Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 19 November 2020

Minutes of a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee

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

On Thursday 19 November 2020, commencing at 9.02a.m.

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, K Fulton, M Lawrey, G Noonan, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Governance Adviser (J Brandt), Governance Team Leader (R Byrne), Governance Support (P Boutle), Youth Councillors A Mangar and N Dunn

Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (on Council business), Councillors J Edgar (on Council business), R O'Neill-Stevens (on Council business), P Rainey (absence), and M Lawrey (lateness)

A Karakia Timatanga was given.

1. Apologies

Resolved IC/2020/054

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship Mayor R Reese (on Council business), Councillors J Edgar (on Council business), R O’Neill Stevens (on Council business), P Rainey for absence, and M Lawrey for lateness.

Courtney/Sanson Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change for the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 1 October 2020

Document number M15172, agenda pages 8 - 12 refer.

Resolved IC/2020/055

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 1 October 2020, as a true and correct record.

Brand/Bowater Carried

Attendance: Councillors M Lawrey and T Skinner joined the meeting at 9.06a.m.

6. Chairperson's Report

Document number R21397, agenda pages 13 - 14 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions about the Waka Kotahi innovation street funding and working in partnership with the community.

Resolved IC/2020/056

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R21397).

McGurk/Noonan Carried

7. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20

Document number R20285, agenda pages 15 - 50 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report. Tasman District Councillor and Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) Chairperson, Kit Maling, and General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clarke, answered questions about performance measures, customer service results and odour complaints.

Resolved IC/2020/057

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20 (R20285) and its attachment (A2458265); and

2. Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20 (A2458265).

Skinner/Bowater Carried

8. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2021/22 Business Plan

Document number R20284, agenda pages 51 - 70 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report and noted its linkages to agenda item 9 (Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2021/31 Activity Management Plan). Mr Louverdis answered questions regarding affordability and impact on Nelson City Council rates if the Business Plan was accepted.

Councillor Maling answered questions about the NRSBU Board’s priorities and influencing factors such as resource consent conditions, messages from iwi partners’ preference of wastewater disposal to land, and costs driven by upcoming contract renewals. Councillor Maling noted Tasman District Council had given its approval in principle for the business plan.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.22a.m. until 10.26a.m.

Councillor Courtney raised a Point of Order against Councillor Lawrey in that the question about the NRSBU holding open days was irrelevant. The Point of Order was upheld.

It was noted that the Group Manager Infrastructure would formally write to the General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill with Council’s feedback, and that the suggestions in Report R20284 would form the basis of Council’s feedback to the NRSBU for the 2021/22 Business Plan.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.45a.m until 10.49a.m.

Resolved IC/2020/058

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2021/22 Business Plan (R20284) and its attachment (A2511235); and

2. Provides feedback to the General Manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit on the draft Nelson Regional Sewerage 2021/22 Business Plan (A2511235).

Skinner/Brand Carried

9. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2021/31 Activity Management Plan

Document number R11480, agenda pages 71 - 81 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report. Tasman District Councillor and NRSBU Chairperson, Kit Maling, and General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clarke, were in attendance.

Resolved IC/2020/059

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2021/31 Activity Management Plan (R11480) and its attachment (A2496103); and

2. Provides feedback to the General Manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit on the Draft 2021 – 2031 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Activity Management Plan.

Skinner/Courtney Carried

10. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20

Document number R20286, agenda pages 82 - 107 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report. Tasman District Councillor and Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Deputy Chairperson (NTRLBU), Trindi Walker, and General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clarke, answered questions.

Resolved IC/2020/060

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20 (R20286) and its attachment (A2458270); and

2. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - Annual Report 2019/20 (A2458270).

Skinner/Brand Carried

11. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2021/22 Business Plan

Document number R20283, agenda pages 108 - 130 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis presented the report. Tasman District Councillor and NTRLBU Chairperson, Trindi Walker, and General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clarke, answered questions regarding:

· drivers behind the significant increase of fees

· the reason for diversion to Eves Valley

· the impact of increased fees and charges

· Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon emissions

· Capturing landfill gas

It was agreed that the Chairperson would write a letter in support of the NTRLBU seeking support from Central Government for the Eves Valley Gas capture and Flare project.

Resolved IC/2020/061

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2021/22 Business Plan (R20283) and its attachment (A2495934); and

2. Provides feedback to the General Manager of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit on the draft Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill 2021/22 Business Plan (A2495934).

Fulton/McGurk Carried

12. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 2021/31 Activity Management Plan

Document number R11479, agenda pages 131 - 150 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report. Tasman District Councillor and NTRLBU Chairperson, Trindi Walker, and General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clarke, were in attendance.

Resolved IC/2020/062

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 2021/31 Activity Management Plan (R11479) and its attachment (A2495930); and

2. Provides feedback to the General Manager of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business on the Draft 2021-2031 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Activity Management Plan.

Skinner/Brand Carried

13. Draft 2021-31 Water Supply Activity Management Plan

Document number R21386, agenda pages 151 - 193 refer.

Senior Activity Engineer - Water Supply, Phil Ruffell and Manager Utilities, David Light presented the report.

Resolved IC/2020/063

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Draft 2021-31 Water Supply Activity Management Plan (R21386) and its attachment (A2483711); and

2. Approves the Draft 2021-31 Water Supply Activity Management Plan (A2213226) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

3. Notes that the Draft 2021-31 Water Supply Activity Management Plan will be updated and, the final Activity Management Plan approved, after the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Lawrey/Courtney Carried

14. Draft 2021-31 Wastewater Activity Management Plan

Document number R15872, agenda pages 194 - 236 refer.

Activity Engineer – Wastewater, Warren Biggs, and Manager Utilities, David Light, presented the report.

Resolved IC/2020/064

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Draft 2021-31 Wastewater Activity Management Plan (R15872) and its attachment (A2491606); and

2. Approves the Draft 2021-31 Wastewater Activity Management Plan (A2424421) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

3. Notes that the Draft 2021-31 Wastewater Activity Management Plan will be updated and, the final Activity Management Plan approved, after the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Skinner/Brand Carried

15. Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Document number R20310, agenda pages 237 - 304 refer.

Manager Capital Projects, Lois Plum, Manager Roading and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, and Manager Utilities, David Light, presented the report.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 12.36p.m.

Resolved IC/2020/065
	*That the* *Infrastructure Committee* 1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report (R20310) and its attachments (A2411176, A2500601 and A2500539).
Skinner/Brand Carried
Recommendation to Council IC/2020/066
	*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.
Skinner/Brand Carried

A Karakia Whakamutunga was given.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.38p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2021-2022

Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2021

REPORT R22556

Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2021-2022

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve fees and charges greater than Consumer Price Index for Infrastructure services for the 2021/2022 financial year.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2021-2022 (R22556) and its attachment (A2325209); and

2. Approves subject to the Long Term plan consultation process on the Regional Landfill fees, an increase of 20% to Solid Waste charges at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre as per Attachment (A2325209 of Report R22556), effective 1 July 2021; and

3. Approves changes to roading charges as per Attachment (A2325209 of Report R22556), effective 1 July 2021.

3. Background

3.1 Fees and Charges are reviewed annually and either adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or amended to reflect any changes in process and/or costs incurred by Council. Group Managers (GM’s) currently have delegations to set fees and charges in their respective areas of responsibility but for increases over CPI approval by the relevant committees is appropriate. This report addresses Infrastructure fees and charges that have proposed increases greater than the CPI.

3.2 Mandate to recover costs incurred for council provided services is in Section 12 of Local Government Act and is consistent with the “user pays” approach in the Council Finance and Revenue policy.

3.3 Subject to the committee’s approval, all users will be given a minimum 30 days’ notice of the proposed changes prior to implementation.

4. Discussion

Utilities

4.1 A CPI adjustment will be made to all Utility fees and charges which includes special water readings, installation of a restrictor, connection and disconnection fees, hydrant supply and bulk filling registration.

Solid waste

4.2 In November 2020 the Infrastructure Committee considered the Draft Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) 2021/22 Business Plan. That Business Plan had York Valley Landfill fees and charges increasing by 20% and the Committee were advised that charges at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre (Pascoe Street) for waste would need to increase accordingly. The Committee noted that whilst the increase was high that the increase was necessary. The proposed changes for 2021/22 are shown in Attachment 1.

4.3 Whilst the fees and charges for the regional landfill will be consulted on as part of the draft Long Term Plan (LTP), officers need to prepare for the increases at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre from 1 July 2021. All of the Regional Landfill users have been consulted by the NTRLBU in anticipation of the pending increase.

4.4 Not increasing fees at Pascoe Street will result in a loss of around $145,000 per year that is not be catered for in any budgets.

Roading

4.5 The Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) provides best practice guidelines for Road Controlling Authorities (RCA’s) to operate temporary traffic management to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the safe and efficient operation of the roading network under its authority. A recent review of CoPTTM has introduced additional training and requirements that will increase time and workload for officers approving Temporary Traffic Management Plans (TMP’s).

4.6 Historically Nelson City Council (NCC) has combined costs for the TMP processing into the Corridor Access Request (CAR) fee. Officers propose separating out the currently combined work streams for CAR’s and TMP’s into separate CAR and TMP approvals and recover costs accordingly.

4.7 A CAR is the required approval from the RCA for any activity to be undertaken in Council’s road reserve. Historically NCC has only charged for CAR’s that typically involve excavations (digging) in road reserve.

4.8 A TMP is a document that details the way activities in the road corridor need to be carried out so that all works minimise inconvenience and ensure road users and workers remain as safe as possible. All TMP’s have to be approved by the RCA before work commences. NCC require a traffic management plan for any activity that varies the normal operating conditions of any part of the road corridor (road, footpath or berm). This could include an event or a construction project.

4.9 Separating out the cost recovery for TMP review and approval will result in the new charges to process non-excavation site specific applications, generic TMP approvals and any revisions which has not been chargeable to date. The base rate for a standard excavation CAR application will be comparable to existing charges and includes inspections.

4.10 A new charge is also proposed for re-inspection of a defect when identified on site.

4.11 A significant increase in charges for non-approval penalties is also proposed. This increase will compensate for extra work load created when contractors are found working in public areas without RCA approval and will act as a deterrent for unauthorised works which will reduce risk to Council as the RCA.

4.12 A full list of existing and proposed fee structure is included in Table 2 of Attachment 1.

5. Options

5.1 Two options for each proposal are presented to the committee as detailed below:

5.1.1 Approve or not approve an increase in solid waste fees at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre. Officers support option 1.

Option 1: Approve an increase of 20% in fees for Solid Waste fees effective 1 July 2021. Officers support Option 1.
Advantages	· Increased costs of waste disposal will encourage people to think about and adopt waste minimisation · Provides consistency with the fees and charges of the Regional Landfill Business Unit. · Avoids further demands on rates
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increased risk of irresponsible dumping or “fly tipping”
Option 2: Do not approve an increase in Solid Waste fees other than CPI
Advantages	· Existing fees apply to users.
Risks and Disadvantages	· If the proposed changes are not approved the fees and charges at the transfer station will be out of step with the York Valley Regional Landfill, and the cost of the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre management and income generated will not cover actual costs incurred and will result in a financial shortfall that will need to be funded from an alternative source.

5.1.2 Approve or not approve proposed changes to roading fees. Officers support option 1.

Option 1: Approve the proposed changes to TMP’s and CAR’s effective 1 July 2021. Officers support Option 1.
Advantages	· TMP and CAR fee structure reflects costs incurred and recovers costs accordingly. · Avoids further demands on rates
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not approve proposed changes to TMP’s and CAR’s
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increasing TMP and CAR processing costs will not be recovered and will exceed existing budgets.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Officers recommend that the fees and charges for both solid waste and roading as set out in Attachment 1 of this report be approved.

7. Next Steps

7.1 If approved a communications plan will be developed to inform users of all changes that will take effect on 1 July 2021.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2325209 Proposed Changes to Fees and Charges for Solid Waste and Roading 2021-22 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

3. Risk

Fees and Charges are reviewed annually and either adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index or changed to reflect any changes in process and/or costs incurred to Council. If proposed changes are not approved the income generated from fees and charges may not cover actual costs incurred and result in a financial shortfall.

4. Financial impact

The fees and charges income will be included in the Council’s Draft Long Term Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Officers have carried out an assessment of significance and the recommendations outlined in the report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance Policy. Council officers have considered practices of other RCA’s and proposals are in line with those. Other than consultation on the annual plan relating to increases in the Regional Landfill charges no formal consultation has occurred with regards to the fee increases in this report.

6. Climate Impact

Increasing cost for waste disposal can influence waste minimisation and behaviours that could have a positive impact on climate change.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

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

· Water

· Wastewater, including Bell Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

· Stormwater and Flood Protection

· Solid Waste management, including transfer stations and waste minimisation

· Regional Landfill

· Recycling

Delegations:

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

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

· Approval of increases in fees and charges over the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

Item 8: Proposal for a new Wastewater Bylaw

Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2021

REPORT R21393

Proposal for a new Wastewater Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve that public consultation on the proposed Wastewater Bylaw 229 (2021) can commence.

2. Summary

2.1 Officers have completed their review of Council’s existing wastewater and trade wastes bylaw, Wastewater Bylaw (224) 2014. The conclusion of the review is that it is appropriate to replace the existing bylaw with a new bylaw.

2.2 The proposed bylaw, Wastewater Bylaw (229) 2021, retains much of the substance of the existing bylaw, although with some improvements in relation to discharges from swimming pools, and also from grease, silt, and oil traps. There are, however, numerous changes in drafting and formatting, and the addition of six new clauses, to align the proposed bylaw with the Tasman District Council’s Wastewater Bylaw.

2.3 The Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to give public notice, and consult with the public and the Minister of Health, on the proposed bylaw before it can be made.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Proposal for a new Wastewater Bylaw (R21393) and its attachments (A2539883, A2539886); and

2. Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s wastewater system, and the draft Wastewater Bylaw in Attachment 1 (A2539883) of Report R21393 is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. Approves the commencement of a special consultative procedure on a proposal to make the draft Wastewater Bylaw in Attachment 1 (A2539883) of Report R21393; and

4. Adopts the draft statement of proposal in Attachment 2 (A2539886) of Report R21393 for use in this special consultative procedure; and

5. Requests officers to give public notice of Council’s intention to make the draft Wastewater Bylaw in Attachment 1 of Report R21393, and to subsequently send a copy of this bylaw to the Minister of Health, in accordance with section 148 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6. Approves the consultation approach (set out in Sections 7 and 8 of Report R21393) and agrees:

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

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

4. Background

4.1 Council’s existing wastewater bylaw (Bylaw) was made in December 2014. Under section 158 of the LGA, the Bylaw needed to be reviewed five years from the date on which it was made.

4.2 The review of the existing Bylaw by officers determined that the Bylaw was largely ‘fit for purpose’, in that no significant substantive changes were required, other than some changes to clarify the application of the Bylaw to discharges from swimming pools and to better align requirements for grease, silt, and oil traps in the Bylaw with the Building Act 2004 and Building Code.

4.3 In addition, the review determined that some aspects of the drafting of the bylaw could be improved, and that it would be desirable to reorder the bylaw so that it aligns with the Tasman District Council’s Wastewater Bylaw as much as practicable. Six clauses from the Tasman District Council’s bylaw, not in Council’s existing bylaw, were identified as potentially worth including in a new bylaw.

4.4 On the basis of these review findings, it is appropriate to make a new bylaw that would replace the existing Bylaw.

4.5 Although the review of the existing wastewater bylaw was not completed within the timeframe set in section 158, section 160A of the LGA provides that this Bylaw will remain in force for a further two years, at which point it will be automatically revoked (unless revoked earlier). Essentially, Council has until December 2021 to make a new wastewater bylaw (and revoke its existing Bylaw), presuming it wishes to continue to have a bylaw.

4.6 On 15 September 2020 a workshop within the Infrastructure Committee discussed a draft of the proposed new wastewater bylaw.

5. Proposed Wastewater Bylaw

5.1 A copy of the draft wastewater bylaw that has been prepared by officers, Wastewater Bylaw (229) 2021 (Draft Bylaw), is set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

5.2 The purpose of the Draft Bylaw is to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s wastewater system, including controlling discharges to the reticulated system. This is required to ensure Council’s infrastructure is protected, wastewater treatment processes are not compromised, and public health is protected. The Draft Bylaw is a ‘functional’ tool that sets the regulatory framework to achieve that purpose.

5.3 The Draft Bylaw is largely the same in substance to the Council’s existing bylaw. However, improved drafting and aligning the Draft Bylaw with Tasman District Council’s Wastewater Bylaw has resulted in the Draft Bylaw being formatted and sequenced in a significantly different way.

5.4 Six clauses from the Tasman District Council’s Wastewater Bylaw have been included in the Bylaw. These are:

5.4.1 Clause 11, Part A, Access and powers of entry – this clause sets out Council’s powers of access and entry where parts of the wastewater system are on private property, which supplements Council’s powers in the LGA;

5.4.2 Clause 2, Part B, Continuity of discharge – this clause provides that once a connection is approved, Council will typically accept wastewater and trade waste, but subject to some reasonable exceptions for unavoidable disruption;

5.4.3 Clause 8, Part B, Connection and disconnection must be authorised – this clause provides that only an authorised agent, or someone who has Council approval, may make a connection or disconnection to the wastewater system;

5.4.4 Clause 9, Part B, Connections to wastewater system – this clause sets out some of the practical steps and requirements for applying for a connection to the wastewater system;

5.4.5 Clause 10, Part B, Private pump stations – this clause sets out requirements for private pump stations that service more than one property; and

5.4.6 Clause 11, Part B, Pressure wastewater reticulation – this clause recognises the possible use of pressure wastewater reticulation systems, and provides for Council approval of them when used as part of a connection to the wastewater system.

6. Section 155 of the LGA determinations

6.1 Before making any bylaw, section 155 of the LGA requires Council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and the Draft Bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6.2 A bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s wastewater system. It is necessary to have controls in place for connections to, and discharges of wastewater and trade wastes into, the system. Doing so will assist in ensuring Council’s infrastructure is protected, sewage treatment processes are not compromised, and public health is protected.

6.3 Other than through a bylaw, one way to impose controls on connections and discharges would be through contractual terms between Council and customers. Officers consider that a bylaw is the better option for the following reasons:

6.3.1 A bylaw will likely ensure greater consistency, whereas there is greater scope for contractual terms to vary between customers and over time;

6.3.2 Bylaws carry greater authority and have more meaningful enforcement (breaching a bylaw constitutes an offence), thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance;

6.3.3 Sections 195 and 196 of the LGA expressly provide for bylaws to govern the discharge of domestic sewage and trade wastes, meaning that bylaws, rather than contractual terms, will better fit with the regime in the LGA;

6.3.4 Most New Zealand councils control discharges to their wastewater systems through bylaws. Nelson City Council has had a wastewater bylaw since 2014, and had a trade waste bylaw prior to that.

6.4 Officers consider that the Draft Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. It has been made under lawful authority included in the LGA, and overall it is reasonable, sufficiently certain, and not repugnant to any other laws.

6.5 It is considered that the Draft Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and so is not inconsistent with that Act. The Bylaw does not infringe or restrict any of the rights and freedoms protected in the Act.

7. Requirement to use the special consultative procedure

7.1 Before making a bylaw, section 156 of the LGA requires Council to use the special consultative procedure if the bylaw concerns a matter identified as being of significant interest to the public, or Council considers that there is likely to be a significant impact on the public due to the Draft Bylaw.

7.2 Although the Draft Bylaw is largely similar in substance to Council’s existing Bylaw, it may nonetheless be of significant interest to at least some members of the public. In the circumstances, it is appropriate and safest for Council to use the special consultative procedure.

7.3 For this purpose, officers have prepared a draft statement of proposal, set out in Attachment 2 to this report. It complies with the requirements for bylaw-related statements of proposal in section 86 of the LGA.

8. Public notice requirement and consultation with the Minister of Health

8.1 Section 148 of the LGA sets out some special requirements that apply to trade waste bylaws. The Draft Bylaw deals with trade waste discharges, and so will be subject to these requirements.

8.2 First, before making a trade waste bylaw, Council must give public notice of its intention to make the bylaw, and ensure that a copy of that notice is sent to every registered owner of trade premises. Members of the public must be given at least 2 months in which to respond to the public notice, and Council is obliged to consider any responses received.

8.3 Council can comply with this requirement by combining it with the special consultative procedure. Section 148(7) expressly provides that Council may use a single consultation process to comply with both sections 148 and 156.

8.4 Second, having given public notice, Council must send a copy of the Draft Bylaw to the Minister of Health for his comments. It is open to the Minister to require Council to consult any representative of owners or occupiers of trade premises in the Nelson district. This is unlikely to occur given that Council will engage directly with all owners of trade premises as part of its public consultation process.

9. Options

9.1 If the Committee accepts that a Bylaw is the most appropriate way forward, then it has two options to consider in this matter:

9.1.1 Commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw set out in Attachment 1 (A2539883);

9.1.2 Do not commence consultation and instead rely on the existing wastewater bylaw until it is automatically revoked (December 2021) with an ultimate net result that council will not have a wastewater bylaw.

Option 1: Commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw – officers support Option 1
Advantages	· A bylaw will provide a reasonable level of control over connections to, and discharges into, the wastewater system. · Ensures a new bylaw will be in place when the existing Bylaw expires in December 2021. · The Draft Bylaw is similar in substance to the existing bylaw, so customers will not experience major change, but the improved drafting and formatting should make the Bylaw more accessible to customers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· No significant risks and disadvantages.
Option 2: Do not commence consultation and rely on the existing bylaw
Advantages	· The existing Bylaw will remain in operation for now.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The existing Bylaw will be revoked in December 2021, after which there would be no control over discharges to the wastewater system, increasing the risk of infrastructure damage and public health issues.

9.2 Officers support Option 1

10. Conclusion

10.1 It is appropriate to make a new wastewater bylaw, replacing the existing Bylaw, to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s wastewater system. Council should commence consultation on the Draft Bylaw using the special consultative procedure, and provide public notice and consult in accordance with section 148 of the LGA.

11. Next Steps

11.1 A Special Consultative Procedure will commence following Council approval of the Statement of Proposal to enable public feedback to be received on the Draft Bylaw. This feedback will help inform decision making on any changes to the Draft Bylaw prior to adoption by Council.

Author: Warren Biggs, Activity Engineer - Wastewater

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2539883 Final draft Nelson City Council Wastewater Bylaw No 229. ⇩

Attachment 2: A2539886 Final draft Statement of Proposal re new Wastewater Bylaw. ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposed Bylaw supports the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the Nelson community by putting in place the regulatory controls for discharges to the wastewater system.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Wastewater Bylaw supports the following community outcomes;

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

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

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

3. Risk

Not adopting the Bylaw would leave Council relying on its existing bylaw, which is due to expire in December 2021. If no new bylaw is made before then, Council would not have any enforceable controls over connections to, and discharges into, the wastewater system. This would likely create a risk to public health, and increase wastewater treatment costs and maintenance requirements of wastewater infrastructure.

4. Financial impact

There are no immediate funding implications over and above current costs of administration and enforcement.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance. Although the proposed Bylaw carries over much of the substance of the existing bylaw, it is still likely to generate some public interest. Consultation with the community will occur through the special consultative procedure, in accordance with both sections 156 and 148 of the LGA.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change has not been considered directly in the Bylaw however the Bylaw contains incentives that will indirectly encourage discharge of better quality and lower volumes.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The process underway related to the Bylaw is to be discussed at the February Te Ohu Taiao forum.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider Bylaws.

Delegations:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility.

Areas of responsibility:

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

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

Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate.

Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

Item 9: Proposal for a new Water Supply Bylaw

Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2021

REPORT R22546

Proposal for a new Water Supply Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the commencement of public consultation on the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 228 (2021).

2. Summary

2.1 Officers have completed their review of Council’s existing Water Supply Bylaw (223) 2014. Their conclusion is that it is appropriate to replace the existing bylaw with a new bylaw.

2.2 The proposed bylaw, Water Supply Bylaw (228) 2021, retains much of the substance of the existing bylaw. There are, however, numerous changes in drafting and formatting to align the proposed bylaw with the Tasman District Council’s Water Supply Bylaw and the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (NES).

2.3 The Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to give public notice, and consult with the public (using the special consultative procedure in section 156(1)(a) LGA) on the proposed bylaw before it can be made.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Proposal for a new Water Supply Bylaw (R22546) and its attachments (A2385695 and A2541286); and

2. Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s Water Supply system, and the draft Water Supply Bylaw in Attachment 1 (A2385695) is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. Approves the commencement of a special consultative procedure on the proposal to make the draft Water Supply Bylaw in Attachment 1 (A2385695); and

4. Adopts the draft statement of proposal in Attachment 2 (A2541286) for use in this special consultative procedure; and

5. Approves the consultation approach (set out in Section 7 of Report R22546) and agrees:

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

4. Background

4.1 Council’s existing Water Supply bylaw was made in late 2014 to regulate activities associated with Council’s public water supply (the bylaw does not apply to individual private water takes or small private schemes). Under section 158 of the LGA, the current bylaw needed to be reviewed five years from the date on which it was made.

4.2 The review of the existing bylaw by officers in Council’s activity management, operations and finance teams determined that the intent of the bylaw was largely ‘fit for purpose’ but would benefit from updating to reflect changes in the local and national water supply environments.

4.3 The major change is to maintain consistency with the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 and align with the new Tasman District Council Water Supply Bylaw as far as practicable, particularly the water restriction protocols that apply to parts of Nelson City supplied with water by the Tasman District Council.

4.4 Additionally, another key change has been made to more clearly recognise the requirements of the NES. This document is a regulation made under the Resource Management Act (1991) that sets requirements for protecting sources of human drinking water from becoming contaminated. It came into effect on June 2008 and amendments are currently being drafted as part of the central government Three Waters Review.

4.5 The document that supports the NES is the ‘Technical Guidelines for Drinking Water Source Protection Zones’ issued by the Ministry for the Environment in 2018. The content of this document has been reflected in the text of the proposed draft bylaw and with specific source protection zone maps.

4.6 Source protection will be a strong focus of the new central government water regulator Taumata Arowai. Recognising the need for specific source protection zones within the draft Bylaw is considered to be an important step for Council.

4.7 On the basis of these review findings, it would be appropriate to make a new bylaw that would replace the existing bylaw.

4.8 Although the review of the existing Water Supply Bylaw was not completed within the timeframe set in section 158 LGA, section 160A LGA provides that the existing Bylaw will remain in force for a further two years, at which point it will be automatically revoked (unless revoked earlier). Essentially, Council has until December 2021 to make a new Water Supply bylaw (and revoke its existing Bylaw).

4.9 On 2 July 2020 a Council workshop discussed the draft Water Supply bylaw. The proposed draft bylaw addresses the issues raised in the workshop.

4.10 Any bylaw enacted by Council may also need to be reviewed in the near future once the outcome of central government’s three water’s reform package is known.

5. Proposed Water Supply Bylaw

5.1 A copy of the draft Water Supply bylaw that has been prepared by officers, Water Supply Bylaw (228) 2021 (Bylaw), is set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

5.2 The purpose of the draft Bylaw is to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s water supply system. This is required to ensure Council’s infrastructure is protected, water supply treatment processes are not compromised, and public health is protected. The draft Bylaw is a ‘functional’ tool that sets the regulatory framework to achieve that purpose.

5.3 The draft Bylaw is largely the same in substance to the Council’s existing bylaw. However, improved drafting and aligning the proposed Bylaw with Tasman District Council’s Water Supply Bylaw has resulted in the draft Bylaw being formatted and sequenced in a slightly different way. The major new components of the draft bylaw are as follows:

5.3.1 Clause 8.1. Proposed new Source Protection Zones. It is proposed that the water supply catchment will be considered as three zones. Activities that are allowed within each zone will be controlled and their nature will depend on the risk they present to the water supply. High risk activities will be prohibited from areas close to the intakes for the supply. The proposed zones reflect the importance of Council protecting the sources of the city water supply while still allowing access to the water supply catchment by the community.

5.3.2 Clause 26.2 Provision for any future restricted flow supply areas. These supplies are typically utilised by rural areas where low pressure and slow flow is a feature of the supply. Currently Council does not have any restricted flow areas in the network. However the growth of the city at the edges of the city water supply network coupled with changes that central government are considering to the way water supplies are delivered to the community suggest that it would be prudent to make provision for regulating these supplies should they come about in the future.

6. Section 155 of the LGA determinations

6.1 Before making any bylaw, section 155 of the LGA requires Council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that the proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6.2 For Nelson City Council the perceived problem is regulating, managing and protecting Council’s public water supply system. A bylaw is the most appropriate way to do this. Doing so will assist in ensuring Council’s infrastructure is protected, water treatment processes are not compromised, and public health is protected.

6.3 Other than through a bylaw, one way to impose controls on connections would be through contractual terms between Council and customers. Officers consider that a bylaw is the better option for the following reasons:

6.3.1 A bylaw will likely ensure greater consistency, whereas there is greater scope for contractual terms to vary between customers and over time;

6.3.2 Bylaws carry greater authority and have more meaningful enforcement (breaching a bylaw constitutes an offence), thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance;

6.3.3 Sections 145, 146(b)(ii) and 193(1)(ba) of the LGA expressly provide for bylaws to govern water supply, meaning that bylaws, rather than contractual terms, will better fit well with the regime in the LGA;

6.3.4 Most New Zealand councils control their water supply systems through bylaws. The proposed bylaw replaces an existing bylaw.

6.4 Officers consider that the draft Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. It will be made under lawful authority confirmed in the LGA, and overall it is reasonable, sufficiently certain, and not repugnant to any other laws.

6.5 It is considered that the draft Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and so is not inconsistent with that Act. The draft Bylaw does not infringe or restrict any of the rights and freedoms protected in the Act.

7. Requirement to use the special consultative procedure

7.2 Although the draft Bylaw is largely similar in substance to Council’s existing bylaw, it may nonetheless be of significant interest to at least some members of the public. In the circumstances, it is appropriate and safest for Council to use the special consultative procedure.

8. Options

8.1 If the Committee accepts that a bylaw is the most appropriate way forward, then it has two options to consider in this matter:

8.1.1 Commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw set out in Attachment 1 (A2385695);

8.1.2 Do not commence consultation and instead rely on the existing Water Supply bylaw until it is automatically revoked (December 2021) with an ultimate net result that council will not have a Water Supply bylaw.

Option 1: Commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw – Officers support Option 1
Advantages	· A bylaw will provide a reasonable level of control over connections to the water supply system. · Ensures a new bylaw will be in place when the existing bylaw expires in December 2021. · The Bylaw is similar in substance to the existing bylaw, so customers will not experience major change, but the improved drafting and formatting should make the Bylaw more accessible to customers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· No significant risks and disadvantages.
Option 2: Do not commence consultation and rely on the existing bylaw
Advantages	· The existing bylaw will remain in operation for now.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The existing bylaw will be revoked in December 2021, after which there would be no control over connections to the Water Supply system, increasing the risk of infrastructure damage and public health issues.

8.2 Officers support Option 1.

9. Conclusion

9.1 It is appropriate to make a new Water Supply bylaw, replacing the existing bylaw, to regulate, manage, and protect Council’s water supply system. Council should commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw using the special consultative procedure in accordance with section 148 of the LGA.

10. Next Steps

10.1 A Special Consultative Procedure will commence following Council approval of the Statement of Proposal to enable public feedback to be received on the proposed Bylaw. This feedback will help inform decision making on any changes to the proposed Bylaw prior to adoption by Council.

Author: Phil Ruffell, Senior Activity Engineer - Water Supply

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2385695 Final draft Nelson City Council Water Supply Bylaw No 228 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2541286 Final draft Statement of Proposal for draft Nelson City Council Water Supply Bylaw ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposed Bylaw supports the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the Nelson community by putting in place the regulatory controls for connections to the Water Supply system.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Water Supply Bylaw supports the following community outcomes;

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

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

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

3. Risk

Not adopting the draft Bylaw would leave Council relying on its existing bylaw, which is due to expire in December 2021. If no new bylaw is made before then, Council would not have any enforceable controls over connections to the water supply system. This would likely create a risk to public health, and increase water supply treatment costs and maintenance requirements of water supply infrastructure.

4. Financial impact

There are no immediate funding implications over and above current costs of administration and enforcement.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

6. Climate Impact

Climate change has not been considered directly in the draft Bylaw.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The process underway related to the proposed Bylaw is to be discussed at the February 2021 Te Ohu Taiao forum.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider Bylaws.

Delegations:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility.

Areas of responsibility:

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

Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate.

Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

Item 10: Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 2021/22 Business Plan and 2021-31 Activity Management Plan

Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2021

REPORT R21468

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 2021/22 Business Plan and 2021-31 Activity Management Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive and adopt the Draft 2020/21 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) Business Plan (Plan).

1.2 To receive and adopt the Draft 2021-31 NTRLBU Activity Management Plan (AMP) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP).

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 2021/22 Business Plan and 2021-31 Activity Management Plan (R21468) and its Attachments (A2495934 and A2511191); and

2. Adopts the Draft Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill 2021/22 Business Plan (A2495934); and

3. Adopts the Draft 2021-31 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Activity Management Plan (A2511191) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

3. Background

3.1 The NTRLBU was established by the Nelson City Council (NCC) and Tasman District Council (TDC) in April 2017 and became operational from 1 July 2017.

3.2 The approved Terms of Reference require that the Draft Business Plan be presented annually to each Council by 31 October each year and allow for each Council to provide feedback on the draft Business Plan.

3.3 The Draft 2020/21 Business Plan and Draft AMP was considered by the Board on 11 September 2020 and submitted to each Council for comments.

3.4 The NTRLBU can only formally adopt the Draft Plan after receiving and considering comment from the two Councils and is then required to present the final Business Plan to the Councils by 31 May to inform each Council’s draft Long Term Plan.

3.5 This Committee considered both documents on 19 November 2020 and provided feedback to the NTRLBU, resolving as follows:

“Provides feedback to the General Manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit on the draft Nelson Regional Sewerage 2021/22 Business Plan (A2511235)”.

3.6 The basis of that feedback was that whilst the 20% increase in landfill fees and charges was considered high and higher than expected that this increase was overall deemed necessary.

3.7 The NTRLBU considered feedback from both Tasman and Nelson and resolved on 4 December 2020 as follows:

“Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2021-2031 Activity Management Plan (A2511191) and 2021/22 Business Plan (A2495934) for submission to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for inclusion in their Long Term Plans, with delegation of all minor amendments to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Chairperson.

Recommendation to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Councils

1. Adopts the 2021/2022 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Business Plan (A2495934) for inclusion in their Long Term Plans; and

2. Adopts the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Activity Management Plan 2021-2031 (A2511191) for inclusion in their Long Term Plans.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Draft Business Plan and AMP are appended as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively. The Draft Business Plan and Draft AMP are in alignment and hence treated as a single matter of business. The General Manager (GM) will be present at the meeting to answer any questions.

4.2 There were no changes to either document and none were required by NCC.

4.3 The NTRLBU has the authority to set fees and charges and these are after considering feedback from NCC still proposed to increase by 20% for 2021/22. As noted previously to the Committee, an increase in landfill charges will reflect the same increase at the Pascoe Street Transfer Station.

5. Options

5.1 The Committee has the option to adopt the Draft Business Plan and AMP or not adopt either. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Adopt the Draft Plan and Draft AMP
Advantages	· Gives effect to the Deed of Agreement and demonstrates support for the Business Unit. · Supports Council in meeting the requirements of the LGA.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not adopt the Draft Plan and Draft AMP
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not adopting both will not demonstrate support for the Business Unit

6. Conclusion

6.1 The NTRLBU Draft 2021/22 Business Plan has been approved by the NTRLBU Board and released to the two Councils for comment. NCC has provided feedback to the General Manager and that feedback has been considered by the Board.

6.2 The Draft Plan and Draft AMP are presented to the two Council’s for adoption.

7. Next Steps

7.1 The next step is for the Committee to adopt the Draft Business Plan and Draft AMP for inclusion in the 2022/32 LTP.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2495934 - NTRLBU Business Plan ⇩

Attachment 2: A2511191 - Draft NTRLBU AMP ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NTRLBU is a joint committee constituted pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002. A regional landfill contributes to the following Local Government wellbeings of social, economic and environmental.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Both documents support the delivery of the following Council Community Outcomes:

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

• Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

3. Risk

The risk of not adopting the Business Plan and AMP is that this could delay the NTRLBU implementing their Business Plan for 2021/22 or council feeding the information into their LTP.

4. Financial impact

The NTRLBU 2021/22 Business Plan reflects an increase in landfill fees and charges and this will be included in the LTP and will have the effect of increasing fees at the Pascoe Street Transfer station.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The NTRLBU is a joint committee of the two Councils and its activities are included in the Long Term Plans and Annual Plans of each Council. Consultation is undertaken by both Councils in the preparation and adoption of these plans.

6. Climate Impact

A key feature of the NTRLBU Business Plan is mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. This includes a commitment to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the facility

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with iwi has been undertaken in preparing this report, but iwi have representation on the Board.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Plan:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Regional landfill

Delegations:

· Developing and approving draft Activity Management Plans in principle including the Infrastructure Strategy for inclusion in the Long Term Plan.

Item 11: Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2021

REPORT R21488

Infrastructure Quarterly Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform the Committee of the financial and non-financial results for the second quarter of 2020/2021 for the activities under its delegated authority.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report (R21488) and its attachments (A2411176, A2552565 and A2564719).

3. Background

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

3.2 The financial reporting focuses on the year to date performance (1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020) compared with the year to date (YTD) approved capital and operating budgets.

3.3 Unless otherwise indicated, all information is against approved operating budget, which is the 2020/21 annual budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the Committee or Council.

3.4 More detailed project status reports are included (attachments) for the 38 projects that fall under the Infrastructure Committee. These have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2020/21, are multi-year projects with a budget over $1Million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee. The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) funded projects have also been added as will any other projects that will be receiving external funding.

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

4. COVID – 19 cost impacts

4.1 The COVID-19 lockdown lasted for Alert Levels 4 and 3 (total of seven weeks from 25 March to 13 May 2020). Costs associated with the lockdown for the previous quarter based on the information to hand at that time have been claimed and additional funding was approved for these costs in the last quarterly report.

5. Tenders Awarded

5.1 Tenders above $300,000 awarded under delegated authority in the last quarter are listed below:

Project Name	Awarded to	Tender Price
Snows Hill Footpath Upgrade	Egypt Ltd	$335,678
Tosswill Road Stormwater upgrade	Tasman Civil Ltd	$491,831
Orphanage Stream stopbanks upstream of Saxton Road	Downer	$635,721

5.2 Tenders Subcommittee

Project/Contract Name	Awarded to	Tender Price
None for this quarter

6. Financial Results

Profit and Loss by Activity

Notes

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

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

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

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

Operating Revenue (excluding rates)

Operating Expenditure (excluding internal interest)

Capital Expenditure Infrastructure

Capital Expenditure

The graph is indicating that we are tracking behind project spend. There have been some minor delays during the quarter, along with some timing changes to start dates, due to Contractor availability and potential work clashes (e.g. traffic management conflicts). However the programme is indicating that the spend will occur in this financial year.

Terms Used

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

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

Activity income and expenses have been reviewed in detail and commentary has been included below for variances between actuals and budget of greater than or less than $50,000.

6.1 Transport

6.1.1 Subsidised Roading income is less than budget by $162,000. Waka Kotahi maintenance income is under budget but planned maintenance works are to be undertaken later in the year. Renewal work was the focus prior to Christmas, and this is reflected in less operational expenditure.

6.1.2 Subsidised Roading expenditure is less than budget by $450,000. Staff costs are behind budget by $87,000 due to costs being allocated differently than expected.

6.1.3 Subsidised Roading costs are under budget across a variety of codes. As above, planned maintenance works are to be undertaken later in the year. Major variances include sealed pavement maintenance ($66,000 behind budget), footpath maintenance ($29,000 behind budget), structure inspections ($40,000 behind budget), road marking ($44,000 behind budget) and condition inspections and data collection ($61,000 behind budget)

6.1.4 Unsubsidised Roading income is less than budget by $241,000. This mainly relates to timing of the grant funding from Waka Kotahi for the Kawai Street Innovative Streets project which is $212,000 behind budget.

6.1.5 Unsubsidised Roading expenditure is less than budget by $152,000. Unsubsidised Roading costs are under budget across a variety of codes. The major variance is due to Kawai Street Innovative Streets expenditure which is $195,000 behind budget, $24,000 has been miscoded and will be transferred here. This project is being completed in stages, with stage 1 now complete, the project is now moving in to the monitoring stage.

6.1.6 Parking Regulation income is more than budget by $70,000. Parking infringement fee income is $46,000 ahead of budget due to an increase in fine revenue driven by more efficient enforcement activity since the installation of the new pay by plate parking meters.

6.1.7 Parking and CBD Enhancement expenditure is less than budget by $132,000. Lease expenditure is $97,000 behind budget mainly due to paying the Wakatu Lease which was budgeted in November but paid in January.

6.1.8 Public Transport income is more than budget by $280,000. Waka Kotahi income is $213,000 ahead of budget and is directly linked to costs, which are also ahead of budget. TDC’s contribution to public transport is $24,000 ahead of budget, and Bee Card revenue is $42,000 ahead of budget.

6.1.9 Public Transport expenditure is more than budget by $240,000. Unprogrammed expenditure of $136,000 for the response to COVID-19 has been incurred against a nil budget, however this is covered by additional Waka Kotahi income. Staff expenditure is $55,000 ahead of budget due to costs being allocated differently than expected.

6.2 Solid Waste

6.2.1 Transfer Station income is more than budget by $56,000. This mainly relates to disposal fee income which is $39,000 ahead of YTD budget.

6.2.2 Recycling income is less than budget by $76,000. This mainly relates to levy income from the landfill to fund expenditure for recycling ($66,000 behind budget), which is directed linked to expenditure which is also under budget.

6.2.3 Recycling expenditure is less than budget by $143,000. This mainly relates to expenditure on the kerbside recycling contract which is $136,000 behind budget.

6.3 Wastewater

6.3.1 Wastewater income is less than budget by $267,000. Commercial Trade Waste income is under budget by $111,000. The return on investment from the NRSBU is creating a timing variance of $214,000 as it does not occur until the end of financial year.

6.3.2 Wastewater expenditure is more than budget by $495,000. Due to the revaluation, depreciation expense is $540,000 over budget YTD. Depreciation budget was based on the value of assets at the start of 2019/20 but actual depreciation is based on the revaluations completed on 30 June 2020 which saw depreciated replacement value of wastewater assets increase by an average of 25% when compared with values at 1 July 2019.

6.4 Stormwater

6.4.1 Stormwater expenditure is more than budget by $301,000. Due to the revaluation, depreciation expense is $352,000 over budget YTD. Depreciation budget was based on the value of assets at the start of 2019/20 but actual depreciation is based on the revaluations completed on 30 June 2020 which saw depreciated replacement value of stormwater assets increase by an average of 29% when compared with values at 1 July 2019.

6.5 Water

6.5.1 Water Supply income is greater than budget by $259,000. This represents water income from residential meters being 5.6% ahead of budget and could include factors such as the new water meters recording water usage with greater accuracy, and timing of the reading rounds.

6.5.2 Water Supply expenditure is more than budget by $193,000. Due to the revaluation, depreciation expense is $293,000 over budget YTD. Depreciation budget was based on the value of assets at the start of 2019/20 but actual depreciation is based on the revaluations completed on 30 June 2020 which saw depreciated replacement value of water supply assets increase by an average of 13% when compared with values at 1 July 2019.

6.5.3 Other variances include; water treatment expenditure $139,000 behind budget, which is a timing variance. Insurance is $49,000 behind budget, electricity expenditure is $68,000 ahead of budget and Unprogrammed reticulation maintenance $66,000 ahead of budget.

7. Commentary on Capital Projects

7.1 All infrastructure capital projects with a budget greater than $250,000 in this financial year or have an overall project budget of over 1M across the life of the project have a project sheet in Attachment 1 of this report.

7.2 The Gracefield Sewer Diversion has re-commenced on site following the Christmas break.

7.3 The Anzac to Maitai Shared pathway improvements construction at the corner of Halifax and Rutherford Street’s was completed during the quarter.

7.4 The Beach Road storage construction, part of the Awatea Pump station project is complete.Tender documentation for the Awatea pump-station was issued in December.

7.5 The Bisley Avenue stormwater stage 1 project was completed, receiving thanks and appreciation from the local landowner.

7.6 Seafield Terrace works is well underway and progressing well.

7.7 The first of two inner city covered bike stands was installed in Montgomery Square prior to the Christmas break. The second will be installed in Trafalgar Street mid-February.

7.8 The Tahunanui SH6 Stormwater Culvert Upgrades project involves the relining and upgrade of stormwater culverts across Rocks Road. This project was originally part of the Tahunanui Slump Stormwater Catchment programme, but has been fast tracked due to Waka Kotahi planning to resurface a portion of Rocks Road in 2021/22. Following a further update of the modelling for the Tahunanui Slump Stormwater Catchment programme, two culvert crossings have been identified as needing to be increased in size to allow for greater capacity. The increase in pipe sizes requires an additional $150,000. Savings from within the stormwater activity have been identified and $150,000 will be reallocated from Mount Street/Konini Street project. The project is still on track for completion by end June 2021.

8. Provincial Growth Funded Projects

8.1 Both the raised table at Waikare Street/Beach Road and the Maitai path improvements works are complete.

8.2 Eves Valley Planting – this work has commenced with further work planned to be completed in April/May 2021, being planting season.

8.3 York Valley Landfill roading resurfacing – Resurfacing has commenced, with final activities to be completed in February 2021.

9. Three Waters Services Reform

9.1 Three Waters Services Reform: Stimulus Programme Update - The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) have approved the Council’s Delivery Plan (Plan) resulting in just over $5.7M of external funding being awarded to Council. A summary of the project programme submitted within the plan is summarised below. Expenditure on these projects need to be completed by 31 March 2022.

PROJECT	Type	AMOUNT	Progress
General Programme
3 Waters roll out - discussion/collaboration	Opex	$300,000	To start in April 2021
General Programme Sub-Total		$300,000

Staff Resources		$480,000	Recruitment Commenced
Staff Resources Subtotal		$480,000

Water Programme
Maitai Dam – Lindavia Testing	Opex	$40,000	Commenced
Climate Change – Emission Reduction Strategy	Opex	$30,000	To start in February 2021
Water Pipeline Renewals Strategy	Opex	$30,000	To start in April 2021
Maitai Original Raw Water Pipeline Renewal Strategy	Opex	$60,000	To start in April 2021
Reticulation Water Quality Improvement and Pressure Management Strategy	Opex	$70,000	To start in April 2021
Water Programme Sub-Total		$230,000

Wastewater Programme
NWWTP Resource Consent Monitoring Programme	Capex	$200,000*	Commenced
NWWTP Pond Management Improvements	Opex	$60,000	Commenced
Awatea Road Pump Station	Capex	$3,538,458*	Procurement Stage
Beach Road Wastewater Storage	Capex	$300,000*	Completed
Trade Waste Improvement Programme	Opex	$170,000	Commenced
Wastewater Pipeline Renewals Strategy	Opex	$30,000	To start in March 2021
Climate Change - Wastewater Network Heat Mapping	Opex	$30,000	To start in April 2021
Climate Change Emission Reduction Strategy	Opex	$175,000	Commenced
Pump Station Data Collection, Storage and Use	Opex	$50,000	To start in March 2021
Wastewater Programme Sub-Total		$4,553,458

Stormwater Programme
Condition Performance Assessment	Opex	$30,000*	To start in February 2021
Stormwater Quality Strategy	Opex	$130,000	To start in April 2021
Stormwater Programme Sub-Total		$160,000

GRAND TOTAL		$5,723,458

* Does not represent total project budget, only the external contribution from the Three Waters Stimulus Programme.

9.2 Three Waters Services Reform: Request for Information Update - As reported in the 19 November 2020 Quarterly report, a Request for Information (RFI) was issued by the DIA on 23 October, seeking information to support detailed modelling and analysis. This information is to be supplied to the DIA by the 1 February 2021. The RFI is comprehensive and has required a substantive resource commitment from the Council particularly the utilities team, NRSBU and finance group. This work has involved weekly workshop meetings (twice a week) both nationally and with representatives from Scotland. This RFI applied significant pressure on already fatigued staff particularly given it is an LTP year.

10. Status Report Update

10.1 Sandbags

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

10.2 Nelson Tasman Joint Regional Landfill (NTRLBU)

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

11. Commentary on operational projects

11.1 There is a detailed status report for two operational project (Inflow and Infiltration and Water Loss Reduction) included in the attachments. These projects have been selected for quarterly reporting as they have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

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

11.3 The first collection of the kitchenwaste trial will commence on 11 February. There are presently 102 participants from the 302 residents that were invited. Residents received two letters and follow up house calls by a Council officer are ongoing. There is presently a 33% uptake, and although the ongoing house calls are likely to raise this number, this number is deemed adequate for a valid trial. Community compost collection and processing systems are operational and prepared for the first collection.

11.4 Waste minimisation: The waste minimisation Rethink Waste programme delivered the following activities in Q2:

- Launch of waste reduction at events grants, and round one of the trial waste minimisation grants programme, with three grants approved to the value of $6,000. Further funding rounds for the trial will take place in early 2021.

- The Rethink Waste newsletter was also launched in this quarter, combined with an engagement programme on Shape Nelson to increase data on waste minimisation behaviours.

- The Rethink Waste spring programme trialled a range of workshops and activities, with four workshops on composting at home, as well as workshops on extending the life of textiles, reducing food waste and zero waste parenting. A drop-in hub for compost and food waste education is also being trialled at the Nelson Saturday Market. Feedback from these workshops will be used to direct a new engagement programme for Q3 and 4.

- Ongoing education and messaging supporting the changes to kerbside recycling continues.

- Support for Council walking the talk continues with support for waste minimisation at Council facilities, with the current focus being on the Trafalgar Centre complex and embedding waste avoidance into Council-delivered events and conditions of use for Council venues, along with providing support for the Capital projects deconstruction of the Mediterranean Warehouse. Capital projects are continuing to test how to build waste avoidance into ongoing projects.

- Further work is in hand designing a shared work programme with Tasman District Council to support the delivery of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP)

11.5 Innovative streets update:

11.5.1 Phase 1 of the project on Kawai Street has just been completed. The aim of this phase was to slow down vehicles and reduce through traffic. A community BBQ was held on Saturday 19 December where a range of feedback was received. Overall attendees were positive about the changes made, though there were some areas of concern. From the feedback officers made some immediate changes, removing the safety poles on the build-outs and filling the gaps with another planter box.

11.5.2 There will be a number of parts to Phase 2. It will focus on connecting the community with destinations such as schools, Victory Community Centre and the railway reserve. This will include enhancing pedestrian and cycling safety.

11.6 Changes to the speed limit bylaw recommended by the Infrastructure Committee on 30 September came into effect in the inner city (excluding Selwyn place) on 1 December 2020. Further changes in home zones and Selwyn Place will occur on 1 May 2021.

11.7 Work continues on the development of a Speed Management Plan to identify a framework for speed limits throughout the City. A draft is expected to be presented to this committee by mid-2021.

11.8 As part of this speed management work the Speed Hump Policy will be reviewed and updated. Officers plan to trial various speed control devices in a number of locations in the City where speed humps have been requested (including Locking Street) this year. This will help to identify the effects and impacts of different devices, in order to inform any revised Speed Hump Policy. Officers will work with residents in these locations regarding the trials. Any temporary measures, funded from existing budgets, will either be made permanent, adjusted, or removed. Councillors will be kept informed through the Councillors Newsletter as to the locations and outcomes of the trials.

11.9 The Pay by Plate parking payment system was introduced on 29 June 2020. Since then records show that 70% of transactions are undertaken using cash, the remainder Paywave and the Pay My Park App. Comparing the two periods 1 November 2019 - 31 December 2019 to 1 November 2020 – 31 December 2020 :

· A decrease in 1 hour free parking transactions of 42%

· An increase in paid transactions by 30%

· An increase in revenue of 42%

Anecdotal observation suggests carparks are more readily available. Carpark occupational surveys were carried out in mid-December but at the time of report writing official results were not available.

11.10 On 21 December Waka Kotahi updated Funding Guidance associated with the extra funding made available through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) to address the ongoing financial impacts of COVID-19 on the provision of public transport. This confirmed that any fare revenue shortfall and direct operating cost increases for public transport services, as a result of the COVID-19 disruptions between July and 28 February 2021 would be 100% funded. This 100% subsidy will be conditional on councils contributing at least their planned 2020/21 local share into public transport services.

11.11 Bee Card use accounted for an average of 77% of all bus trips in this quarter, showing continued high use of the scheme. Cash sales were up in Q2 by between 4-10% and officers are monitoring this trend to understand if more publicity is required or if the cash trip increase is due to visitors who do not have BEE cards.

12. Risks

12.1 A number of risks are front of mind through this quarter and are expected to remain going forward. As a result of the streamlined procurement process and key focus on supporting the economy, projects continue to move at pace. Risks associated with this are:

12.1.1 Potential prices above approved budgets that will require Council approval resulting in contractor’s programmes disrupted with potential for them to give preference to other work resulting in projects not proceeding this financial year.

12.1.2 Delays on material delivery (local and overseas) is a high risk and has now been realised, with price increases and supply chain issues. With confirmed increases in the costs of pipes of up to 9%.

12.1.3 Nurseries and planting contractors have raised concerns in terms of meeting forward future work (20/21 and 21/22) due to the high requirement across all sectors for plants.

12.1.4 Market buoyancy.

13. Iwi Activity Management Plan consultation

13.1 Individual sessions with iwi on the AMP’s were held as follows:

13.1.1 Transport AMP – 30 September 2020

13.1.2 Water Supply AMP – 21 October 2020

13.1.3 Stormwater and Flood Protection AMP – 21 October 2020

13.1.4 Wastewater AMP - iwi nominated the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit iwi representative to comment on this AMP.

13.1.5 Iwi chose not to review the Solid Waste AMP.

13.2 The feedback from iwi for each AMP is presented below. Comment is provided at the end of each item.

General Comments

13.3 Recommendation from iwi that the goal of the AMP’s should reference iwi partnership and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well as consideration of natural world view, sustainability and cultural acknowledgment.

Officers are working on drafting an introduction from the Council Kaumatua to compliment the Mayors introduction.

13.4 Iwi identified the desire for Cultural Health Indicator Monitoring (CHIM) – seasonal assessment of bird life, fish, plants, water clarity and overall biodiversity on major projects such as the NWWTP resource consent.

Officers are open to this on major projects and happy to work with iwi on this further. No major cost implications envisaged.

Transport AMP (TAMP)

13.5 Iwi agreed with the TAMP’s Problem Statements and the Executive Summary and were very complimentary on the standard of work presented.

13.6 Iwi were supportive of roading initiatives to address the NPS/NES freshwater and road runoff improvements.

13.7 Iwi support safety work on the network and noted preference for equal access to alternative transport for all.

13.8 Iwi interested in opportunities to have more Māori/iwi stories on future interpretative panels.

Officers are currently working with Te Ohu Toi Ahurea and iwi cultural managers. Costs for this included in project costs.

Wastewater AMP (WAMP)

13.9 Iwi do not support the ongoing treatment and discharge of sewage to freshwater and coastal marine area and note that climate change is significant to iwi.

A Nelson wastewater treatment plant working party involving iwi and officers has been set up to discuss the renewal of the resource consent.

Water Supply AMP (WSAMP)

13.10 Iwi support the renewals programme and addressing water loss.

These are key priorities of Council already.

13.11 See also item 13.12

Stormwater and Flood Protection AMP (SFPAMP)

13.12 Iwi have an interest in ensuring that the Maitai River has enough flowing water to support the coastal marine environment in context of population’s growth, climate change and ability to meet the needs of the community and protect the environment.

Council has existing resource consents that allow for this. For other streams and rivers there are allocation limits specified in the NRMP and reviewed in the Nelson Plan manged through consents.

13.13 Iwi advised that addressing stream enhancement in new sub-divisions and ensuring fish passage in existing streams is important.

This is part of business-as-usual. Officers are happy to look at any historical issues iwi identify. No additional budget implications.

13.14 Iwi suggested that Council look at contractor management specifically the management of machinery moving between catchments to prevent any potential for noxious weed transfer.

Officers support this and have included this in Council’s standard tender documents.

13.15 Iwi noted how well they were engaged with on Saxton Creek.

14. Key Performance Measures

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

· On track

· Not on track

· Achieved

· Not achieved

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

14.3 Overall 26 out of the 35 performance measures can be confirmed as being on track. Four performance measures are presently ‘Not on track’ and five performance measures have ‘Not been measured yet’ at this time.

14.4 For utilities, one performance measure not currently on track is 100% compliance with the Nelson North Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) resource consent.

14.5 As reported in the 19 November 2020 Quarterly Report, Council staff and contractors worked proactively to mitigate the likelihood of odour occurring from the oxidation ponds at the Plant.

14.6 The oxidation ponds at the Plant play an important role in treating wastewater and utilise a natural biological process that requires conditions in the pond to be carefully balanced. Between September and November, the algae within the ponds go through a transition phase, and as the temperature increases, some of the algae present during winter die off and are replaced by spring/summer algae. More often than not, this transition happens smoothly, however, during 2020, a particular winter algae became dominant and provided little opportunity for the summer algae to establish in the pond.

14.7 Healthy levels of algae ensure that the ponds remain oxygenated. When the winter algae dies off and is not replaced by summer algae, the pond can become anaerobic. It is at that point that the odour can occur. In preparation for this event, Council’s Pond Management Team put the following processes in place:

· Close monitoring of the health and diversity of the algae, enabling us to act quickly if algae conditions change

· Diverting all wastewater through additional treatment processes to take the load off the ponds – encouraging new algae to emerge

· Introduced sodium nitrate to the wastewater entering the ponds to reduce the risk of odour.

· Seeding the pond with algae from the nearby wetlands and Bell Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

14.8 The proactive steps taken were successful in avoiding odour issues whilst the transition from winter algae to summer algae took place.

14.9 Due to the high algae numbers previously reported and following the steps taken above, the ponds, in particular the wetlands have experienced a high volume of algae growth. This has resulted in higher than normal volumes of algae discharging from the wetlands and into the coastal environment.

14.10 If this trend continues, then there is a risk that the Council will not comply with the resource consent conditions. This is due to the higher volume of algae increasing the total suspended solids (TSS) above the 12 month median value allowed for within the consent. Therefore one of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP) performance measures would not be met.

14.11 Noting that this is a biological process, Council officers and the Contractor have initiated steps to help encourage the reduction of algae growth within the wetlands.

14.12 Cawthron is currently undertaking an assessment of effects on this particular issue.

14.13 It should be noted that the discharge quality from the Plant is still to a high standard. The discharge quality for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Faecal Coliform is comfortably below the limits of the resource consent.

14.14 Two of the seven transport measures are on not on track, three performance measures have not been measured due to timing, and two are on track.

14.14.1 There have been nine DSI (Deaths and /or Serious Injuries) crash events on the local road network to date in 2020/21. One crash resulted in a fatality. This is five more than the same time in 2019/20 and two more than the same time in 2018/19. If the current crash rate continues results will exceed targets. It is assumed the target would be the 2018/19 result because of the effect of the Covid-19 shutdown on the 2019/20 results.

14.14.2 NBus patronage for the second quarter was 87% of the same quarter in 2019/20. Patronage patterns have been affected by COVID-19 but less so here than in other metropolitan areas where, for example, in Christchurch patronage is 22% lower than the previous 12 months.

14.15 One of the three Solid waste performance measures is not on track.

14.14.1 Quantity of waste to landfill per capita is not on track. In November and December 2020 the disposal of general refuse, skips and bins, and demolition accounted for 4,000 tonnes above the Q2 last year, (18% above YTD last year.) This is possibly from more property repairs and development, influenced by the inability to travel overseas (and spend the money offshore) and the rising values of the property market. Presently YTD results are 15% above the per capita target, with an end of year estimate of 645Kg per capita.

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