Nelson City Council Minutes - 17
December 2020
Present: Her
Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney,
J Edgar (Deputy Mayor), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G
Noonan, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner
In
Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group
Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Acting Group Manager Environmental Management
(M Bishop), Acting Group Manager Community Services (M Preston-Thomas), Group
Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and
Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance
Adviser (E-J Ruthven), and Youth Councillors (W Irvine and B Robinson)
Apologies : Nil
Karakia Timatanga
A karakia timatanga was given.
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
Attendance: Councillors Lawrey and Skinner
joined the meeting at 9.03a.m.
2. Confirmation
of Order of Business
Her Worship
the Mayor advised that items of business may be taken out of order to
accommodate external presenters.
She added that
there was one minor late item and one major late item for the meeting, and the
following procedural resolution needed to be passed for the major late item to
be considered:
2.1 Elected
Members' Remuneration (Item 16)
|
Resolved CL/2020/191
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Considers the item regarding
Elected Members’ Remuneration at this meeting as a major item not on
the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried
|
3. Interests
There were no updates to the
Interests Register.
Councillor Bowater noted an
interest in agenda item 6.5.2.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Arnaud
Wylie - Natural Rights
|
Arnaud
Wylie spoke about the importance of natural rights as part of New
Zealand’s constitutional framework, and a project he had underway to
introduce natural rights into the New Zealand education curriculum.
Mr Wylie
provided, via PowerPoint presentation, a link to the project website, tabled
a document, and answered questions.
|
|
|
Attachments
1 A2543941 - Arnaud
Wylie - Power Point Presentation
2 A2544277 - Arnaud
Wylie - Tabled document
|
4.2 5G-Free Nelson -
Reference to 5G technology but primarily on the accountability and the
responsibilities of public servants
|
Joe Rifici
and Sue Grey, on behalf of 5G-Free Nelson, spoke about elected members’
responsibilities. They noted that elected members should be
well-informed regarding issues of importance to the Nelson community, and
should listen to community concerns regarding issues affecting community
health and wellbeing.
Mr Rifici
and Ms Grey suggested legal action could be taken against elected members if
Council did not act to prevent 5G technology being installed in Nelson.
Mr Rifici
and Ms Grey presented a petition regarding 5G technology in Nelson. Her
Worship the Mayor received the petition, with a caveat that Standing Orders
15.1 and 15.2, relating to the presentation of petitions, had not been met in
this instance.
|
|
|
Attachments
1 A2552710 -
Petition cover page - please note that a full copy of the petition is
available on request
|
5. Confirmation
of Minutes
5.1 22 October 2020
|
Document
number M15210
|
|
It was
noted that, in the division table on page 20 of the agenda, the reference to
Councillor Brand in the ‘abstained’ column should be corrected to
Councillor Sanson.
Attendance:
Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 9.33a.m.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/192
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Confirms the amended minutes
of the meeting of the Council, held on 22 October 2020, as a true and correct
record.
|
|
Courtney/Edgar Carried
|
5.2 5 November 2020
|
Document number
M15240
|
|
It was
requested that the resolution concluding on page 34 of the agenda be recorded
as having been ‘carried unanimously’.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/193
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Confirms the amended minutes
of the meeting of the Council, held on 5 November 2020, as a true and correct
record.
|
|
Courtney/Edgar Carried
|
5.3 12
November 2020
Document number M15261, agenda
pages 35 - 44 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2020/194
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Confirms the minutes of the
meeting of the Council, held on 12 November 2020, as a true and correct
record.
|
|
Courtney/Edgar Carried
|
6. Recommendations
from Committees
6.1 Infrastructure
Committee - 19 November 2020
6.1.1 Infrastructure
Quarterly Report
|
Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the
meeting at 9.35a.m.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/195
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves
additional unbudgeted capital funding of $320,000 for the Saxton Creek
upgrade (Stage 3C) to allow the works between Champion Road and Main Road
Stoke to be completed, noting that unbudgeted offsetting income of $113,000
was received from external parties in 2019/20.
|
|
McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens Carried
|
6.2 Forestry
Subcommittee - 1 December 2020
6.2.1 Draft
2021-31 Forestry Activity Management Plan
|
Chair of the Forestry Subcommittee, John Murray, and Group
Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, joined the meeting.
Mr Louverdis explained the amendments to the Draft
Forestry Activity Management Plan (FAMP) that were made at the Forestry
Subcommittee meeting on 1 December 2020:
· The FAMP goal
was amended to:
“The
Goal of the Forestry Activity in relation to its production forests are to
manage its forest estate on a sustainable basis and to maximise net present
value and to implement best practice forest industry standards while
protecting environmental and recreational values”
· The FAMP
introduction section had been expanded to clarify Council’s decision to
retire approximately 25% of its commercial forestry following the Catalyst
Group Report.
Mr Murray and Mr Louverdis answered questions regarding
the interpretation of words used in the goal statement, and the financial
summary.
Point of Order: Councillor Skinner raised a point of order
against Councillor Sanson under Standing Order 24.2(b), that disrespectful
language had been used. The point of order was upheld.
The meeting was adjourned from 9.42a.m. to 9.44a.m.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/196
|
|
|
That the
Council
1. Approves the amended Draft
Forestry Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A2072414) as the version to inform
the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and
2. Notes that the amended Draft
Forestry Activity Management Plan 2021-31 will be updated and, the final
Activity Management Plan approved, after the adoption of the Long Term Plan
2021-2031.
|
|
Skinner/Fulton Carried
|
|
A division was called:
|
|
For
Her Worship the Mayor
(Chairperson)
Cr Bowater
Cr Brand
Cr Courtney
Cr Edgar
Cr Fulton
Cr McGurk
Cr Noonan
Cr Skinner
|
Against
Cr Lawrey
Cr O'Neill-Stevens
Cr Rainey
Cr Sanson
|
Abstained/Interest
|
The motion was carried 9 - 4.
|
|
6.3 Environment
and Climate Committee - 1 December 2020
6.3.1 National
Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates
from the Nelson Resource Management Plan
|
Resolved CL/2020/197
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Agrees that the Nelson Resource Management Plan requirements for minimum
on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment criteria, policies or
objectives that have the effect of setting minimum parking rates, be treated
as removed from the Nelson Resource Management Plan as from 1 January 2021
including consequential amendments in accordance with s.55 of the Resource
Management Act.
2. Delegates
to the Chair of the Environment and Climate Committee and the Group Manager
Environmental Management, authority to approve the consequential amendments
to the Nelson Resource Management Plan that flow from the removal of
requirements for minimum on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment
criteria, policies or objectives that have the effect of setting minimum
parking rates, in accordance with s.55 of the Resource Management Act and to
make those amendments as the Nelson Resource Management Plan work programme
permits.
|
|
Fulton/McGurk Carried
|
6.4 Audit, Risk and Finance
Subcommittee - 2 December 2020
6.4.1 Policy
Review: Procurement Policy
|
Manager Business Improvement, Arlene Akhlaq, answered
questions regarding timing for the Chief Executive’s approval for
exceptions to the maximum contract term of 10 years, and the ability of new
suppliers to have an opportunity to supply services to Council.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/198
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves the amended
Nelson City Council Procurement Policy (A2348654), effective from 1 February
2021.
|
|
Edgar/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move
to consider item 8, Nelson Tasman Business Trust Presentation of Annual
Report 2020.
|
7. Nelson
Tasman Business Trust Presentation of Annual Report 2020 (agenda item 8)
Document number R22542, agenda
pages 58 - 64 refer.
|
Sarah Holmes, Nelson Tasman
Business Trust (NTBT) Manager, and Nigel Teal, NTBT Board Member, gave a
Power Point presentation (A2545272) regarding NTBT’s activities
throughout the year, and its future plans.
Ms Holmes and Mr Teal answered
questions on NTBT’s relationship with the Nelson Regional Development
Agency and the Chamber of Commerce, post-COVID-19 trends, and feedback from
mentors and mentees who were involved during the COVID-19 lockdown and
subsequent recovery period.
|
|
Attachments
1 A2545272 -
PowerPoint Presentation
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move to consider item 9,
Nelson Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2019/20.
|
8. Nelson
Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2019/20 (agenda item 9)
|
Document
number R21462, agenda pages 65 - 110 refer.
|
|
Nelson Regional Development
Agency (NRDA) Board Chair, Sarah-Jane Weir, and NRDA Chief Executive, Mark
Rawson, joined the meeting.
They outlined the achievements
of the NRDA both prior to COVID-19 and since, and outlined the NRDA’s
future focus on young people and creating a medium-term strategic plan to
bridge the gap between Project Kōkiri and the Te Tau Ihu
Intergenerational Strategy.
Ms Weir and Mr Rawson answered
questions regarding the impact of the COVID-19 wage subsidy, potential
economic difficulties the region may face in the next few years, and
sustainability reporting.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/199
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Receives
the report Nelson Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2019/20 (R21462) and its attachment (A2440411).
|
|
Edgar/Skinner Carried
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move to consider item
11, Annual Report 2019/20.
|
9. Annual Report
2019/20 (agenda item 11)
|
Document
number R21496, agenda pages 124 - 140 refer.
|
|
Manager Strategy, Mark
Tregurtha, and Manager Finance, Clare Knox, presented the report and tabled a
designed copy of the Annual Report (A2545372) and the unmodified Audit
opinion (A2545083).
Auditor, John Mackey, joined
the meeting via audio-visual link.
Mr Tregurtha, Ms Knox and Mr
Mackey, along with Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, answered
questions regarding the three paragraphs of emphasis in the unqualified audit
opinion, and the reasons for which forestry revenue was recorded in the
Annual Report ‘other gains/losses’ section.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/200
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives the report Annual
Report 2019/20 (R21496) and its attachments (A2544810 and A2545083); and
2. Adopts the
Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 (A2544810) in accordance with s98 of the Local Government Act 2002; and
3. Receives the
draft Audit New Zealand Opinion (A2545083); and
4. Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive authority to approve minor
editorial changes to the Annual Report 2019/20 (A2544810), as necessary.
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried
|
|
Attachments
1 A2545372 - Tabled
document - Annual Report
2 A2545083 - Tabled
document - Unmodified Audit Opinion
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would
return to consider the remainder of item 6, Recommendations from Committees.
|
10. Recommendations
from Committees (agenda item 6, cont.)
10.1 Community and Recreation
Committee - 10 December 2020 (agenda item 6.5)
10.1.1 Sport
Tasman - Loan Agreement (agenda item 6.5.1)
|
Resolved CL/2020/201
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves the cancellation of Sport
Tasman’s future commercial lease obligations for Sports House, with
effect from 1 July 2021, noting that a loan was never formally documented;
and
2. Agrees to charge a community rent
of $5,600 per annum from 1 July 2021, noting that Council has provided Sport
Tasman rent relief through to 30 June 2021.
|
|
Skinner/Bowater Carried
|
10.1.2 Request
for Assistance from the Nelson Giants for Trafalgar Centre Hireage (agenda item
6.5.2)
|
Attendance: Councillor Bowater had previously declared an
interest, and left the table at 11.24a.m.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/202
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves
unbudgeted expenditure of $25,101 to provide a reduced rate of $35,000 for
the Nelson Giants’ use of Trafalgar Centre between April and July 2021.
|
|
Skinner/Brand Carried
|
|
Attendance: Councillor Bowater returned to the table
at 11.25a.m.
|
10.1.3 Recommendations
from the Greenmeadows Hearings Panel: proposed classification of Greenmeadows
(agenda item 6.5.3)
|
Resolved CL/2020/203
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves, in accordance with
section 16(1) of the Reserves Act, the classification of part of Greenmeadows
(being part of Record of Title NL114/188) as shaded orange in Attachment 1
(A2097295) as Local Purpose (Community Purposes) Reserve under s23 of the
Reserves Act 1977; and
2. Approves, in accordance with
section 16(1) of the Reserves Act, the classification of part of
Greenmeadows (being part of Record of Title NL114/188) as shaded red in
Attachment 1 (A2097295) as Local Purpose (Road) Reserve under s23 of the
Reserves Act 1977; and
3. Delegates to the Chief
Executive authority to:
(a) prepare and approve a survey plan
that defines the land classified in accordance with this report (R22506) and
the 13 December 2018 report R9565;
(b) prepare and place notices in the
New Zealand Gazette that record the classifications of the land in accordance
with this report (R22506) and report R9565; and
(c) attend
to registration of the published Gazette Notices against the Records of Title
for the classified land.
|
|
Skinner/Lawrey Carried
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move
to consider agenda item 10, Events Strategy Implementation Update.
|
11. Events Strategy Implementation
Update (agenda item 10)
Document number R22510, agenda
pages 111 - 123 refer.
|
Manager Strategy, Mark
Tregurtha, presented the report.
It was noted a workshop on
this topic would be scheduled in early 2021 to assist with preparation for
the Long Term Plan 2021-31.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/204
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives
the report Events Strategy Implementation Update (R22510) and its attachment
(A2507829); and
2. Requests
that a workshop be held to provide further feedback.
|
|
Fulton/Edgar Carried
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move
to consider agenda item 12, Significance and Engagement Policy.
|
12. Significance
and Engagement Policy
Document number R20322, agenda
pages 141 - 155 refer.
|
Manager Strategy, Mark
Tregurtha, and Policy Adviser, Gareth Power Gordon, presented the
report. They explained that the officer recommendation had been amended
to clarify that Council’s attention had been turned to the consultation
process.
Mr Power Gordon explained that
the opening sentence of section 8.1 of the Significance and Engagement Policy
had been amended from “To meet its Treaty obligations, The Crown has
extended requirements to local government…” to “Although
the Treaty is between Māori and the Crown, the Crown has made certain
requirements of local government in order to meet its Treaty obligations…”.
Mr Tregurtha and Mr Power
Gordon answered questions regarding the wording of the eighth bullet point “the
impact on Council’s financial capacity and capability” in
section 3.2 of the Policy.
During debate, it was agreed
that the wording of the seventh bullet point in section 3.2 of the Policy
should be re-worded to “Is there a past history of the issue
generating wide public interest within the region or is there a reasonable
expectation that it would generate this interest now”.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/205
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives
the report Significance and Engagement Policy (R20322) and its attachment (A2467030); and
2. Agrees that the proposed amendments are minor changes which
clarify existing Council engagement processes; and
3. Agrees that
consultation on the proposed amendments is not required because Council is
sufficiently informed about community interests and preferences to enable to
purpose of the policy to be achieved; and
4. Adopts the amended
Significance and Engagement Policy (A2467030).
|
|
Noonan/Edgar Carried
|
13. Upper Trafalgar Street Budget
Request
Document number R22516, agenda
pages 156 - 177 refer.
|
City Centre Development
Programme Lead, Alan Gray, presented the report.
Mr Gray answered questions
regarding:
· Changes in
budget and design resulting from safety concerns, civil-related works and
being a bespoke project to draw people into the city centre;
· Additional
projects within the Streets for People budget to be delivered this financial
year;
· Details of the
proposed lighting for Upper Trafalgar Street, and how this would be cohesive
with future streetscape improvements in other parts of the city centre; and
· Engagement with
businesses in the upper Trafalgar area regarding the project.
Point of Order: Councillor
Rainey raised a point of order against Councillor Skinner, that under
Standing Order 24.2(d), officers’ words had been misrepresented.
The Point of Order was upheld.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/206
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives the report Upper
Trafalgar Street Budget Request (R22516) and its attachment(A2534984); and
2. Approves
the use of $261,000 from the 2020/21 Streets for People capital budget to
complete the Upper Trafalgar Street multi-function pole project.
|
|
Edgar/Fulton Carried
|
14. Draft Amendments to Rates
Remissions Policy and Financial Impact Statement
Document number R20275, agenda
pages 178 - 201 refer.
|
Group Manager Corporate
Services, Nikki Harrison, and Manager Accounting Services, Victoria Harper,
presented the report.
Ms Harrison and Ms Harper,
along with Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Popenhagen, answered
questions regarding:
· the proposed
criteria for rates remission for provision of social and kaumatua housing,
and
· The criteria and
pool available for rates remission for heritage buildings.
The meeting was adjourned from
12.08p.m. to 12.11p.m.
A suggestion was made that an
additional clause be added to the recommendation, to request an officer
report regarding various regulatory options and rating solutions in relation
to whole house Air BnB-type accommodation providers.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/207
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report Draft
Amendments to Rates Remissions Policy and Financial Impact Statement (R20275)
and its attachment (A2463444); and
2. Approves
changes in the Rates Remission Policy (A2463444) including changes to the
following sections:
· Community,
Sporting and Other Groups Remission
· Charges
For Excess Water Arising From Leaks Remission
· Low
Valued Properties Remission
· Land
Affected By Natural Calamity Remission; and
3. Agrees that the remission
changes be consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long Term Plan
2021-31; and
4. Approves
changes in the Rates Remission Policy (A2463444) including new remissions
for:
· Other
Remissions Deemed Fair and Equitable
· Social
and Community Housing Remission; and
5. Agrees that the new
remissions be consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long Term
Plan 2021-31; and
6. Approves the change to the
issuing of the rates instalments from 1 August, 1 November, 1 February and 1
May each year, to 25 July, 25 October, 25 January and 25 April; and
7. Agrees that the change to the
issuing of the rates instalment dates be consulted within the Consultation
Document to the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and
8. Approves the removal of the
Rates Annual Payment Discount; and
9. Agrees that the removal of
the rates annual payment discount be consulted within the Consultation
Document to the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and
10. Approves the change to all rates penalties
from 10% to 5%; and
11. Agrees that the change to all rates penalty
amounts be consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long Term Plan
2021-31; and
12. Approves the removal of all water penalties
being charged for unpaid accounts; and
13. Agrees that the removal of water penalties be
consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and
14. Approves the change to the water payment dates
for invoices billed in July, October, January and April to 20th of
the month following; and
15. Agrees that the change to the payment dates of
water payment dates be consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long
Term Plan 2021-31; and
16. Approves the 0.5% reduction of the commercial
differential to be spread across all commercial categories; and
17. Agrees that the commercial differential change
be consulted within the Consultation Document to the Long Term Plan 2021-31;
and
18. Approves the removal of the rural rating
differential category for residential zoned properties over 15ha; and
19. Agrees that the removal of the rural
rating differential change be consulted within the Consultation Document to
the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and
20. Requests officers report to Council in 2021
on various regulatory options and subsequent rating solutions for whole house
Air BnB-type accommodation providers.
|
|
Noonan/Brand Carried
|
15. Approval of the draft Revenue
and Financing Policy
Document number R20276, agenda pages
202 - 235 refer.
|
Group Manager Corporate
Services, Nikki Harrison, and Manager Finance, Clare Knox, presented the
report.
Ms Knox answered questions
regarding:
· The Polluter
Policy, including full cost recovery where the polluter is identified;
· Depreciation in
relation to the Wakapuaka Hall and the Stoke Memorial Hall;
· Whether it was
possible to make capital grants to organisations such as the Nelson Centre of
Musical Arts and the Theatre Royal;
· The
private/public funding split for public transport cost recovery;
· Whether funding
targets for flood protection included inundation from sea level rise;
· Depreciation of
Saxton Field assets aside from sporting facilities and whether this was split
across both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils; and
· Whether there
were specific funding targets for properties held for strategic purposes.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/208
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report Approval of the draft
Revenue and Financing Policy (R20276)
and its attachment (A2496998); and
2. Approves
the Revenue and Financing Policy for concurrent consultation through the Long
Term Plan 2021-31 consultation process.
|
|
Edgar/Sanson Carried
|
|
The meeting adjourned from 12.30p.m to 1.31p.m.
Her Worship the Mayor advised the meeting would move to
confidential session to consider Confidential agenda items, before returning
to consider the remaining items on the open agenda.
|
16. Exclusion of the Public
|
Her Worship
the Mayor advised that representatives from external organisations would be
in attendance for items of the confidential agenda, and consequently a
procedural amendment was required to be passed:
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/209
|
|
|
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 Paul Bell of Intepeople remain
after the public has been excluded, for Item 2 of the Confidential agenda
(Recommendations from the Chief Executive Employment Committee – 25
November 2020), as he has knowledge relating to the Chief Executive’s
employment that will assist the meeting; and
2. Confirms,
in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Jane Sheard, Nelmac CEO, Lindsay
Coll, Nelmac CFO, and Rob Gunn, Nelmac Chair, remain after the public has
been excluded, for Items 4 and 6 of the Confidential agenda (Nelmac six
monthly strategic presentation and Nelmac - Transaction Approval), as they
have knowledge relating to Nelmac that will assist the meeting; and
3. Confirms,
in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Scott McClay from Deloitte (via Zoom),
remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 7 of the Confidential
agenda (Project Akersten), as he has knowledge relating to the project that
will assist the meeting.
|
|
Edgar/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/210
|
|
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:
|
|
Edgar/Her Worship the Mayor 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 - 12
November 2020
|
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)
|
|
2
|
Recommendations from Committees
Chief
Executive Employment Committee 25 November 2020
Chief
Executive’s Performance Report 2019/20
Chief
Executive’s Remuneration Review 2020
Chief
Executive’s Draft Performance Agreement and Key Performance Indicators
for 2020/21
Strategic
Development and Property Subcommittee – 26 November 2020
Appointment
of Council Representative on the Tahuna Beach Camp Inc. Board
|
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
|
|
3
|
Nelmac six monthly strategic presentation
|
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
|
|
4
|
Nelmac Limited - Statement of Expectation 2021/22
|
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)
|
|
5
|
Nelmac - Transaction Approval
|
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
|
|
6
|
Project Akersten
|
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)(h)
To enable the local
authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities
|
|
7
|
Nelson Regional Development Agency - Appointment of
Director
|
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
|
The meeting went into confidential session at 1.31p.m.
and resumed in public session at 2.18p.m, with items three to six of the
confidential agenda yet to be completed.
The meeting was adjourned from 2.18p.m. to 2.22p.m.
Her Worship the Mayor noted that Nelmac Limited
representatives had subsequently arrived at Council, and therefore the meeting
would return to confidential session to complete items three to six of the
confidential agenda.
17. Exclusion
of the Public
|
Resolved CL/2020/218
|
|
|
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:
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney 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)
|
|
3
|
Nelmac six monthly strategic presentation
|
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
|
|
4
|
Nelmac Limited - Statement of Expectation 2021/22
|
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)
|
|
5
|
Nelmac - Transaction Approval
|
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
|
|
6
|
Project Akersten
|
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)(h)
To enable the local
authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities
|
The meeting went into confidential session at
2.23p.m. and resumed in public session at 4.10p.m.
18. Elected
Members' Remuneration (agenda item 16)
Document number R21451, late
items agenda pages 8 - 15 refer.
|
Manager Governance and Support
Services, Devorah Nicuarta-Smith, presented the report, and Analyst, James
McPhie, presented a spreadsheet of remuneration options (A2509680).
Councillors discussed the
options, and rationale for different levels of pay in each option, with a
variety of views expressed.
During discussion, option F
was added to the spreadsheet.
Councillor Skinner, seconded
by Councillor Courtney, moved:
That the Council
1. Receives the report Elected
Members' Remuneration (R21451); and
2. Approves the allocation of
Elected Member Remuneration from the Pool in accordance with the Remuneration
Authority Local Government Members (2020/2021) Determination Part 2 outlined
in Option F:
a. Deputy Mayor: $66,565
b. Senior Chair (Chair Infrastructure, Regional
Transport Committees, Deputy Chair Environment Committee (Nelson Plan Lead)):
$57,458
c. Committee Chair: $57,458
d. Subcommittee Chair: $49,500
e. Committee Deputy Chair: $45,023
f. Councillor: $44,923
The meeting was adjourned from
4.48p.m. to 4.52p.m.
Option G was added to the
spreadsheet.
With the agreement of the
meeting, the mover and seconder withdrew the motion for Option F, and
replaced it with a motion for Option E:
That the Council
1. Receives the report Elected
Members' Remuneration (R21451); and
2. Approves the allocation of
Elected Member Remuneration from the Pool in accordance with the Remuneration
Authority Local Government Members (2020/2021) Determination Part 2 outlined
in Option E:
a. Deputy Mayor: $66,665
b. Senior Chair (Chair Infrastructure,
Regional Transport Committees, Deputy Chair Environment Committee (Nelson
Plan Lead)): $57,558
c. Committee Chair: $57,558
d. Subcommittee Chair: $49,500
e. Committee Deputy Chair: $44,923
f. Councillor: $44,923
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/224
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives the report Elected
Members' Remuneration (R21451); and
2. Approves the allocation of
Elected Member Remuneration from the Pool in accordance with the Remuneration
Authority Local Government Members (2020/2021) Determination Part 2 outlined
in Option E:
a. Deputy
Mayor: $66,665
b. Senior
Chair (Chair Infrastructure, Regional Transport Committees, Deputy Chair
Environment Committee (Nelson Plan Lead)): $57,558
c. Committee
Chair: $57,558
d. Subcommittee
Chair $49,500
e. Committee
Deputy Chair: $44,923
f. Councillor: $44,923
|
|
Skinner/Courtney Carried
|
|
A division was called:
|
For
Cr Bowater
Cr Courtney
Cr Edgar
Cr Fulton
Cr Noonan
Cr Skinner
|
Against
Cr Lawrey
Cr O'Neill-Stevens
Cr McGurk
Cr Rainey
Cr Sanson
|
Abstained
Her Worship the Mayor
(Chairperson)
Cr Brand
|
The motion was passed 6 - 5.
|
|
|
Attachments
1 A2509680 -
Spreadsheet
|
19. Schedule
of Meetings 2021 (agenda item 17)
|
Document
number R18187, agenda pages 236 – 252 refer.
|
|
Team Leader Governance, Robyn
Byrne, presented the report. She tabled an overview of the proposed
meeting schedule for 2021 (A2544128) and noted the following changes:
· Changes to the
water and wastewater bylaw timeline;
· An additional
Council meeting scheduled for 17 February 2021, to include adopting the Long
Term Plan 2021-31 for Audit review;
· The 13 April
Environment and Climate Committee workshop and 15 April Environment and
Climate Committee meeting being swapped; and
· The correct
dates for the July school holidays, from 12 July to 23 July being noted.
Ms Byrne
answered questions regarding timing of the Long Term Plan workshops to be
held in January 2021, and timing of the meeting-free weeks.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/225
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report Schedule
of meetings 2021 and its attachment (A2444092); and
2. Adopts the schedule of
meetings for the 2021 calendar year as set out in Attachment 1 (A2444092).
|
|
O'Neill-Stevens/Sanson Carried
|
|
Attachments
1 A2544128 - Tabled
document - Proposed Schedule of Meetings
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would move
to consider agenda item 7, Mayor’s Report.
|
20. Mayor's
Report (agenda item 7)
Document number R21493, late
items agenda pages 4 - 7 refer.
|
Her Worship the Mayor
presented the report. She acknowledged the work of officers throughout
2020.
|
|
Resolved CL/2020/226
|
|
|
That
the Council
1. Receives
the report Mayor's Report (R21493).
|
|
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried
|
Restatements
It was resolved while the public was
excluded:
|
1
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendation
from Chief Executive Employment Committee - Chief Executive's Performance
Report 2019/20
|
|
|
That the Council
5. Agrees
that Report (R21472) and the decision remain
confidential at this time.
|
|
2
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendation
from Chief Executive Employment Committee - Chief Executive's Remuneration
Review 2020
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Maintains
the current level of the Chief Executive’s Total Remuneration package
for 2020/2021 in line with the general trend in the Local Government Sector
of 0% increases in the remuneration packages through the COVID-19 period; and
2. Agrees the decision be
made publicly available.
|
|
3
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendation
from Chief Executive Employment Committee - Chief Executive's Draft Performance
Agreement and Key Performance Indicators for 2020/21
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Approves
the Chief Executive’s Performance Agreement A2019/20 (A2524847); and
2. Agrees
that the Attachment (A2524847) and the decision be released.
|
|
4
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendation
from Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - Appointment of Council
Representative on the Tahuna Beach Camp Inc. Board
|
|
|
That the Council
1. Agrees
to appoint John Murray as Council representative on the Tahuna Beach Camp
Inc. Board for a two year term ending in October 2022; and
2. Agrees
that the role will be remunerated by Council from October 2020 until 30 June
2021; and
3. Agrees
that the role will be remunerated by Council at the same level as other Tahuna
Beach Camp Inc. Board members; and
4. Notes
that the Tahuna Beach Camp Inc. will remunerate the role from 1 July 2021;
and
5. Agrees
that the decisions and Attachment (A2231800) only be made publicly available;
and
6. Agrees
that Report (R18129) remains confidential at this time.
|
|
5
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Nelson
Regional Development Agency - Appointment of Director
|
|
|
That the Council
3. Agrees
the decision and the report only be made publicly available once the
appointment has been made public by the Nelson Regional Development Agency.
|
|
6
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Nelmac
Limited - Statement of Expectation 2021/22
|
|
|
That the Council
5. Agrees
that Report (R20287) and the decision be made publicly available once the
completed Statement of Expectation is made available on the Nelson City
Council website approximately 30 days after it is received by the Council
Controlled Trading Organisation.
|
|
7
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Nelmac -
Transaction Approval
|
|
|
That the Council
5. Agrees
that the report (R21448) and its attachment (A2534042) and the decision
remain confidential at this time.
|
|
8
|
CONFIDENTIAL: Project
Akersten
|
|
|
That the Council
8. Instructs
that this proposal (and the business case (Attachments 1 and 2)) be kept
strictly confidential until the joint content in the Consultation Document is
approved by both councils in February 2021 and notes that attachment 1
(A2534955) and attachment 2 (A2537812) will retain their commercial
confidentiality.
|
Karakia Whakamutunga
A karakia whakamutunga was
given.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.18p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 8 Options for a
Climatorium
|
|
Council
17 February 2021
|
REPORT R20301
Options
for a Climatorium
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
consider options for development of a proposed Climatorium.
2. Summary
2.1 Council
has signed a Principles of Collaboration agreement with Wakatū
Incorporation and four Danish organisations (Attachment 1). The agreement
identifies three key areas for collaboration, one of which is the exploration
of the opportunity to establish a Climatorium in Nelson.
2.2 The
Lemvig Climatorium is based on a quadruple helix model whereby representatives
of central and local government, industry, academia and the community have come
together to develop climate change adaptation solutions. Community
environmental education and ecotourism are also supported.
2.3 Wakatū
Incorporation believes that there is an opportunity to develop a Climatorium in
Nelson, potentially within the Mahitahi River Precinct. In order for this to
happen, it intends to develop a business case which will: identify
organisations that would support and contribute to its development; identify a
governance and funding model; then be used to secure capital funding. It
is recommended that Council provide support for Wakatū Incorporation’s
development of a Business Case for the project.
2.4 As
an initial step, Council could play a positive role in bringing together key
organisations to progress the concept. This would demonstrate
Council’s ongoing leadership on climate change, raise awareness of issues
(particularly as they affect economic development) and also be consistent with
the Principles of Collaboration agreement.
2.5 Wakatū
Incorporation (and partners) will lead the assessment of the options for a
location to house the Climatorium and be responsible for the development of a
business case. Wakatū Incorporation does not expect that Council will be
responsible for any capital investment in a Climatorium building.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report Options
for a Climatorium (R20301) and its attachment (A2398703); and
2. Supports Wakatū
Incorporation’s approach of developing a business case for the
development of a Climatorium; and
3. Agrees that planning for any
library redevelopment in the Mahitahi River Precinct should recognise the
potential development of a Climatorium on Wakatū Incorporation land; and
4. Agrees to work with
Wakatū Incorporation to convene a meeting with representatives from
government, industry, research institutions, and the community to explore the
opportunity for Nelson to become a centre for climate change adaptation
research and innovation.
|
4. Background
4.1 On
25 June 2020, Council agreed on a staged strategic approach to decision making
on Civic House, the Elma Turner Library and the Climatorium. This report seeks
a substantive decision on Council’s level of support for the Climatorium
in order to inform the final options for business cases for the three projects.
4.2 Iain
Sheves, Group General Manager Property and Commercial at Wakatū
Incorporation, will attend to speak to this item.
The Lemvig Climatorium
4.3 Situated
on the west coast of Denmark, Lemvig Municipality covers an area of 508 km2
and has a population of 20,000 inhabitants, 7,000 of whom live in the town
Lemvig. Lemvig municipality’s coastal location means it is directly
exposed to the effects of sea level rise. The Danish Coastal Authority is
located in Lemvig and manages the entire coastline of Denmark, a total of 7,300
kilometres.
4.4 The average height above sea level across Denmark is 31
metres and the highest natural point is 170 metres. Denmark’s
lowest point is seven metres below sea level. No location in Denmark is further
than 52 kilometres from the coast. Responding to climate change and associated
sea level rise is a priority for all tiers of government.
4.5 The
Lemvig Climatorium is one project that sits under the umbrella of a wider
Climate Change Adaptation programme called Coast to Coast Climate Challenge
(C2C CC). It is designed to be a space where the scientific community can come
together with local and regional government, the private/corporate sector and
the community (the four strands of a quadruple helix) to develop innovative
climate solutions. The Climatorium is intended to support Denmark’s role
as an exporter of climate solutions and help establish Lemvig and the Central
Denmark Region as a centre of climate change adaptation.
4.6 A
delegation from Nelson, including Her Worship the Mayor and representatives
from Wakatū Incorporation visited Lemvig in August 2018, to explore opportunities for collaboration and knowledge transfer
between Danish and New Zealand agencies, businesses and researchers in relation
to climate change solutions.
4.7 On 5 March 2020, Council agreed to sign Principles of
Collaboration (Attachment 1) that set out a commitment by the different parties
to work together on local and national climate
challenges. These identify three areas for the signatories to work together on:
4.7.1 Climate
adaptation – sharing of knowledge and tools to respond to climate change,
including flood protection and building resilient communities
4.7.2 Climatorium
– exploring the opportunity to establish a Climatorium in Nelson
4.7.3 Sustainability
in education – equipping current and future generations to involve them
in climate solutions
4.8 Signing by all parties was completed on 4 May 2020. A
scheduled visit by a Danish delegation to Nelson in March 2020 had to be
postponed due to the emergence of Covid-19.
5. Discussion
A Nelson Climatorium
5.1 Wakatū Incorporation is keen to explore the
opportunity for a Climatorium in Nelson, which could potentially be sited in
the Mahitahi River Precinct. Representatives
from Denmark have indicated interest in having a facility in the southern
hemisphere which would allow counter-seasonal research on climate change to
take place. Wakatū Incorporation understands that European Union (EU)
funding may be available for such a facility, although this is based on
discussions prior to the COVID-19 outbreak.
5.2 Wakatū
Incorporation plans to take a staged approach to this project, with the
first stage involving the establishment of a partnership framework covering
scope, mandate, governance and operational structure, and identifying an
appropriate funding model. A manager would be employed to develop a work
programme, establishing projects that address regional climate change
challenges for businesses and communities. This would then lead to a business
case being developed for a built Climatorium.
5.3 Wakatū Incorporation seeks Council support for the
first stage of this project, in keeping with the quadruple helix concept. This
approach would be a likely prerequisite for any application for EU funding.
5.4 At this time, there is no firm commitment or any agreements
in place relating to the construction of a Climatorium. The Principles of
Collaboration refer to the parties exploring the option. It is not yet
known what kind of support there will be from industry and research
organisations for the concept.
5.5 Both Wakatū Incorporation and representatives from the
Lemvig Climatorium are keen to locate a Climatorium in the Mahitahi
River Precinct. Wakatū Incorporation has a
significant landholding there, and Lemvig sees value in developing a facility
to parallel its own, which is built on its waterfront, and which
showcases innovative design that future-proofs the building against the impacts
of climate change.
5.6 There are potential synergies between a library and the
Nelson Climatorium. The Lemvig Climatorium includes a mix of community space,
space for private companies, research organisations and government. Whilst it
need not be physically linked to any library development, planning and
design of the two buildings should complement each other if it was agreed that
they were to be co-located in the Mahitahi River Precinct.
5.7 Officers
believe there is merit in supporting a Wakatū
Incorporation-led Climatorium project.
A ‘Virtual’ Climatorium
5.8 Officers believe there is value in supporting the creation
of a forum for representatives from each of the strands of the quadruple helix
to come together in order to determine the opportunity for Nelson to become a
centre for climate research and innovation, in partnership with the Lemvig
facility. This ‘Virtual’ Climatorium would be consistent with stage
one of Wakatū Incorporation’s project, and a possible precursor to a
built facility.
5.9 The ‘Virtual’ Climatorium could be tasked with
providing leadership on each of the three areas identified in the Principles of
Collaboration. It could also be tasked with exploring the opportunities for
Nelson to become a centre for the development of climate change adaptation
technologies. This could result in the formation of a new economic
cluster being developed. Wakatū Incorporation supports this
approach.
5.10 The concept has been discussed with the Nelson Regional
Development Agency which believes that Nelson has some strengths and
opportunities in this area, including:
5.10.1 The
Cawthron Institute and/or NIWA as providers of relevant research
5.10.2 Nelson
City Council, which has declared a Climate Change Emergency and is turning its
mind to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
5.10.3 Wakatū
Incorporation, which has businesses in viticulture, horticulture and
aquaculture, all of which will need to respond to challenges posed by climate
change. It also has an extensive research and development, government and
international network
5.10.4 A
community which has high environmental awareness and supports regional
leadership on climate change issues
5.11 NRDA
believes that central government could also be represented by either MBIE or
MPI, given the primary production focus of the regional economy. The Climate Change Commission would also be a relevant
stakeholder. Together, these would represent the four strands of
the quadruple helix approach.
6. Options
6.1 Council
has three options. It can do nothing, and let Wakatū Incorporation
progress the concept; it can provide indicative support to Wakatū
Incorporation for the development of a business case for a Climatorium; or it
can proactively work with Wakatū Incorporation to convene a forum to
explore options for a ‘Virtual’ Climatorium. Option 3 is the
recommended option. This option is also supported by Wakatū
Incorporation.
|
Option 1: Do nothing
|
|
Advantages
|
· No resources required
· No additional demands
on Council officer time
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Opportunity to
proactively explore Climatorium is lost
· Lack of support is not
seen as consistent with the Principles of Collaboration
· Opportunity for
Council to be a significant leader in climate change adaptation is deferred
· Wakatū
Incorporation’s efforts to secure funding for a Climatorium may be
undermined
|
|
Option 2: Provide indicative support to Wakatū
Incorporation for the development of a business case for a Climatorium
|
|
Advantages
|
· Allows provision
for the potential development to be made within the plans for any library
redevelopment in the Mahitahi River Precinct
· Requires minimal
additional resourcing for any capital project
· No additional
demands on staff time
· Provides clear support
to Wakatū Incorporation for any funding bid to the European Union
· Consistent with
the terms of the Principles of Collaboration agreement
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Not consistent
with the spirit of the Principles of Collaboration agreement
· The project may
take some time to deliver, or may not happen, subject to funding. In the
meantime, there may be a lack of coordination across local government,
industry and academia to develop local climate change adaptation solutions
· Opportunity for
Council to be a significant leader in climate change adaptation is deferred
|
|
Option 3: Provide support to Wakatū
Incorporation for the development of a business case for a Climatorium on its
land and work with Wakatū Incorporation to convene a forum based on the
quadruple helix model to explore options for a ‘Virtual’
Climatorium
|
|
Advantages
|
· Allows provision
for the potential development to be made within the plans for any library
redevelopment in the Mahitahi River Precinct
· Demonstrates
significant leadership on climate change adaptation
· Demonstrates
commitment to the Principles of Collaboration agreement
· Provides a
framework for future economic, social and environmental benefits
· Could lead to
wide-scale buy-in to any built Climatorium, in line with the Lemvig
Climatorium model
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Additional cost
and officer time required to resource
· Council may be
expected to contribute operational funding to the Climatorium once built
· If not given
clear Terms of Reference, the forum could become a talk shop
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Council
has signed a Principles of Collaboration agreement which identifies a desire to
explore the establishment of a Climatorium in Nelson. If Council wishes to
assume a regional leadership role, it could explore, with local stakeholders,
the potential to establish a ‘Virtual’ Climatorium as an initial
step. This should have a focus on determining how Nelson (and New
Zealand) could become a leader in climate change resilience.
7.2 Wakatū
Incorporation has signalled a staged approach to building a partnership to
develop the concept. Support for a physical Climatorium may result from
that process. That could take a number of years, depending on the
priority given to it by any forum that was established, and on the availability
of third party funding. In the meantime, it is recommended that Council
agrees to work with Wakatū Incorporation to allow it to continue to
progress the concept with potential partners and funders, and to develop a
business case.
Author: Pat
Dougherty, Chief Executive
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2398703
- Signed Principles of Collaboration - Denmark NCC and Wakatu Inc - 05May2020 ⇩
|
Important
Considerations for Decision Making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The recommendations are consistent with the
promotion of the economic and environmental wellbeing of the community.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The recommendations are consistent with the
Principles of Collaboration previously signed by Council, Council’s
declaration of a climate emergency, and the following community outcomes:
· Our
region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy
· Our
unique natural environment is healthy and protected
· Our
communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient
· Our Council
provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and
community engagement
|
|
3. Risk
There is low risk from the recommended
approach. If Council withholds support, there is a risk that any future
Wakatū Incorporation funding bids may be undermined.
|
|
4. Financial
Impact
This recommendation has minimal financial impact and
can be resourced from existing budgets. Broader support for any
forum can be considered through the Long Term Plan 2021-31.
|
|
5. Degree
of Significance and Level of Engagement
This matter is of low significance because it can be
managed within existing budgets and is consistent with Council policy;
therefore, no engagement is required.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
The recommendation supports climate change
adaptation through research, innovation and education.
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the Decision Making Process
No engagement with iwi has been undertaken in
preparing this report. . Wakatū Incorporation has been consulted
in preparing this report’s recommendations.
|
|
8. Delegations
This is a cross-Council issue which sits with the
full Council.
|
Item 9: Elma Turner
Library Redevelopment Options
|
|
Council
18 February 2021
|
REPORT R21341
Elma
Turner Library Redevelopment Options
Purpose of Report
1.1 To
confirm the preferred site for Elma Turner Library redevelopment and to approve
negotiation with Wakatū Incorporation for a land exchange within the
Riverside Precinct.
2. Summary
2.1 The
redevelopment of Elma Turner Library has been signalled by Council in
successive Long Term Plans for a number of years. This report presents two main
options for its redevelopment within the Riverside Precinct:
2.1.1 A
rebuilt library on the current, Council-owned site
2.1.2 A
new build on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, on land owned
by Wakatū Incorporation currently occupied by a fast food restaurant and
the riverside pop-up park. This would be subject to Council and Wakatū
Incorporation agreeing to exchange the land currently occupied by the library
for this site.
2.2 Three
other options which include a level of compromise are also considered:
refurbishing the current building; constructing a reduced-specification library
on the current site; and building in another part of the city.
2.3 The
different options are assessed against the following criteria:
2.3.1 Fitness
for purpose;
2.3.2 Sustainability
and climate resilience;
2.3.3 Consistency
with City Centre Programme Plan;
2.3.4 Cost;
and
2.3.5 Risk.
2.4 Taking
into account all relevant factors, officers recommend that Council negotiates
with Wakatū Incorporation to exchange land in the Riverside Precinct to
enable the construction of a new library on the corner of Halifax Street and
Trafalgar Street.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report Elma
Turner Library Redevelopment Options (R21341) and its attachments (A2411462,
A2478433, A2572096 and A2479330); and
2. Confirms that Council’s
preferred option is to build a new library building on
the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, within the Riverside
Precinct, subject to agreement with Wakatū Incorporation on a land
exchange involving that site and the current library site; and
3. Directs officers to enter
into formal negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation to develop a land
exchange proposal; and
4. Notes that a business case
will be brought to Council for final approval of the project; and
5. Notes that any agreements
negotiated with Wakatū Incorporation will be subject to approval of the
business case and confirmation of the location and the budget for the Elma
Turner Library through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.
|
4. Background
Elma Turner Library Redevelopment
4.1 Elma
Turner Library has occupied its current site since 1989, when the main part of
the existing building was converted from its former use as a car showroom.
Parts of the building date from 1973. The library was extended in 2004, and an
internal refurbishment took place in 2012. The total floor area is 2,455m2.
Council purchased the adjacent building on 23 Halifax Street (the Mediterranean
Warehouse building) in 2006.
4.2 Council
included funding in its 2009 and 2012 ten-year plans for a library
extension/redevelopment. In both cases the budget sat in years five-six of the
respective plans. The 2015 Long Term Plan included a placeholder budget of $6.0
million, with project design work scheduled to begin in 2016/17. Feedback
sought through the 2016/17 Annual Plan process led to Council resolving, on 11
May 2016:
THAT
the existing riverside location of the Elma Turner Library be confirmed as the
site for the library redevelopment in order to provide certainty on the timing
for upgrade work at Civic House, and to allow for adaptive re-use of the State
Advances Building
AND THAT
officers report to Council on any additional budget that might be required to
realise the library's potential in that location with a view to any adjustments
being made during development of the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.
4.3 Council
proposed, through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan consultation, to increase the
placeholder budget to $14.9 million to redevelop the library within the
Riverside Precinct. After hearing submissions, Council resolved to:
DIRECT
staff to prepare a development brief to inform a revised Business Case for the
Elma Turner library re-development, taking into account wider issues involving
the development of the riverside precinct, technology change and the future of
libraries.
4.4 Council
contracted Athfield Architects Limited and Irving Smith Architects to engage
with the community to investigate what the community wanted in relation to a
new public library. As part of the consultation, feedback was sought on a new
vision for Nelson public libraries. The contractors engaged widely with
library users, library staff, iwi, community groups and the general public. The
outcomes from the community engagement were presented to Councillors in a
workshop on 19 August 2020. The consultants’ final report is attached
(Attachment 1).
4.5 On
25 June 2020 Council agreed on a stepped approach to decision making on Civic
House, the Elma Turner Library and the Climatorium. This report is the third in
a series of substantive reports that, together, will inform the final options
for business cases for the three projects.
Riverside Precinct Land Ownership
4.6 Wakatū
Incorporation owns the majority of the Riverside Precinct land between
Trafalgar Street and Paru Paru Road (map, Attachment 2). The current library
site sits in between two blocks of Wakatū Incorporation land. Council has
previously recognised the need to work with Wakatū Incorporation in order
to provide good urban design outcomes for the city.
4.7 Wakatū
Incorporation is ready to develop 16 Paru Paru Road as offices. It is keen to
ensure that its longer term plans for development of the remainder of the site
are consistent with, and complement, the library development.
4.8 Wakatū
Incorporation is also considering developing a Climatorium on its land in the Riverside
Precinct. Whilst construction may be a number of years away, there are
potential synergies between the two developments. If Council does choose to
re-build on the current site or a new build on a different site within the Riverside
Precinct, then it will be important for Council to ensure its library designs
are compatible with any future Climatorium. Council’s options for
the Climatorium are presented in a separate report on the same agenda as this
report.
4.9 Wakatū
Incorporation has prepared some concepts that show how a library and
Climatorium could be co-located on its land. Attachment 3 shows an
indicative plan of the layout. Iain Sheves, the Group General Manager
Property and Commercial (Strategy and Risk) will attend to speak to this item.
5. Discussion
The Need for a New Library
5.1 The
current library building consists of a mix of older buildings and extensions.
The space is arranged primarily for book display and lending, with technology
and limited social spaces fitted around collections. Space constraints limit
the introduction of new resources, experiences and programmes. Back office
space is configured according to now defunct work processes, with over a
quarter of the footprint of the building (632m2) assigned to back
office functions.
5.2 The
services provided by a modern library are significantly different from those
being delivered when the current library was developed. Whilst access to
physical books and resources is still an important core function, contemporary
libraries now include:
5.2.1 Curation
of the collection – rather than the traditional shelves of books
spine-on, modern display techniques are used to present information and
resources
5.2.2 Library
staff are navigators – helping people to access knowledge and
information, including from digital and physical resources
5.2.3 Digital
technology is available, accessible and complements physical resources
5.2.4 Quality
environments – a range of spaces that are comfortable and cater to the
specific needs of multiple user groups
5.2.5 Space
that interacts with its surroundings – how the library relates to the
city, river and adjacent built landscape.
5.3 Whilst
library staff have attempted to deliver these outcomes within the existing
building, the reality is that the current buildings are not designed to deliver
these outcomes now, or into the future.
5.4 Newer
public libraries around New Zealand include the provision of meeting
facilities, flexible-use spaces, cafés, community social lounge areas,
physical and digital media resources, performance and exhibition spaces, and
mixed-use areas for collaboration, innovation and experience.
5.5 The
current configuration of the Elma Turner Library is constraining
Council’s ability to deliver on these outcomes, and to keep pace with
modern “best practice” for library and information services.
Community Engagement
5.6 Extensive
consultation was carried out between May and December 2019 by Athfield
Architects and Irving Smith Architects.
5.7 Community
groups, iwi, staff, Councillors, and the general public all had opportunities
to give feedback, and 159 responses were received to an online survey.
5.8 The
feedback consistently identified the great services that libraries are
delivering in spite of the facilities. There was widespread positive
feedback about the Riverside Precinct as a preferred location.
5.9 Iwi
were keen to partner in the development process, have space for taonga to be
displayed and stored, and for the building to feature Māori artwork.
5.10 Community
engagement affirmed the following components as important and a priority:
· The collection
· A range of spaces, to
cater for all (so not one group monopolises a space)
· Great access and car
parking
· A welcoming space to
host and engage visitors
· A café
· A well-serviced
community room, available after hours
· Adjacency to a community
hub of complementary services
· A connected Nelson
archive, centred on a library heritage space
· A
“sustainable” building demonstrative of Nelson’s approach to
climate change
· A community building
that is connected to the landscape/surroundings
· A project that maximises
the opportunities of the river.
Location Options
5.11 Three
location options are considered in this report:
5.11.1 The
current location, within the Riverside Precinct (two new-build options or a
refurbishment)
5.11.2 The
site on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, owned by Wakatū
Incorporation and currently tenanted by a fast-food restaurant
5.11.3 Another
location in the city.
5.12 Council
has twice confirmed that the location of a redeveloped library would be within
the Riverside Precinct, and officers have progressed with location options
within the Riverside Precinct. The inclusion of a new build elsewhere as
a fifth option is a fall-back position if Council now determines that there is
a fatal flaw in a Riverside option. Officers are of the view that there
is no such fatal flaw.
5.13 If
Council did decide not to proceed with a new library within the Riverside
Precinct, further work would be required to develop a scope for potential
sites. Further consultation with the community would be required.
Criteria for Assessment
5.14 Officers
have developed the following criteria for assessment, similar to those
previously used to assess options for Civic House.
5.14.1 Fitness
for purpose: How do the proposed options contribute to Council and
community expectations for a modern library? What impact does the option have
on library services’ business continuity?
5.14.2 Sustainability
and climate resiliency: How do the proposed options fit with
Council’s declaration of a climate emergency? How sustainable is
the option? What opportunities are there to demonstrate leadership in climate
change adaptation?
5.14.3 Consistency
with City Centre Programme Plan: How do the proposed options contribute to
Council’s outcomes within the context of the City Centre Programme Plan,
including the six key moves?
5.14.4 Cost:
What are the costs of each proposed option?
5.14.5 Risk:
What risks are associated with each option? What likelihood is there that a
given option will not meet time, cost, and quality requirements and, as a
result, not deliver the outcomes expected?
5.15 Each
of these is described in more detail in the following section.
6. Options
Assessment
Fitness for Purpose
6.1 An
option which is fit for purpose should:
6.1.1 Meet
size requirements to serve as a central library for the Nelson City Council
population, allowing for growth
6.1.2 Be
able to provide a range of indoor and outdoor flexible spaces, to deliver the
functions of a modern library (paragraph 5.2)
6.1.3 Meet
community expectations as elicited in the Community Engagement report
(paragraph 5.10)
6.1.4 Have
minimal impacts on business continuity whilst any building works are taking
place.
6.2 Community
feedback has identified a range of important components of a new library (see
section 5.10) including a desire for a new library to maximise the opportunity
of the link to the Maitai River as well as to the central city. This is
achievable in both locations identified within the Riverside Precinct.
6.3 Any
new build will be designed to provide a range of flexible spaces that can be
used to deliver library services into the future. However, a refurbishment of
the existing building is unlikely to be able to provide that range of
flexibility. Scaling back the specification of a new build would also
result in reduced flexibility.
6.4 Whilst,
under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, a new building
within the central city does not need to provide car parks (other than
accessibility), current users have identified that having convenient car
parking is important for their ability to access and use the library. Car parking
provision is therefore proposed to be included.
6.5 Construction
of a new library on the current site would significantly disrupt the delivery
of library services during the construction phase. A temporary alternative
library would need to be identified, and it is unlikely to be able to be
configured in a way that would enable staff to deliver the full range of
library services.
6.6 Construction
of a new library in another location would enable Council to continue
delivering services from the current location whilst the new library was being
built.
6.7 Refurbishment
of the existing building would improve the current library offering, but would
not provide the range of spaces required to deliver modern library
services. Significant disruption would occur during the refurbishment.
6.8 Construction
of a new library elsewhere in the city could deliver a range of flexible spaces
but would not deliver the same linkages to the River, and may not provide the
same level of access or car parking as the Riverside Precinct. It would
also result in further dislocation of library staff from Civic House.
6.9 The
library options in this report do not include provision for a standalone
community hub facility. However, many of the features of a community hub can be
provided in a new library building. These include: a range of bookable
community rooms, a small events space; out-of-hours, accessible meeting rooms,
and access to printing and copying facilities. There will, however, not be any
provision for permanent office space for any community group.
Sustainability and
Climate Resiliency
6.10 On
13 May 2019, Council declared a climate emergency. As part of that declaration,
Council committed to “examine how Council’s plans, policies and
work programmes can address the climate emergency and ensure an emergency
strategy is embedded into all future Council strategic plans.”
6.11 Options
should demonstrate sustainability and climate resiliency through:
6.11.1 The
building being resilient to the impacts of climate change
6.11.2 The
location being resilient to the impacts of climate change
6.11.3 Design
features that enhance sustainability and reduce environmental impact (including
energy use, construction materials used, emissions etc.)
Riverside Precinct Flooding and Inundation
6.12 The
Riverside Precinct, along with other parts of the city, is currently
susceptible to the Maitai River flooding in an extreme 1% Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP) event. More intense rainfall events caused by climate
change may increase the risk of these events.
6.13 The
risk of tidal inundation, when high tides combine with storm surges, is also
likely to increase as sea levels rise, particularly after 2100. Again, this
risk is posed across all of the lower-lying parts of the city, and not just the
Riverside Precinct. However, for this project, Council needs to determine if
the risks associated with sea level rise and climate change can be managed
effectively for a riverside site.
6.14 The
current library floor level is Reduced Level (RL) 2.86m above the New Zealand
Vertical Datum (NZVD2016). It is protected from river flooding by the Maitai
Walkway, which is RL 3.0m.
6.15 Any
new building in the Riverside Precinct would be built to exceed the current
standard in relation to minimum ground levels for 2130. Floor levels
would be designed to meet the RCP 8.5M projections (>4.0 m), with the
ability to raise the floor level to RCP 8.5H+ levels in the future, if
required. The design of Wakatū Incorporation’s new offices
within the Riverside Precinct shows how this can be achieved.
6.16 A
refurbishment of the existing building would not have the same level of
protection. Whilst floor levels could be raised from their current level
(approximately 2.86 m), these would not provide the same long-term resiliency
as a new build with floor level at 4.00 m.
6.17 Figure
1 demonstrates a variety of flood modelling scenarios for a 1% AEP river flood
with different tidal conditions in 2130, with the existing library, Maitai
Walkway and proposed new building levels indicated.
Figure 1: Flood modelling results for a 1% AEP river flood
discharge combined with different tidal boundary conditions and sea level rise
scenarios.
6.18 Decadal
increments for projections of sea level rise, and likely inundation and flooding
impacts on the Riverside Precinct site can be found in Tables 1a and 1b.
6.19 Modelled
effects of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 8.5M and 8.5H+
climate change scenarios are shown. These scenarios are high-end baseline
scenarios in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue to increase
until 2100. Stronger global efforts to reduce global emissions are likely
to result in lower long-term impacts on sea level rise.
6.20 The
lowest point, on the boundary between the library car park and the adjacent
supermarket car park is approximately RL 2.0m. This car park (and others in
Nelson city centre) has been subject to occasional flooding during high
tides/storm surges due to backflow of tidal water through the stormwater
system. Council is currently investigating the use of tidal flaps to prevent
this from occurring in the future. Positive results have been seen during the
initial trials.
6.21 If
sea levels continue to rise, there will come a point when a combined rainfall
event and high tide will result in overtopping of the Maitai Walkway. If no
mitigation works are undertaken, this is projected to be more than 80 years
away. The extent of any flooding is likely to be widespread through the Wood
and lower parts of the central city, including Halifax, St Vincent, Vanguard,
Gloucester and Rutherford Streets. Combined, the present day rateable
value of properties potentially affected by a one metre sea level rise is $3.11
billion.
6.22 These
events could impact on access to a library in the Riverside Precinct, as well
as access to businesses and houses in the wider affected area. However,
Council is yet to formally consider its city-wide response to these scenarios,
and there are a number of mitigation options available, including:
6.22.1 Raising
the levels of the Maitai River banks, for example by increasing the height of
the Maitai Walkway (and the opposite bank);
6.22.2 Creating
flood detention dams upstream of this site to reduce river flows during a
rainfall event;
6.22.3 Raising
the levels of adjacent roads to maintain access. Raising parts of Halifax
Street/Trafalgar Street by 600-700 mm over the next 100 years would be enough
to provide continued access; and
6.22.4 Constructing
a tidal barrage that would remove the tidal contribution to water levels.
6.23 Given
that there is still uncertainty over what will happen to sea level in 100
years’ time; that there are several practicable options available to
Council to mitigate its effects; and that Council is actively considering its
responses to these issues now, officers believe that general access to a new
building in the Riverside Precinct can and will be maintained over the next 100
years and beyond.
Table 1a: Decadal sea level rise, inundation and flood
levels in Riverside Precinct (RCP 8.5M)
|
Decade
|
MHHW
(2008- 2017 baseline)
RCP 8.5M
(m)
|
Sea level rise
MfE Table10, RCP 8.5M
(m)
|
1% AEP coastal inundation depth
RCP 8.5M
(T+T 2019)
(m)
|
1% river flood
RCP 8.5M
(T+T 2020)
(m)
|
63% AEP King Tide Level (2008-2017 baseline) RCP
8.5M
(m)
|
Number of times per year king tide 63% AEP > 3.0
m
RCP 8.5M
|
|
2020
|
1.23
|
0.09
|
2.62
|
3.05
|
2.2
|
0
|
|
2030
|
1.29
|
0.15
|
2.68
|
|
2.26
|
0
|
|
2040
|
1.35
|
0.21
|
2.74
|
|
2.32
|
0
|
|
2050
|
1.42
|
0.28
|
2.81
|
|
2.39
|
0
|
|
2060
|
1.5
|
0.36
|
2.89
|
|
2.47
|
0
|
|
2070
|
1.59
|
0.45
|
2.98
|
3.44
|
2.56
|
0
|
|
2080
|
1.69
|
0.55
|
3.08
|
|
2.66
|
0
|
|
2090
|
1.81
|
0.67
|
3.2
|
|
2.78
|
0
|
|
2100
|
1.93
|
0.79
|
3.32
|
|
2.9
|
0
|
|
2110
|
2.07
|
0.93
|
3.46
|
|
3.04
|
2
|
|
2120
|
2.2
|
1.06
|
3.59
|
|
3.17
|
~12
|
|
2130
|
2.32
|
1.18
|
3.71
|
3.62
|
3.29
|
~30
|
Table 1b: Decadal sea level rise, inundation and flood
levels in Riverside Precinct (RCP 8.5H+)
|
Decade
|
MHHW
(2008- 2017 baseline)
RCP 8.5M
(m)
|
Sea level rise
MfE Table 10, RCP 8.5H+
(m)
|
1% AEP coastal inundation depth
RCP 8.5H+
(m)
|
63% AEP King Tide Level (2008-2017 baseline) RCP
8.5H+
(m)
|
Number of times per year king tide 63% AEP > 3.0
m
RCP 8.5H+
|
|
2020
|
1.25
|
0.11
|
2.64
|
2.22
|
0
|
|
2030
|
1.33
|
0.18
|
2.71
|
2.29
|
0
|
|
2040
|
1.41
|
0.27
|
2.8
|
2.38
|
0
|
|
2050
|
1.51
|
0.37
|
2.9
|
2.48
|
0
|
|
2060
|
1.62
|
0.48
|
3.01
|
2.59
|
0
|
|
2070
|
1.75
|
0.61
|
3.14
|
2.72
|
0
|
|
2080
|
1.90
|
0.75
|
3.28
|
2.86
|
0
|
|
2090
|
2.04
|
0.9
|
3.43
|
3.01
|
1
|
|
2100
|
2.19
|
1.05
|
3.58
|
3.16
|
~12
|
|
2110
|
2.34
|
1.2
|
3.73
|
3.31
|
~30
|
|
2120
|
2.50
|
1.36
|
3.89
|
3.47
|
~78
|
|
2130
|
2.66
|
1.52
|
4.05
|
3.63
|
~140
|
Notes:
MHHW – Mean Higher High Water is the average
highest daily tide. Decadal MHHW data are calculated by adding sea level rise
(2008-17 base) to the value of MHHW between 2008 and 2017, i.e. 1.21m.
A 1% AEP event is an event that is statistically likely
to occur once every hundred years.
A 63% AEP event is an event that is statistically likely
to occur once every year.
Design and Sustainability
6.24 A
new library building could demonstrate a range of resilience and sustainability
features, including:
6.24.1 Use
of sustainable materials (e.g. timber) rather than relying on concrete
6.24.2 Using
design to allow for passive heating/cooling
6.24.3 Considering
life cycle cost when selecting materials (including potential for
deconstruction/recycling)
6.24.4 Incorporation
of photovoltaic system to provide reduced energy costs
6.24.5 Ensuring
efficient use of water, energy and other resources
6.24.6 Providing
a healthy building for staff and library users
6.24.7 Recognising,
within the design, the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise,
e.g. by having the ability to raise floor levels.
Consistency with City Centre Programme Plan
6.25 The
City Centre Programme Plan sets out the Council’s strategy to achieve a
step-change in the Nelson city centre. Its approach is people-focused, aiming
to create a social hub where people “linger longer”.
6.26 Six
key moves for the city centre have been identified:
1. Destination Nelson
2. Walkable Nelson
3. Blue-Green Heart
4. Smart Development
5. Liveable Centre, and
6. Clever Business
6.27 A
Riverside Precinct location for a new library is consistent with each of the
first five key moves. A library that relates well to its external environment
and the river will become a destination within the city for tourists and
residents to “linger longer”. Its proximity to the central city, to
the Maitai River, the Maitai Walkway and Rutherford Park contributes to moves 2
and 3. Smart design to mitigate climate change impacts contributes to move 5.
Libraries are often referred to as the “living room of a city”
– a public space that people feel comfortable and safe in, contributing
to the liveability of the centre.
6.28 The
entrance from Trafalgar Street/Halifax Street corner to the Maitai River is
currently unappealing, with no view shaft due to the arrangement of the
existing buildings. Whilst the new pop-up park has provided improved access to
the river, the corner site gives Council the opportunity to secure this for the
longer term, and to make a feature of a gateway site to the central city.
6.29 The
current library site has less potential for improved access to the Maitai River
and provides less opportunity to develop a gateway to the river from the
central city. Reducing the specification of a new building on that site
would also reduce this potential.
6.30 A
new building in another part of the city may contribute to some of the key
moves but would require further analysis of specific locations.
Cost
6.31 It
is assumed that for each of the site options being considered, the
specification of the building will be similar (e.g. size, sustainability
features etc.). Site specific factors that may vary will include:
6.31.1 Cost
of land purchase – the option to build elsewhere in the city would
require land purchase, estimated at $4-6 million (based on a footprint of
2,000m2). Options in the Riverside Precinct do not include this
cost. There is some potential offset through the sale of the current site, but
the price would likely be heavily discounted if Council signals that it is not
prepared to develop on that site.
6.31.2 Geotechnical
– the ground conditions and site topography may affect the type and cost
of any retaining walls or foundations required.
6.31.3 Deconstruction
costs – these are likely to be required whichever site is chosen.
6.31.4 Transitional
costs – these are costs associated with operating a library service
during construction of a new library. These could include any lease
requirements or costs associated with holding two pieces of land.
6.31.5 It
is expected that the costs of the land exchange would be as close to neutral as
practical.
6.32 High-level,
rough-cost estimates have been developed for the refurbishment and the three
new-build options within the Riverside Precinct. These are presented in Table
2, below. The figures are based on a library floor area of: 2,450m2 (existing
footprint) 3,150m2 (single storey, existing site; reduced
specification); 3,400m2 (two storey, existing site; high
specification; and 3,250m2 (two storey, corner site, high
specification). The corner site includes more extensive outdoor hard
landscaping, including gabion steps down to the Maitai River.
6.33 The
reduced-specification option makes several compromises in the design and
fit-out to keep costs down. It does not include low-carbon construction, Green
Star features, archive facility and acoustic dampening, and external hard
landscaping is kept to a minimum. It also budgets less for fit-out per square
metre.
6.34 For
comparison, the Christchurch library cost approximately $95 million (2018), and
covers an area of 9,850m2. A proposed new build of Wellington
library had an initial budget estimate of $167 million (2020) for a floor area
of 14,000m2. Wellington City Council’s preferred option is a
$160-180 million high-level remediation of the existing library. Neither
of these libraries are highly sustainable, low-carbon buildings.
Table 2a: High-level,
rough-estimate costs for refurbishment of existing library building and for
construction of a new, reduced-specification library on the current site
|
|
Refurbish existing building
|
New, reduced-specification build on existing site
|
|
Item
|
Rough cost estimate
|
Contingency included
|
Rough cost estimate
|
Contingency included
|
|
Consultants –
engagement and business case
|
$100,000
|
-
|
$100,000
|
-
|
|
Deconstruction of 23 Halifax
Street
|
$772,000
|
-
|
$772,000
|
-
|
|
Deconstruction of
existing library
|
n/a
|
-
|
$1,450,000
|
40%
|
|
NCC consultancy team
– engineer's rep/QS
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Consultancy team/
design fees
|
$2,000,000
|
30%
|
$4,200,000
|
30%
|
|
Geotechnical
|
$300,000
|
50%
|
$300,000
|
50%
|
|
Resource consent
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
|
Local authority fees
and consents
|
$234,000
|
30%
|
$234,000
|
30%
|
|
Relocation and lease
|
n/a
|
|
$1,213,000
|
20%
|
|
Relocation only
|
$180,000
|
20%
|
n/a
|
|
|
Base build cost
|
$11,025,000
|
50% on piles
30% on rest
|
$18,344,000
|
50% on piles
30% on rest
|
|
Preliminary and
generals
|
$1,950,000
|
30%
|
$1,950,000
|
30%
|
|
Archive facility
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Acoustics
|
$260,000
|
30%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Lift
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Generator
|
$62,000
|
30%
|
$62,000
|
30%
|
|
Transformer
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
|
Soft landscaping
|
$65,000
|
30%
|
$65,000
|
30%
|
|
Hard landscaping
|
$332,000
|
30%
|
$332,000
|
30%
|
|
Gabion wall to Maitai
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Fit-out
|
$2,810,000
|
30%
|
$2,877,000
|
30%
|
|
Transaction costs
|
$180,000
|
20%
|
$180,000
|
20%
|
|
Legal fees
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Art wall/art work
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Photovoltaics
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Total
|
$20,426,000
|
|
$32,235,000
|
|
Table 2b: High-level,
rough-estimate costs for construction of high-specification new library in the
Riverside Precinct
|
|
New, high-specification build on existing site
|
New, high-specification build on corner site
|
Item
|
Rough cost estimate
|
Contingency included
|
Rough cost estimate
|
Contingency included
|
|
Consultants –
engagement and business case
|
$100,000
|
-
|
$100,000
|
-
|
|
Deconstruction of 23
Halifax Street
|
$772,000
|
-
|
$772,000
|
-
|
|
Deconstruction of existing
library
|
$1,450,000
|
40%
|
N/A
|
-
|
|
NCC consultancy team
– engineer's
rep/QS
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$525,000
|
30%
|
|
Consultancy team/
design fees
|
$4,200,000
|
30%
|
$5,043,000
|
30%
|
|
Geotechnical
|
$300,000
|
50%
|
$300,000
|
50%
|
|
Resource consent
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
|
Local authority fees
and consents
|
$234,000
|
30%
|
$234,000
|
30%
|
|
Relocation and lease
|
$1,650,000
|
20%
|
N/A
|
|
|
Relocation only
|
N/A
|
|
$180,000
|
20%
|
|
Five star,
green Star library, low-carbon construction
|
$25,621,000
|
30% on rest
|
$26,706,000
|
30% on rest
|
|
Preliminary and generals
|
$1,950,000
|
30%
|
$1,915,000
|
30%
|
|
Archive facility
|
$390,000
|
30%
|
$390,000
|
30%
|
|
Acoustics
|
$260,000
|
30%
|
$260,000
|
30%
|
|
Lift
|
$390,000
|
30%
|
$390,000
|
30%
|
|
Generator
|
$62,000
|
30%
|
$62,000
|
30%
|
|
Transformer
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
$78,000
|
30%
|
|
Soft landscaping
|
$65,000
|
30%
|
$65,000
|
30%
|
|
Hard landscaping
|
$1,180,000
|
30%
|
$1,789,000
|
30%
|
|
Gabion wall to Maitai
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$1,304,000
|
40%
|
|
Fit-out
|
$3,900,000
|
30%
|
$3,300,000
|
30%
|
|
Transaction costs
|
$180,000
|
20%
|
$300,000
|
30%
|
|
Legal fees
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$100,000
|
N/A
|
|
Art wall/art work
|
$400,000
|
N/A
|
$400,000
|
N/A
|
|
Photovoltaics
|
$70,000
|
40%
|
$70,000
|
40%
|
|
Total
|
$43,330,000
|
|
$44,361,000
|
|
Risk
6.35 The
key risks Council needs to consider for each option are:
6.35.1 Financial
– what degree of certainty is known about the costs of the project?
6.35.2 Reputational
– what reaction will the community have to the project and its costs?
6.35.3 Corporate
– what impact will the option have on management’s ability to
deliver library services now and into the future?
6.35.4 Environmental
– what environmental impacts does each option bring?
6.36 As
detailed above, the construction costs for a new library in the Riverside
Precinct are well understood and have appropriate levels of contingency built
in to them. The cost of developing a new library elsewhere, to the same high
level of sustainable design are likely to be similar although, without a
detailed assessment of a particular site, there is more uncertainty about what
final costs might be.
6.37 Refurbishing
the existing library will be cheaper, but will only extend the life of the
building by 20-30 years and very few additional benefits are delivered.
6.38 Reputational
risks include negative reactions from different parts of the community to:
6.38.1 Not
building in the Riverside Precinct which is preferred by most library users
6.38.2 Building
on a site likely to be affected by climate change, without demonstrating how
that risk will be managed
6.38.3 Further
delays to a project which has been signalled to the community for some time
6.38.4 Building
a reduced-specification building than the community expects.
6.39 Corporate
risks relate to the ability of staff to deliver modern library services.
Library staff are making the best use of the current building, but it is
limiting their ability to deliver the range of services and programmes that
they would like to deliver. This impacts on staff morale, recruitment and
retention. A new building on the current site would place additional strain on
staff if required to relocate to temporary premises.
6.40 Several
environmental risks are discussed in the Sustainability and Climate Resiliency
section above. Much of Riverside Precinct is known to be a HAIL (Hazardous
Activities and Industries List) site, meaning there will be additional
processes and costs associated with soil disturbance and movement. This cost is
priced in to the budgets provided above. Similarly, seismic resilience is
budgeted for each new building option. Some additional strengthening may be
required if the refurbishment option is preferred.
6.41 There
will also be construction-related environmental impacts from any of the
building projects, including noise and run-off impacting water courses. These
risks are managed through the consenting process and contractor
management. These risks are widespread across Nelson.
7. Options
Summary
7.1 Council
has five options. It could decide:
7.1.1 To refurbish the existing
building to extend its useful life; or
7.1.2 To
redevelop the existing site with a new, reduced-specification library; or
7.1.3 To
redevelop the existing site with a new, high-specification library; or
7.1.4 To
build a new, high-specification library in the Riverside Precinct on the corner
of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street; or
7.1.5 To
build a new library somewhere else in central Nelson.
7.2 Attachment
4 is an analysis of the options against the criteria identified in paragraph
1.3. Each criterion has been assessed on a scale of 0-5 with higher scores
representing better fit with the desired outcomes.
7.3 The
overall score for refurbishing the current building is 2.5; rebuilding with a
reduced specification on the current site is 2.9; rebuilding with a high
specification on the current site is 3.7; building on the corner of Halifax
Street and Trafalgar Street is 4.2; and building elsewhere is 3.5, all out of a
maximum score of 5.0.
7.4 The
preferred option from this assessment is to build a new library on the corner
of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street and the site currently occupied by the
pop-up park, subject to a successful land exchange negotiation with Wakatū
Incorporation (Option 3).
7.5 A
summary of advantages and risks of each option follows.
|
Option 1: Refurbish existing building
|
|
Advantages
|
· Lowest cost
option
· Community has
indicated that it prefers the Riverside location
· Does not require
new land purchase
· Gives
medium-term flexibility on location
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Limited
improvements in physical environment and ability to provide full range of
library services
· Does not contribute to
a cohesive Riverside Precinct
· Significant impact on
business continuity during refurbishment
· Relatively short
increase in building life expectancy
· Limited
environmental benefits
· Risk of building
inundation/flooding
|
|
Option 2: Construct new, reduced-specification
library on current site
|
|
Advantages
|
· Lower cost
option
· Community has
indicated that it prefers the Riverside location
· Does not require
new land purchase
· Gives
medium-term flexibility on location
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Some
improvements in physical environment and ability to provide full range of
library services
· Significant impact on
business continuity during refurbishment
· Limited
environmental benefits
· Impact on Wakatū
Incorporation ability to develop a cohesive Riverside Precinct
· Risk of
inundation of access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not
progress flood/inundation management options within 80 years
· Compromises may
not meet community expectations and will impact on ability to deliver full
range of library services
|
|
Option 3: Construct new, high-specification library
on current site
|
|
Advantages
|
· Does not require new
land to be purchased or a land exchange to take place
· Community has
indicated that it prefers the Riverside location
· Likely to be the
quickest new-build option
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Significant impact on
business continuity during construction
· Impact on Wakatū
Incorporation ability to develop a cohesive Riverside Precinct
· Risk of inundation of
access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not progress
flood/inundation management options within 80 years
|
|
Option 4: Negotiate land exchange deal with
Wakatū Incorporation and construct a high-specification library on the
corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street
|
|
Advantages
|
· No additional
cost of land purchase
· Allows Council
to deliver positive urban design outcomes including access to the Maitai
River
· Contributes to a
cohesive Riverside Precinct
· Provides
adjacency to Civic House and Millers Acre as Council-owned assets
· Avoids negative
business continuity impacts
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Some additional
timing delays to complete land exchange negotiations
· Risk of
inundation of access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not
progress flood/inundation management options within 80 years
|
|
Option 5: Construct library in another location in
the city
|
|
Advantages
|
· A site may be
able to be acquired with less flooding and inundation risk
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Site
requirements are yet to be determined
· Cost of land
purchase is likely to be significant
· Loses connection
between library and Maitai River
· Will
significantly delay the construction of a new library
· Large part of
the community expects library to be built in Riverside Precinct
· May have less
foot traffic in Trafalgar Street
· Impacts on
landowner confidence in areas subject to the same risks as the Riverside
Precinct
· Construction
risks associated with other sites are unknown
|
8. Conclusion
8.1 Council
has previously decided that the Riverside Precinct is its preferred option for
construction of a new library. Two high-specification, new-build options have
been identified for the Riverside Precinct. These would be resilient to the
impacts of climate change and sea level rise, and are an opportunity for
Council to demonstrate practical climate resiliency design approach.
8.2 There
are several options open to Council to mitigate potential accessibility issues
(projected towards the end of the buildings’ economic lives – 80+
years). Decisions on these will be made by Council over the next few years,
informed by the wider community flooding/inundation discussion.
8.3 The
benefits of building on the corner site extend beyond just having a new, modern
library. The design has the potential to open up connection between the central
city, the Maitai River and beyond, to the Haven.
9. Next
Steps
9.1 If
the recommended option is confirmed, officers will:
9.1.1 Enter
into negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation to secure a proposed agreement
for a land exchange;
9.1.2 Consult
on the proposal through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 consultation process;
9.1.3 Develop
the business case for a new library.
Author: Pat
Dougherty, Chief Executive
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2411462 -
Elma Turner Library Community Engagement Report 20201618 ⇩
Attachment 2: A2478433
- GIS Property - Land ownership - Riverside Precinct ⇩
Attachment 3: A2572096
- Wakatu Incorporation - Maitahi Riverside Precinct - Halifax Street - Proposed
Site Plan ⇩
Attachment 4: A2479330
- Elma Turner Library - Options Analysis ⇩
|
Important
considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Libraries are a core function of Council and
contribute to the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of
the Nelson community in the present and for the future
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The recommendation is consistent with previous
Council decisions in relation to location and scope.
|
|
3. Risk
Risks are considered in section 6.35. The
recommended option has a lower financial and corporate risk than other
options. The recommended option recognises that flooding and inundation is a
risk to central Nelson and will be mitigated in the design of the building
and potentially through wider scope adaptation measures.
|
|
4. Financial
Impact
Council has identified budget for a new library in
its Long Term Plan. Future costs will be identified within the strategic
business case and updated within the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31.
|
|
5. Degree
of Significance and Level of Engagement
This matter is of high significance because of the
level of public interest in the library, its location and the cost. Further
engagement will take place through the Long Term Plan process.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
The recommendation in this report is to proceed
with a business case for a new library located within the Riverside Precinct.
The business case will consider and make recommendations including in
relation to climate impact, which will be considered by Council through its
Long Term Plan 2021-31 process
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the Decision Making Process
Iwi were consulted as part of the community
engagement report. Wakatū Incorporation has been directly
consulted in preparing this report’s recommendations.
|
|
8. Delegations
Council has retained the delegation for decisions
relating to the redevelopment of the Elma Turner Library.
|
