,330,000 to $135,000. Officers will be requesting approximately $1,200,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

6.4 Wakatu Drive (Storage World) Stormwater Upgrade is delayed. Officers are undertaking work to confirm secondary flow paths for the whole industrial estate. This investigation is planned for this current year, with detail design and construction being completed in 2020/21 and 2021/22. This delay will result in the 2019/20 project forecast reducing from $600,000 to $70,000. Officers will be requesting a budget of approximately $80,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

6.5 As reported in the previous Quarterly Report to Infrastructure Committee, the Awatea Pump Station Upgrade has a projected spend of $517,000 this year versus a budget of $1,107,000. Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is reduced from $3,655,000 to $1,000,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan as construction will be delayed due to negotiations and issues that need to be address in the detail design stage. Officers also note that the current total project forecast is approximately $1,200,000 over the LTP budget ($8,250,000 versus $7,067,000). The increase in cost is due to complexities with the ground conditions and additional project scope to increase wastewater storage capacity at the Beach Road Pump Station. This additional funding will be sought in a separate report to Committee/Council.

6.6 The Gracefield Sewer Diversion project is tracking one year ahead of programme. Construction is now anticipated to be completed in late 2020, ahead of the original programme of June 2022. Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is increased from $565,000 to $1,670,000.

6.7 Following a condition assessment at the North Nelson Wastewater Treatment Plant (NWWTP), the renewal of key assets have been identified with a need to be bring some work forward ahead of the renewals programme. Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is increased from $156,000 to $306,000 to address this. The renewals budget for the NWWTP will be reduced in future years to accommodate this request.

6.8 Neale Park Pump Station, following the major upgrade, has been operational for some months, however there has been an underlying odour issue that has not been able to be resolved by the actions taken to date. An additional $160,000 is required to resolve this issue and has been requested through the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

6.9 The Wastney Terrace Stormwater Upgrade has previously experienced significant delays due to numerous landowner negotiations. At present these negotiations are progressing well. Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is reduced from $835,000 to $50,000 pending resolution of these agreements. The budget for 2020/21 allows for the finalisation of these agreements and the resource consent, with construction planned for 2021/22.

6.10 The Saxton Creek Upgrade (Main Road Stoke to Sea) has experienced several delays due to landowner negotiations. Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is reduced from $3,950,000 to $300,000. The budget for 2020/21 allows for the finalisation of these agreements, detail design and resource consent, with construction planned for 2021/22 onwards.

6.11 Since the approval of the 2018 Long Term Plan, several project budgets are projecting an increase following the completion of indicative business cases. The key projects that will be requesting additional money via the 2020/21 Annual Plan are summarised below.

Project	2020/21 LTP Budget	2020/21 Proposed Annual Plan Budget
Anzac Park to Maitai Walkway Link	$261,120	$820,000
Arapiki Road Upgrade – Retaining Wall	$313,344	$731,000
Mount St / Konini St Stormwater Upgrade	$773,437	$1,220,000
Wastewater Model Calibration	$0	$400,000

6.12 The Tahunanui Cycleway Project Stage 2 is progressing ahead of programme and is expected to be completed in August 2020. This project was originally programmed to be completed in June 2021.

6.13 The Washington Valley Stormwater Upgrade (previously referred to as Montcalm/Arrow/Wash Valley/ Hasting Stormwater) is running behind programme and is also expected to come in greater than the LTP budget. The project is delayed due to the inclusion of wastewater and water upgrades, which had not originally been included within the original scope of the project. Due to this delay, Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is reduced from $1,130,000 to $119,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Officers also note that the current total project forecast is approximately $3,000,000 over the LTP budget ($6,305,000 versus $3,080,000). The key reason for this anticipated increase is construction market, project complexities and increased contingency. This additional budget will be considered as part of the 2021 LTP.

6.14 The Rutherford Street Stormwater Upgrade (Little Go Stream) is running behind programme and is also expected to come in greater than the LTP budget. The project had historically been delayed to enable a detailed investigation of options for the proposed route and completion of easement agreements. Due to this delay, Officers will be requesting the 2020/21 budget is reduced from $1,044,000 to $100,000 via the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Officers also note that the current total project forecast is approximately $1,600,000 over the LTP budget ($4,460,000 versus $2,870,000). The key reason for this anticipated increase is construction market, traffic management complexities and increased contingency. This additional budget will be considered as part of the 2021 LTP.

7. Status Report Update

7.1 Sand Bags

To inform a future Infrastructure report, work continues to investigate what policy and practice other New Zealand Councils have in this area. Advice is being taken from Civil Defence. In addition, messaging about sandbags in general for Council communication will be improved (how they work, where to get them, how to install/dispose of).

7.2 Nelson Tasman Joint Regional Landfill (NTRLBU)

The Committee has requested further work on the matter regarding receiving material from Hazardous Activities and Industries List sites. This is on the NTRLBU General Manager’s work programme and he is working towards gathering the necessary information to present back to the NTRLBU Board and then back to the Committee.

7.3 Hampden Terrace/Waimea Road Intersection Closure

An officer report will come to the Infrastructure Committee, within six months of the commencement of the trial closure which has been in place since 6 October 2019. An update letter and email has been sent out to all in the affected area and the project is now profiled on Shape Nelson for the purposes of gathering ongoing feedback and providing information updates.

8. Commentary on operational projects

8.1 There is a detailed status report for one operational project included in the attachments. This project has been selected for quarterly reporting as it has been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

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

9. Other notable achievements, issues or matters of interest

9.1 Risks

The ongoing key risk for the Capital Projects team relates to achieving delivery of the capital programme. Projects at risk are those that require land negotiations, resource consents, CIA’s and the unknown market fluctuations during tendering, this can and does result in an inability to attract tenderers, increased costs requiring further funding, and construction unable to start at the expected time, resulting in projects having to be re-phased into a different financial year.

9.2 2021 Activity Management Plans

The Utilities and Transportation teams have begun the development of the 2021 Activity Management Plans (AMPs). Additional external resources are required to assist with the development of the AMPs due to officer’s high workload and involvement with cross council work including the Nelson Plan, housing developments and responding to various National Policy Statements by central government.

The costs for the external resources are unaccounted and poses a risk to the operational expenditure budgets within the transportation, water, wastewater, stormwater & flood protection activities. A further update on this risk will be included in third quarterly report.

9.3 Lindavia Intermedia Detected in the Maitai Dam

Council staff recently found a low-density population of non-toxic Lindavia intermedia in the Maitai Dam and have a monitoring programme in place to watch for changes. Officers are unable to ascertain how this algae entered the Maitai Dam.

Lindavia is a non-toxic nuisance algae. It will not affect the quality of the Councils drinking water supply, but does have the potential, if it blooms, to affect infrastructure.

Staff are confident at this stage that it will have minimal impact on the water treatment plant infrastructure and that it will have no effect on the Council’s ability to continue to supply A grade potable water to the city. Council officers will continue to monitor the situation.

10. Key Performance Measures

10.1 As part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP) Council approved levels of service, performance measures and targets for each activity. There are 35 performance measures that fall under the Infrastructure Committee. The final results for each performance measure will be reported on through the Annual Report.

· On track

· Not on track

· Achieved

· Not achieved

10.2 Attachment 3 lists all performance measures within the Infrastructure Committee delegations, their status and commentary for the quarter.

10.3 Thirty one out of the 35 performance measures can be confirmed as being on track.

10.4 One performance measure is not on track. This performance measure relates to growth in public transport patronage. During the second quarter patronage has dropped slightly on all but one route resulting in a net growth year to date of 2.1% which is below the 4% year on year growth target.

10.5 Three performance measure have not been measured due to timing and insufficient data.

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

Author: Lois Plum, Manager Capital Projects

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2336640 - One Page Reports ⇩

Attachment 2: A2336638 - Performance Measures ⇩