Notice of the Ordinary meeting of

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

 

Date:                      Thursday 22 September 2022

Time:                      9.00a.m.

Location:                 Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

Note:       This meeting will reconvene on 27 September from @10.30a.m. to 12.30p.m., and on 29 September at 9.00a.m.

Agenda

Rārangi take

Chairperson                           Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese

Deputy Mayor                        Cr Judene Edgar

Members                                Cr Yvonne Bowater

          Cr Trudie Brand

          Cr Mel Courtney

          Cr Kate Fulton

          Cr Matt Lawrey

          Cr Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

          Cr Brian McGurk

          Cr Gaile Noonan

          Cr Pete Rainey

          Cr Rachel Sanson

          Cr Tim Skinner

Quorum    7                                                                                 Pat Dougherty

Chief Executive

Nelson City Council Disclaimer

Please note that the contents of these Council and Committee agendas have yet to be considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision. For enquiries call (03) 5460436.


Council Values

 

Following are the values agreed during the 2019 – 2022 term:

 

A. Whakautetanga: respect

B. Kōrero Pono: integrity

C. Māiatanga: courage

D. Whakamanatanga: effectiveness

E. Whakamōwaitanga: humility

F. Kaitiakitanga: stewardship

G. Manaakitanga: generosity of spirit

 

 


Nelson City Council

22 September 2022

 

 

Page No.

 

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1.       Apologies

Nil

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1      Updates to the Interests Register

3.2      Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Remembrance - Queen Elizabeth II                            47 - 47

Document number R27270

5.       Public Forum

4.1      Nelson Regional Development Agency

A representative from the NRDA, will be in attendance to speak about the Holding Company.

4.2      Chamber of Commerce

Ali Boswijk, from the Chamber of Commerce, will speak about the Holding Company.

 

6.       Confirmation of Minutes

6.1      25 August 2022                                                                          30 - 46

Document number M19756

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 25 August 2022, as a true and correct record.

   

 

7.       Confirmation of Minutes - 11 August 2022                  48 - 54

Document number R27165

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 11 August 2022, as a true and correct record.

 

 

8.       Mayor's Report                                                          55 - 55

Document number R27232

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R27232).

 

 

9.       Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update                                                              56 - 87

Document number R26904

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update  (R26904) and its attachment A2897579; and

2.    Agrees to defer negotiations with Wakatū until further work is undertaken by officers to better understand the implications of the new data with regards to coastal inundation impacts and adaptive planning for the inner city; and    

3.    Notes that officers will report the implications of the increased coastal inundation flooding as a result of new information from NZ SeaRise with respect to the new library site and inner city back to a future Council meeting; and  

4.    Agrees that the new library community engagement (which has already commenced) continues on the basis that this will guide the vision of a new library irrespective of location.

 

 

10.     Central Library Development Project Progress Report to End of August 2022                                                             88 - 98

Document number R27191

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Central Library Development Project Progress Report to the End of August 2022 (R27191).

 

 

11.     Elma Turner Library - Ceiling Tiles                            99 - 107

Document number R27194

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Elma Turner Library - Ceiling Tiles (R27194) and its attachments (714127617-7600 and 714127617-7774).

 

 

12.     Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed Site                      108 - 173

Document number R27212

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed site (R27212) and its Attachments (1862260321-18221 and 336940202-1318); and

2.    Approves Millers Acre as the long-term location for the new central city bus hub; and

3.    Approves that following approval of the location of the new bus hub at Millers Acre by Council, that officers initiate the necessary planning, design and consenting this financial year that will allow implementation of the new bus hub to commence next financial year.

 

 

13.     Recommendations from Committees                                   

13.1   Infrastructure Committee - 1 September 2022

13.1.1 Adoption of E Tū Whakatū  Nelson's Active Travel Strategy

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Adopts E Tū Whakatū – Nelson’s Active Travel Strategy 2022-32; and

2.    Delegates responsibility for any minor amendments of the Strategy to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and the Group Manager Infrastructure.

 

 

13.1.2 Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Approves bringing forwarded budgeted capital funding of $2,969,552 from 2023/24 and $108,426 from 2024/25, to allow completion of the Rutherford Street Stormwater project in 2022/23; and

2.    Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $60,000 in 2022/23 for the detail design of a new fluoridation system at the Water Treatment Plant following government directive from the Director-General of Health to fluoridate Nelson City Council drinking water supply; and

3.    Notes future budget for construction and commissioning the new fluoridation system will be included in 2023/24 Annual Plan and that officers are working with Manatū Hauora, who are making capital works funding available for local authorities that have been issued with a direction to fluoridate.

 

13.2   Nelson Tasman Landfill Business Unit – 9  September 2022

These recommendations have come to Council as the meeting fell after the last Infrastructure Committee meeting of the triennium.

13.2.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2021/2022

A copy of the Annual Report is attached under Separate Cover – p38

 

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Annual Report 2021/22 (1399367370-7648), the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit – Annual Financial Statements 2021/22.

 

 

13.2.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2023/2024

A copy of the Business Plan is attached under Separate Cover – p69

 

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2023/24 (1399367370-7649) for review and provide feedback to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit, if required.

 

 

13.2.3 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Governance Agreement Review Report

A copy of the Deed of Agreement is attached under Separate Cover – p89

A copy of the Terms of Reference is attached under Separate Cover – p108

 

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the Draft Amended and Restated Deed of Agreement for the Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (A2921574), and the Draft Updated Terms of Reference for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (A2921572); and

2.    Approves the Draft Amended and Restated Deed of Agreement for the Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (A2921574), and the Draft Updated Terms of Reference for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (A2921572).

13.3   Urban Development Subcommittee  – 9  September 2022

 

13.3.1  Chairperson’s Report

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Reaffirms the Housing Reserve criteria (A2748972) for future grants from the Housing Reserve Fund; and

2.    Agrees to leave open the time period for receiving applications for the Housing Reserve fund.

 

13.4   Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 13 September 2022

13.4.1 Carry Forwards 2021/22

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Approves the carry forward of $8.5 million unspent capital budget for use in the 2022/23 financial year; and

2.    Notes that this is in addition to the carry forward of $21 million approved during the Annual Plan 2022/23, taking the total carry forward to $29.5 million of which $23.7 million is for the 2022/23 year, $3.4 million is for the 2023/24 year and $2.4 million is for the 2025/26 year; and

3.    Notes the total savings and reallocations in 2021/22 capital expenditure of $782,000; and

4.    Notes that the total 2022/23 capital budget (including staff costs and excluding consolidations and vested assets and scope adjustment) will be adjusted by these resolutions from a total of $80.6 million to a total of $89.1 million; and

5.    Approves the carry forward of $2.95 million unspent operating budget for use in 2022/23, $2.7 million (for the Science and Technology Precinct Capital Grant) of which is loan funded capital grant expenditure.

13.5   Community and Recreation Committee  - 15 September 2022

13.5.1 Future public recreation use of Ngāti Koata whenua

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms its commitment to maintaining and enhancing recreational access to high-value recreation areas that are currently owned by Ngāti Koata, and to entering into a mutually advantageous long-term agreement, with resourcing subject to funding being approved through the 2023/24 Annual Plan and the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

2.    Notes that entering into a mutually advantageous long-term agreement with Ngāti Koata will be a priority matter for consideration through the 2023/24 Annual Plan and the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

3.    Directs officers to continue dialogue with Ngāti Koata with a view to developing a proposal to maintain and enhance recreational access to high-value recreation areas that are currently owned by Ngāti Koata.

              

13.6   Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit  - 16 September 2022

These recommendations have come to Council as the meeting fell after the last Infrastructure Committee meeting of the triennium.

13.6.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2021/2022

A copy of the Annual Report is attached under Separate Cover – p 118

 

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.   Receive the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2021/22 (R27151) and its attachment, the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit – Annual Financial Statements 2021/22 (1080325921-64).

 

13.6.2 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2021/2022

A copy of the Business Plan is attached under Separate Cover – p 163

 

Recommendation to Council

1.

That the Council

1.   Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2021/22 (R27151) and its attachment, the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit – Annual Financial Statements 2021/22 (1080325921-64).

 

14.     Status Report                                                        175 - 216

Document number R26690

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Status Report (R26690) and its attachment (1982984479-4496).

 

 

15.     Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council   217 - 235

Document number R27230

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council (R27230) and its attachment/s (); and

2.    Supports the Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council to sign the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022; and

3.    Authorises the Mayor and Kaihautū, Manager Māori Partnerships to approve any minor amendments required to finalise the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022; and

4.    Notes that the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council will be signed at the next Iwi-Council Partnership hui on 28 September 2022; and

5.    Notes that a collective Relationship Agreement with the eight Te Tauihu iwi, Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council and Marlborough District Council may supersede the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council.

 

 

16.     Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032 236 - 279

Document number R27185

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032 (R27185) and its attachments; and

2.    Adopts Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032; and

3.    Authorises the Group Manager Community Services to approve any minor editorial amendments required to finalise the Strategy; and

4.    Notes that a Taonga Tuku Iho Steering Group will be established to agree an Action Plan to deliver outcomes for the Strategy; and

5.    Notes the current working group will be develop the structure, membership and terms of reference for the new Steering Group.

 

 

17.     Civic House Refurbishment Project                         280 - 287

Document number R27053

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Civic House Refurbishment Project (R27053); and

2.    Revokes Council Resolution CL/2021/049 of the 11 May 2021:

(2)   Approves, subject to final confirmation of         funding through the Long Term Plan 2021-    2031,         option 1: staged refurbishment of Civic House         contained within the Civic House     Refurbishment         Business Case (A2618201), noting that the scope         includes:

        -      Progressively refurbishing each floor of Civic           House over an eight year period;

        -      Moving the Chamber to the ground floor;

        -      Providing a Councillor lounge adjacent to the         Chamber;

-      Providing a consistent, modern staff working         environment on each floor with a range of         work areas;

-      Raising the ground floor of Civic House to         mitigate flooding based on a 1% AEP river         flood event in 2080;

-      Implementing measures to reduce electricity         use by 20% and eliminate diesel use by 2030

-      incorporating design principles which deliver to Council’s climate change objectives

-      providing for accessible and inclusive design

-      recognising iwi partnership; and

        (3)   Notes that the following renewals will be        prioritised ahead of the overall refurbishment        due to asset end of life or safety concerns:

       -      tower block roof;

       -      ventilation, heating and boiler systems;                and

(4)  Requests the Chief Executive to provide a        further report to Council in relation to project        management (budget, quality and time) and scope        prior to the project commencing; and

(5)  Requests the Chief Executive to provide a        further report with regards to appropriate      levels        of earthquake strengthening.

3.    Approves the development of a new business case        (in line with Better Business Case methodology)       to take into consideration the impact of changes        since the previous business case was approved, to        include (but not be limited to) the following:

-     Seismic resilience issues

-     Workplace Strategy – working from home and hybrid future

-     Three waters reforms

-     Resource Management Act reforms

-     Review into the Future for Local Government

-     COVID-19 impacts

-     Coastal inundation impacts and sea level rise.

 

 

18.     Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust 288 - 313

Document number R27094

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust (R27094) and its attachments (821857120-10, 821857120-11 and 821857120-12); and

2.    Approves the discharge of encumbrance instrument 8804711.5 from the title of 285 Brook Street, Nelson.

 

 

19.     Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event                                                         314 - 330

Document number R27180

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event  (R27180) and its attachment (839498445-7760); and

2.    Agrees that the August 2022 rainfall event qualifies as a natural calamity event for the purpose of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity; and

3.    Approves the criteria and level of remission rates for the August 2022 rainfall event, as set out in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.11 of this report; and

4.    Delegates the Group Manager Corporate Services and the Group Manager Environmental Management to determine applications for rates remission.

 

 

20.     Infrastructure Holdings Limited                             331 - 377

Document number R27257

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Infrastructure Holdings Limited (R27257) and its attachments (1511110536-309 and 1511110536-310).

Recommendation from the Joint Shareholders Committee 7 June 2022

The Council notes that:

Purpose

A.    The purpose of these resolutions is to seek the Council’s approval of the documents and transactions necessary to approve the:

a)    Restructuring Proposals (including the Initial Share Issue); and

b)    Financing Proposals (including the New Share Issue). 

B.    The Restructuring Proposals, Initial Share Issue, Financing Proposals and New Share Issue are explained below.

A new holding company for Port Nelson Limited and Nelson Airport Limited

C.    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (together, the Shareholders) have together been investigating the incorporation of a holding company which they will own in equal shares. The holding company will hold and administer investments in entities in which the Shareholders have a substantial interest for the benefit of the Nelson and Tasman regions, being Port Nelson Limited (PNL) and Nelson Airport Limited (NAL). 

D.    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council through their Long Term Plan process and Joint Shareholders Committee (JSC), have each received and reviewed advice from Deloitte about operational synergies of holding investments, being PNL and NAL, in a holding company, and tax structure options.

E.    The name agreed for the holding company is Infrastructure Holdings Limited (IHL).

F.    The initial directors approved for IHL are Catherine Taylor, Paul Steere, Gerrard Wilson and Paul Zealand and an independent chairperson is being recruited.

Restructuring Proposals

G.    As part of the proposal to incorporate IHL, it is proposed that each of the Shareholders transfer all their shares in PNL and NAL to IHL (Share Sale) for $8,446,000 in total (Purchase Price). The Purchase Price will be owed to the Shareholders in equal portions (being $4,223,000 each). The Crown holds, and will continue to hold, one special “Kiwi Share” in NAL.

H.    The Purchase Price allocation is:

a)    $2,400,000 for the shares in NAL; and

b)    $6,046,000 for the shares in PNL.

I.     Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council will each subscribe for 42,230 ordinary shares in IHL (being 84,460 ordinary shares in total) (Initial Shares), at an issue price of $100.00 per share (Initial Share Issue). The total subscription amount for the Initial Shares is therefore $8,446,000 (Initial Subscription Amount), which is equal to the Purchase Price. 

J.     Accordingly, the Purchase Price will be satisfied on a cashless basis by set-off against the Initial Subscription Amount.

K.    The sale of shares in PNL and NAL and the subscription for the Initial Shares will be referred to in these resolutions as the “Restructuring Proposals”.

Financing Proposals

L.    The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA) is a limited liability company owned by central government and local authorities. It was established to borrow funds and then on-lend those funds to local authorities and (now) council-controlled trading organisations (CCTOs) at lower margins than those local authorities and council-controlled organisations would otherwise pay. 

M.    Currently, PNL and NAL service their debt requirements through ordinary bank borrowing from Westpac New Zealand Limited (Westpac). However, it is projected that PNL’s and NAL’s debt requirements and financing costs may increase over the next 10+ years to meet infrastructure-upgrade demands.

N.    Given the projected increase in PNL’s and NAL’s debt requirements and financing costs, IHL’s primary purpose is to operate as a treasury vehicle for PNL and NAL. To achieve this purpose, it is further proposed that (Financing Proposals) IHL will:

a)    join the LGFA borrowing programme (LGFA Accession) as a CCTO, following which, IHL will be able to borrow funds directly from LGFA by issuing securities to LGFA;

b)    enter into borrowing and risk hedging facilities with Westpac, which is PNL’s and NAL’s current bank; and

c)    on-lend amounts borrowed from the LGFA borrowing programme and Westpac to PNL and NAL under intra-group funding arrangements.

O.    Joining the LGFA borrowing programme will enable IHL to access cheaper core debt on behalf of PNL and NAL. As a “port company” under the Port Companies Act 1988, PNL is not permitted to join LGFA and NAL does not have the scale to make joining LGFA economical.  It is considered that, once implemented, the Financing Proposals will deliver considerable financial benefits, including savings in financing costs for PNL and NAL and, consequently, increased dividend return to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (as the ultimate owners of PNL and NAL). Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council through their Long Term Plan process and the JSC have each received and reviewed advice from Deloitte about LGFA funding benefits.

P.    PNL and NAL will continue to require the flexibility offered by Westpac’s transactional banking products. IHL will also enter into borrowing and risk hedging facilities with Westpac for working capital requirements and risk-management (such as interest-rate hedging).

The LGFA Accession and Westpac facilities

Q.    LGFA and Westpac will require certain credit support as conditions to the LGFA Accession and the availability of the Westpac facilities. Such credit support will include:

a)    a subscription from the Shareholders for an agreed amount of uncalled and unpaid equity capital in IHL (further details are described below);

b)    IHL, PNL and NAL will each cross-guarantee each other’s obligations to LGFA, Westpac as lender under borrowing facilities and Westpac as counter-party to risk-management facilities (together, the Finance Parties); and

c)    IHL, PNL and NAL will each grant general security over all of their personal property in favour of the Finance Parties.  In the case of IHL, this will include security over its right to call for uncalled and unpaid equity capital.

R.    As mentioned above, it will be a condition to the LGFA Accession and the availability of the Westpac facilities that the Shareholders subscribe for, and IHL issues to the Shareholders (New Share Issue), a further 1,165,000 ordinary shares each (totalling 2,330,000 ordinary shares) in IHL (New Shares) for an issue price of $100.00 per share. The total amount payable for the New Shares will therefore be $233,000,000 (Issue Amount). The Issue Amount will remain uncalled and unpaid until such time as the directors of IHL make a call on the New Shares for the Issue Amount. 

Shareholder approvals

S.    The Restructuring Proposals and the Financing Proposals will require the approval of the Shareholders as:

a)    the proposals are, or may be, “major transactions” (as defined in section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act));

b)    the Initial Share Issue and the New Share Issue require the agreement of IHL’s entitled persons (as that term is defined in the Act) for the purposes of section 107(2) of the Act. The only entitled persons of IHL will be the Shareholders; and

c)    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (as the shareholders of IHL) must consent, for the purposes of section 50 of the Act and for all other purposes, to becoming the holder of the Initial Shares and the New Shares.

T.    Accordingly, IHL’s board of directors will, at the relevant times, separately request that Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council (as shareholders and entitled persons of IHL) confirm and approve IHL’s entry into, execution and performance, of the:

a)    Restructuring Proposals (including the Initial Share Issue); and

b)    Financing Proposals (including the New Share Issue),

by separate unanimous resolutions and entitled persons’ agreements.  The unanimous resolutions and entitled persons’ agreements for the Restructuring Proposals and the Financing Proposals are together referred to as the “Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements”.

Next steps

U.    In order to incorporate IHL and give effect to the Restructuring Proposals, the Shareholders will need to:

a)      register IHL as a limited liability company on the New Zealand Companies Office and each complete the Companies Office requirements in relation to the incorporation of IHL (such as shareholder consent forms) (Companies Office Forms);

b)      appoint directors to the board of IHL (including an independent chairperson);

c)      cause IHL to adopt the constitution in the form attached (the Constitution);

d)      enter into a shareholders’ agreement (which will include the subscription provisions for the Initial Shares) with IHL, in the form attached (the Shareholders’ Agreement);

e)      enter into a sale and purchase agreement with IHL relating to the transfer of shares in PNL and NAL in the form attached (the Sale and Purchase Agreement);

f)      execute and deliver the share transfer forms (in the form attached) in relation to the Sale and Purchase Agreement (the Share Transfer Forms); and

g)      any other documents necessary or desirable in connection with the Restructuring Proposals.

The Companies Office Forms, Shareholders’ Agreement, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Share Transfer Forms and any other documents captured by paragraph U.g) above, are together referred to as the “Restructuring Documents”, and the transactions contemplated by the Restructuring Documents are referred to as the “Restructuring Transactions”.

V.    In order to give effect to the Financing Proposals, each of the Shareholders will need to enter into:

a)      a subscription agreement (in the form attached) with IHL, under which the Shareholders will subscribe for the New Shares (Subscription Agreement);

b)      (as part of the LGFA Accession) accession deeds to the multi-issuer deed and notes subscription agreement (which Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council are each already a party to) (Accession Deeds); and

c)      any other documents necessary or desirable in connection with the Financing Proposals.

The Subscription Agreement, the Accession Deeds and any other documents captured by paragraph 0 are together referred to as the “Financing Documents” and the transactions contemplated by the Financing Documents are referred to as the “Financing Transactions”.

Documents

W.   The Council tables the most recent drafts of the Restructuring Documents, the Subscription Agreement and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements.

X.    The Council has not tabled copies of the Accession Deeds because they are not yet available for the Council to review and approve.  However, the Accession Deeds will be based on the standard form for accession deeds scheduled to the LGFA Multi-Issuer Deed and Notes Subscription Agreement respectively.

That the Council resolves:

1.    the Council consents, for the purposes of section 50 of the Act and for all other purposes, to being the joint owner in equal shares of the Initial Shares and the New Shares;

2.    the form of the Constitution be approved, and the Shareholders will cause IHL to adopt the Constitution;

3.    the Restructuring Documents and the Restructuring Transactions (including, specifically, the Initial Share Issue) are approved, and any pre-emptive rights available to the Shareholders in relation to the Share Sale are to be waived in the Sale and Purchase Agreement;

4.    the Financing Documents and the Financing Transactions (including, specifically, the New Share Issue) are approved;

5.    the forms of the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements are approved;

6.    the Council enters into and, following execution, delivers and performs its obligations under, each of the Restructuring Documents and the Financing Documents and that these documents may be executed by:

a)    (in the case of agreements) the Chief Executive; and

b)    (in the case of deeds) two elected members,

on behalf of the Council, subject to any minor amendments cleared by both Tasman District Council’s and Nelson City Council’s legal advisors;

7.    when requested to do so by the board of IHL, the Chief Executive is authorised to sign the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements on behalf of the Council, subject to any minor amendments cleared by both TDC’s and NCC’s legal advisors;

8.    the Chief Executive is authorised on behalf of the Council to, subject to clearance by both Tasman District Council’s and Nelson City Council’s legal advisors:

a)    approve any further minor amendments to the Restructuring Documents, the Financing Documents and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements prior to their execution; ands

b)    enter into, execute, and deliver such other agreements, instruments, notices, communications, and other documents; and

c)    do such other things, in connection with the Restructuring Documents and the Restructuring Transactions, the Financing Documents and the Financing Transactions, and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements, as the Chief Executive may consider necessary.

OR

2.    Approves unbudgeted operating expenditure of $231,000 in the 2022/23 financial year relating to Nelson City Council’s 50% share of the Infrastructure Holdings Limited project costs incurred by Port Nelson Limited and Councils legal costs.

 

 

21.     Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report      378 - 504

Document number R26111

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report (R26111) and its attachment, Nelson Marina Masterplan (149934158-8518); and

2.    Notes the changes made to the Masterplan after public feedback from the consultation phase; and

3.    Adopts the Nelson Marina Masterplan as the guiding plan for developing Nelson Marina; and

4.    Notes that the proposed location of the new Sea Sports Facility at 305 Akersten is approved in principle, subject to the following:

i.             That further studies are completed to ensure that the proposed water-based structures will be safe for the launching and retrieval of all watercraft and participants in most weather conditions; and

ii.    That the land and buildings are independently deemed safe for the new activity; and

5.    Notes that iwi will be partnered with to ensure that each project within the Masterplan is designed to uphold the mana of tangata whenua, acknowledging that the design, layout and allocation of space is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that the marina is an area of significance to iwi; and

6.    Notes that the Nelson Marina Extension requires further work with Iwi and affected stakeholders to uphold the mana of tangata whenua and ensure that the environmental health of the Haven is preserved; and

7.    Notes officers will begin the design, timing, consenting and budgetary work for the priority projects as outlined in the Masterplan to feed into the Long Term Plan process; and

8.    Delegates to the Mayor, Chair of the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive, authority to approve any minor amendments required to the Masterplan prior to final public release.

 

 

22.     Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation                                                             505 - 529

Document number R26940

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation (R26940) and its attachment/s Nelson Marina CCO Constitution (149934158-8500); and

2.    Approves the incorporation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation company; and

3.    Approves the Constitution for the Management Council Controlled Organisation (149934158-8500); and

4.    Notes that a Management Agreement, Delegations and Structure between Council and the Management Council Controlled Organisation will be developed and brought to Council for approval prior to the appointment of Directors; and

5.    Notes the timeline for the transition of the governance of Nelson Marina from a Council managed facility to the Management Council Controlled Organisation; and

6.    Approves the recruitment process for the board positions as per Council policy - Appointment of Directors/Trustees of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations; and

7.    Agrees that further consultation is required with iwi partners as to how iwi representation can be achieved in the new governance model; and

8.    Delegates to the Chair of the relevant committee, Chief Executive and Group Manager Corporate Services to make adjustments and changes to company documentation, the recruitment process and proposed schedule, provided the changes are substantially consistent with the decisions made herein.

 

 


 

23.     Approval of the Better Off Funding proposal           530 - 534

Document number R27193

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Approval of the Better Off Funding proposal (R27193) and its attachments (1601344813-168); and

2.    Approves the funding proposal (1601344813-168) for Tranche 1 Better Off Funding be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

 

24.     Interregnum Period Delegation                              535 - 538

Document number R27124

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Interregnum Period Delegation  (R27124); and

2.    Delegates the Chief Executive the power to make decisions in respect of urgent matters, from the day after the declaration of official results by the Electoral Officer until the new Council is sworn in; and

3.    Notes that any decisions made under this delegation would be taken in consultation with the Mayor-Elect (where a clear election result for this vacancy exists); and

4.    Further notes that any decisions made under this delegation will be reported to the first ordinary meeting of the new Council.

 

 

25.     Review of Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017               539 - 590

Document number R27158

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Review of Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017 (R27158) and its attachments (606908324-33985, 606908324-33982 and 606908324-33983); and

2.    Agrees to make the determinations required by sections 11(2) and 13(3) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, to review the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017; and

3.    Determines that the bylaw is:

·        necessary to protect areas in the district, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas in the district, and to protect access to those areas; and

·        the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problems in relation to those areas; and

·        is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

4.    Notes that staff will prepare a further report that takes into account the review of the Bylaw and other relevant matters including those noted in resolution 6 below, and that recommends consultation (whether or not any changes to the Bylaw are proposed), in order to meet the statutory requirements in s 13(4) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011; and

5.    Notes that the Government has signalled its intention to amend the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to support Sustainable Freedom Camping prior to the 2022/23 summer period; and

6.    Notes that Council officers will continue to liaise with relevant support agencies where individuals are believed to be homeless.

 

 

26.     Draft Urban Greening Strategy                               591 - 599

Document number R27126

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Draft Urban Greening Strategy (R27126) and its attachment (839498445-9177); and

2.    Approves the Draft Urban Greening Strategy (839498445-9177) for community feedback; and

3.    Delegates responsibility for agreeing to any minor amendments to the Draft Urban Greening Strategy (839498445-9177) to the Group Manager Community Services.

 

  

Confidential Business

27.     Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

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 Suresh Ram, Harry Bates and Julia Campbell remain after the public has been excluded, for Item# of the Confidential agenda (item title), as he/she/they has/have knowledge relating to (description) 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 name and name remain after the public has been excluded, for Item# of the Confidential agenda (item title), as he/she/they has/have knowledge relating to (description) that will assist the meeting.

3.         

 

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and Housing Outcomes Agreements for
- Bridge Street Linear Active Transport Corridor and
- Rutherford/Achilles Social and Affordable Housing Development

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

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

·    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

Nelson Regional Development Agency - Appointment of Directors

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

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 25 August 2022

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

·    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

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

4

Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 11 August 2022

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

5

Status Report - Confidential

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)(h)

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

6

Mayors Report - Confidential

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)(h)

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

7

Open Space Operations and Maintenance Contract - Procurement Options

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

8

Section 17a Reviews since 2016

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

 

 

Karakia Whakamutanga

 

  

 


Nelson City Council Minutes - 25 August 2022

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 12 Jul110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 25 August 2022, commencing at 9.02a.m.

 

Present:              Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor), 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), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) Assistant Governance Adviser (A Bryce-Neumann)

Apologies :          Councillor K Fulton

 

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1.       Apologies

Resolved CL/2022/165

 

That the Council

1.    Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Fulton for attendance.

Edgar/Courtney                                                                            Carried

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey joined the meeting at 9.04a.m.

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor Reese advised that due to time constraints she would move in to Confidential session to consider Items 5, 6 and 7 of the Confidential Agenda following Public Forum.  

 

3.       Interests

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

Subsequently Councillor O’Neill-Stevens declared an interest in Item 8: Outdoor Dining Structure on Hardy Street and left the meeting.

4.       Public Forum

4.1.     Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association - Waka Kotahi’s Nelson Future Access Roading Plans Through Tahunanui

Document number R27131

Her Worship the Mayor thanked the Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association for their work with the Tahunanui community during the significant rainfall event and current Civil Defence Emergency.

Paul Matheson thanked Council and Controller, Alec Louverdis, for the significant work during the devasting storm.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 9.08a.m.

Jac Stevenson and Paul Matheson, from the Tahunanui Business and Citizens  Association, spoke about the Waka Kotahi’s Nelson Future Access roading plans through Tahunanui and provided  a presentation (tabled 1982984479-4519) that showed statistics of traffic movement and their observations included consistent high traffic volume, high decibel levels and air pollution.  Ms Stevenson tabled correspondence from local and national bodies who would be affected by the reinstatement of the southbound lane outside the Tahunanui Pharmacy and medical centre (1982984479-4446, 1982984479-4447).

Attachments

1    1982984479-4519  PowerPoint TBCA.pdf

2    1982984479-4446 TBCA Tabled Document 1

3    1982984479-4447 TBCA Tabled Document 2

 

4.2.     MP Rachel Boyack - Waka Kotahi’s Nelson Future Access roading plans through Tahunanui

Document number R27150

Rachel Boyack, MP for Nelson, wished to record her thanks to Council and Controller, Alec Louverdis, for the significant work during the current emergency.  

She spoke about Waka Kotahi’s Nelson Future Access roading plans through Tahunanui and supported the concerns of the Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association around the Tahunanui Drive intersection and reinstatement of the southbound lane.  

 5       Exclusion of the Public

Sophie Kelly, of Adam Chamber Music Festival, would be in attendance for Item 6 of the Confidential agenda to answer questions.

Annika Striefland, Employment Consultant, would be in attendance for Item 7 of the Confidential agenda to answer questions.

Accordingly, the following resolution was required to be passed.

Resolved CL/2022/166

That the Council

2.    Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Sophie Kelly remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 6 of the Confidential agenda (Event funding - Adam Chamber Music Festival 2024), as she has knowledge 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 Annika Striefland remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 7 of the Confidential agenda (Recruitment of Chief Executive), as she has knowledge that will assist the meeting.

Resolved CL/2022/167

 

That the Council

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

5.    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:

Bowater/Noonan                                                                           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)

1.1

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 12 July 2022

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)(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)

1.2

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 28 July 2022

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

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

2

Confirmation of Minutes - Confidential - 05 July 2022

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

Confirmation of Highly Confidential minutes 26 May 2022 and 07 June 2022

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

5

Event funding - Adam Chamber Music Festival 2024

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

6

Proposed acquisition of land for reserve in Nelson

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

7

Recruitment of a Chief Executive

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

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

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

8

Nelmac Limited Director remuneration 2022

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

 

The meeting went into confidential session at 9.46a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.53a.m. at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese vacated the Chair. Deputy Mayor Edgar assumed the Chair.

The meeting adjourned from 11.53a.m. until 12.01p.m. at which time Councillor Skinner had left the meeting.

 

6.       Confirmation of Minutes

6.1      12 July 2022

Document number M19632, agenda pages 13 - 35 refer.

The minutes were amended to reflect that the time the meeting moved out of Confidential should read 11.40a.m., not 10.40a.m.

Resolved CL/2022/168

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 12 July 2022, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/McGurk                                                                          Carried

6.2      28 July 2022

Document number M19681, agenda pages 36 - 40 refer.

The minutes were amended to reflect that Councillors Bowater, Edgar and Skinner, who were late apologies for the meeting, were listed as present.

Resolved CL/2022/169

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 28 July 2022, as a true and correct record.

Bowater/Brand                                                                             Carried

  

7.       Confirmation of Minutes - 05 July 2022

Document number R27139, agenda pages 41 - 43 refer.

Resolved CL/2022/170

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 05 July 2022, as a true and correct record.

Edgar/Lawrey                                                                               Carried

 

8.       Outdoor Dining Structure on Hardy Street (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R27101, agenda pages 44 - 51 refer.

Councillor O’Neill-Stevens declared an interest and took no part in the debate or decision making. 

Attendance: Councillor O’Neill-Stevens left the meeting at 12.06p.m.

Manager Property Services, Rebecca Van Orden, and Property Leases Officer, Brad Sidley presented the report and answered questions on final design, maintenance and aesthetics.

Attendance:  Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 12.17p.m.

Ms Van Orden confirmed that the design standards were high, and that signage,  negative impacts on space and advertising would be considered in the final design, noting approval would be granted by the City Development Team. She confirmed that the cost of moving street lighting would be shared with the applicant.  

Resolved CL/2022/171

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Request for Outdoor Dining Structure on Hardy Street (R26987) and its attachment (A2910349); and

2.    Approves the application for an outdoor dining structure outside 274-278 Hardy Street (Parts & Services and Urban), subject to the applicant securing all consents and all necessary Council signoffs; and

3.    Approves an outdoor dining structure outside 280 Hardy Street (Sprig and Fern) should an application be received, subject to the applicant securing all consents and all necessary Council signoffs; and

4.    Notes that Council will fund up to $7,500 from existing operational budgets in order to relocate a street light fixture; and

5.    Delegates all future approvals for outdoor dining structures to the Chief Executive.   

Lawrey/Courtney                                                                          Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned from 12.34p.m. until 1.04p.m. at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese assumed the Chair.

9.       Tahunanui off-street parking (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R27100, agenda pages 52 - 72 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report and answered questions on future options.

Clause 3 was amended to clarify the proposed option was to replace on-street with off-street parking, and clause 5 was amended to remove reference to reinstatement of the southbound merge lanes.

The meeting adjourned from 1.25p.m. until 1.27p.m.

The motion was put and Councillors Brand and Skinner requested their vote against the motion to be recorded in the minutes.

 

Resolved CL/2022/172

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Tahunanui off-street parking (R27100) and its attachments (A2906154 and  A2909737); and

2.    Notes the work undertaken to explore off-street parking options pending the reinstatement of the Tahunanui southbound merge lanes by Waka Kotahi; and

3.    Notes that no reasonably practical proposal option to replace off-street parking when Waka Kotahi reinstates the southbound Tahunanui Drive merge lanes has been identified at this stage; and 

4.    Notes that officers will continue to explore options and report any opportunities back to Council; and  

5.    Notes that officers will continue to work and liaise with Waka Kotahi to ensure that safety matters are addressed for all users prior to the reinstatement of the Tahunanui southbound merge lanes. 

Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater                                                    Carried

 

10.     Approval of the Nelson Tasman Regeneration Plan (Agenda Item 12)

Document number R26941, agenda pages 88 - 142 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor Reese vacated the chair and left the meeting at 1.36p.m. and Councillor Edgar assumed the Chair.

Manager Strategy, Pip Jamieson, presented the report noting the final Plan had been circulated with the Agenda and requested that Clause 2  be amended to read ‘Endorses’, not Approves as this was not a Council plan.

Meg Matthews, Chair and Fiona Wilson, Chief Executive of Nelson Regional Development Agency, along with Consultant Johnny O’Donnell, O’D & Co, presented the Regeneration Plan and answered questions on the impacts of hybrid working, key actions and lifting the economy.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 1.57p.m.

Resolved CL/2022/173

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Approval of the Nelson Tasman Regeneration Plan (R26941) and its attachments (A291652, A2921653 and A2921651); and

2.    Endorses the Nelson Tasman Regeneration Plan (attachment A2921652);

Brand/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                   Carried

11.     Adoption of the Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy (Agenda Item 13)

Document number R27033, agenda pages 143 - 182 refer.

Attendance:  Her Worship the Mayor Reese joined the meeting at 2.05p.m. and assumed the Chair.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald presented the report and introduced Chief Executive Chamber of Commerce, Ali Boswick and Johnny O’Donnell, O’D & Co.

Ms Boswick and Mr O’Donnell presented the Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy and answered questions on feedback on the strategy, noting that there had been extremely positive feedback, however there was also consistent feedback that, collectively, we had dropped the ball through investment in the arts. 

Her Worship the Mayor Reese asked that a foreword be included and the recommendation was amended to reflect this. 

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor Reese vacated the Chair and left the meeting at 2.30p.m. at which time Deputy Mayor Edgar assumed the Chair. 

Resolved CL/2022/174

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Adoption of the Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy (R27033) and its attachments (839498445-7391, 839498445-7387); and

2.    Adopts He Tātai Whetū, the final Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy (839498445-7391); and

3.    Mandates that the Arts Strategy Working Group Chair and the Group Manager Strategy and Communications to approve any minor editorial amendments required to finalise the Strategy, including consideration of a foreword; and

4.    Notes that a further report outlining the operation and membership of a He Tātai Whetū Steering Group will be brought to Council for approval.

Edgar/Rainey                                                                                Carried

 

12.     Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 7)

12.1   Infrastructure Committee - 4 August 2022

12.1.1 Adoption of Parking Strategy 2022 and Parking Management Plans

 

Recommendation to Council CL/2022/175

 

That the Council

1.    Adopts the Parking Strategy and associated Parking Management Plans ; and  

2.    Delegates responsibility for any minor amendments of the Strategy and Parking Management plans to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and the Group Manager of Infrastructure.

McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                 Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned from 2.48p.m. until 3.00p.m. at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese and Councillor Skinner joined the meeting. Her Worship the Mayor Reese assumed the Chair.

Her Worship the Mayor Reese thanked Team Leader Transport Activity Management, Sue Macauley, for her efforts and high level of work over the previous 12 years at Council, noting it was her last Council meeting before retirement.

13.     Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 8)

Resolved CL/2022/176

Document number R27141, agenda pages 44 - 0 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor Reese tabled her report and provided a verbal update on the state of emergency in Nelson. She recapped that the declaration had been signed very quickly as the Maitai river rose at disturbing speed. She recognised that many people were not able to be in their homes, and that teams were working incredible hours to assess properties. She thanked those from Councils across the motu who had arrived to support the Council in recovery. 

She confirmed there was a Mayoral Relief Fund, and officers were working through the application process and trying to simplify this as much as  possible. She confirmed that the water supply was safe, the main stormwater lines were secure and officers were working with Waka Kotahi on the transport network.

Mayor Reese asked for Elected Members support to write to Waka Kotahi to notify that the introduction of an extra lane on Tahunanui Drive was not supported by Council.

During discussion members agreed that the impacts of the significant rainfall event and state of emergency meant that the Nelson Future Access study should be revisited, that there should be more focus on pedestrians and cyclists and off street parking along Tahunanui Drive to remove the danger of people opening doors onto the fast flowing lane.   

Elected Members supported Her Worship the Mayor Reese writing to Waka Kotahi noting Council’s support for the objectives of the Nelson Future Access Study, noting support for Tahunanui Community and that the introduction of a clearway as planned on Tahunanui Drive was not supported by Council 

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R27141) and its attachment (839498445-2501).

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

Attachments

1    1982984479-4605 Council 25Aug2022 Mayor's Report tabled

 

14.     Three Waters Reform - Better Off Funding Proposal (Agenda Item 14)

Document number R27048, agenda pages 183 - 196 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor Reese noted that report was written before the significant rain event started and the Department of Internal Affairs had provided an extension on timing to allow Council to review the proposal. 

Members discussed the cost of Recovery from the emergency event and it was noted that it was too early to identify projects that would fit with the Better Off Funding,  capital projects would be debt funded and that funding would be available from central government. It was agreed to support the  Nelson Tasman councils jointly funded Urban Development Agency and add this to the proposal by adjusting funding for Te Ara Ō Whakatū City Centre Playspace by $75,000.

The meeting adjourned from 3.59p.m. until 4.01p.m.

Extension of Meeting Time

Resolved CL/2022/177

 

That the Council

1.     Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.

Edgar/Lawrey                                                                               Carried

The meeting adjourned from 4.09p.m. until 4.21p.m. at which time Councillors Bowater,  Courtney and Skinner left the meeting.

 

Resolved CL/2022/178

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Three Waters Reform - Better Off Funding Proposal (R27048) and its attachments (839498445-5560, 839498445-5279); and

2.    Agrees that staff prepare a draft funding proposal to the Department of Internal Affairs for Better Off Funding for the following projects;

a.     Te Ara Ō Whakatū City Centre Playspace

b.    Railway Reserve Lighting from Annesbrook to Saxton Field

c.     Arts and Creativity Strategy

d.    Iwi Capacity Building

e.     Community Car Sharing

f.     Whai Oranga Wellbeing Centre

g.    Nelson Tasman Urban Development Agency

to be approved by Council at a meeting in September 2022; and

3.    Agrees that staff also include a rebuild of the ItsOn events website in the funding proposal, to use any funds not used by the six priority projects.

Edgar/Lawrey                                                                               Carried

 

15.     Report from Urban Development Subcommittee Chair – Housing Reserve Phase Two (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R27160, agenda pages 73 - 87 refer.

Deputy Mayor Edgar presented the report and answered questions on whether any applications would change as a result of the emergency event, confirming there was no change. 

Resolved CL/2022/179

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Housing Reserve Phase 2 (R27160) and its attachment (Housing Reserve Phase One Criteria and Process Sep2021 A2748972);

2.    Approves Housing Reserve Phase Two as set out in this Report (R27160) including its proposed value of $2 million as grant funding;

3.    Notes that $2 million has been provided for Phase Two of the Housing Reserve in the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

4.    Approves $1 million in funding to the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust from the Housing Reserve for the development of 76 Dodson Valley Road.

5.    Approves $1 million in funding to Habitat for Humanity (Nelson) Ltd from the Housing Reserve for the development of 181 Rutherford Street.

6.    Delegates the confirmation of the grant funding agreements to the Chief Executive.

Rainey/Lawrey                                                                              Carried

 

 

16.     Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2022/180

 

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/Edgar                                                        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)

4

Recommendations from Committees

 

 

4.1.1

Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - 28 July 2022

Brook Valley Holiday Park Relocatable Home Park

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

4.1.2

Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - 28 July 2022

Anchor Building - Responses to Request for Expressions of Interest for lease or sale

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

The meeting went into confidential session at 4.34p.m. and resumed in public session at 5.12p.m.at which time Councillors Brand and Lawrey had left the meeting.

 

Karakia Whakamutanga

 17.  Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

 

3

Event funding - Adam Chamber Music Festival 2024

 

Agrees that Report (R26921) and attachment (839498445-2768) be excluded from public release until contract negotiations are concluded.

 

4

Proposed acquisition of land for reserve in Nelson

 

Agrees that the report R27159 and the decision be made publicly available once a sale and purchase agreement becomes unconditional.

 

5

Recruitment of a Chief Executive

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Recruitment of a Chief Executive (R27161) and its attachments (1982984479-4426, 1982984479-4429 and 1982984479-4425); and

2.     Approves the appointment of Hobson Leavy as the recruitment firm to assist the Council in the appointment of a new Chief Executive;

3.     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of up to $120,000 for the Chief Executive Recruitment; and

4.     Appoints Her Worship the Mayor Reese, Deputy Mayor Edgar, Councillors Brand and Rainey, (with Councillor Courtney as alternate), a Te Tai Ihu recommended iwi representative and Annika Striefland as lead  independent adviser to the Chief Executive Appointment Panel; and

5.     Notes that this Panel will dissolve at the end of triennium, 07 October 2022; and

6.     Recommends to the Council-elect that the incoming Mayor, incoming Deputy Mayor, two Councillors, the Te Tai Ihu iwi recommended representative and an independent adviser be appointed to the Chief Executive Appointment Panel; and

7.     Notes the overall timing, options/risk mitigation and next steps in the process to notify the successful recruitment firm and a Council briefing with the recruitment firm on the 29th August;

8.     Authorises the Chief Executive Appointment Panel to make any minor amendments to the timing of key milestones in the recruitment process to support best possible transparency and handover; and

9.     Agrees the Report (R27161) and its attachments (1982984479-4426, 1982984479-4429 and 1982984479-4425) remain confidential at this time; and

10.   Agrees that the Decision only be made publicly available.

 

6

Nelmac Limited director remuneration 2022

 

Agrees that the decision be made publicly available once the 2022 Nelmac Annual General Meeting has taken place.

 

7

Recommendation from Committee:

Brook Valley Holiday Park Relocatable Home Park

 

Agrees that the Decision remain confidential at this time.  

 

8

Recommendation from Committee:

CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Building - Responses to Request for Expressions of Interest for lease or sale

 

Agrees that the Decision remain confidential at this time.

 

 

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.12p.m..

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

 

Resolved

 

 

     

 


 

Item 6: Remembrance - Queen Elizabeth II

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27270

Remembrance - Queen Elizabeth II

 

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the recent passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022.

We join New Zealand and many others in mourning the loss of our longest-reigning Sovereign, and in sending our condolences to the King and his family.

She lived and reigned during a time of almost unprecedented social and cultural change. Throughout significant shifts in global structures and relationships, she remained unwavering in the dedication to duty and service made as a young woman. She brought dignity, commitment and courage to her work, and the role she held for 70 years.  

Please join me in a minute’s silent reflection and remembrance as we honour the life of an extraordinary woman.

 

 

Author:          Rachel Reese, Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Nil


Item 7: Confirmation of Minutes - 11 August 2022: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 8: Mayor's Report

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27232

Mayor's Report

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To update Council on current matters.

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R27232).

3.       Discussion

Climatorium

3.1      The recent Youth Climate Change conference was well attended with about 1000 attendees online and a good presence from Nelson youth.

3.2      The Climatorium Working Group established to prepare the business case will be having their second meeting on Monday 12 September. The Climate Change Manager (Rachel Pemberton) is Council’s representative on the Group. Whakatū are still looking to extend an invitation to elected members for an update on this progress.

3.3      A Te Tauihu summit on 21-22 March 2023 is being planned for, when the Danish delegation will be in Nelson. It is intended that the launch of the Climatorium concepts will occur at this summit.

End of Triennium Reflection

3.4      It has been an honour to serve on Nelson City Council for five terms, including almost a decade as Mayor of Nelson.

3.5      The work undertaken and decisions made over this time have been significant, and will be spoken to in more detail during the meeting.

 

Author:          Rachel Reese, Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Nil


 

Item 9: Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R26904

Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To present the results of updated flood modelling for the Nelson Central Library (library) at the Maitai precinct site following receipt of new information from NZ SeaRise: Te Tai Pari O Aotearoa. 

1.2      To consider the implications of the revised flood modelling for the proposed new library and the implications of the new sea level rise data for coastal inundation.

1.3      To consider deferring negotiations with Wakatū until officers better understand the implications of the new data with regards to coastal inundation impacts and adaptive planning for the inner city.

2.       Summary

2.1      Council approved a Flood Mitigation Plan (FMP) for the new library in September 2021 where flood modelling was shown to have a negligible effect on adjacent properties.

2.2      New information has been released by NZ SeaRise: Te Tai Pari O Aotearoa showing location specific sea level rise (SLR) projections along with vertical land movement.

2.3      The river flood modelling for the library has been refreshed and this shows that the baseline river flood level (representing existing development) in the vicinity of the proposed new library is indistinguishable from the 2021 FMP. 

2.4      However, the new information does show that flood levels from coastal inundation for the inner city for 2130 would increase by around 300mm, and for RCP8.5M that SLR of 1.48m is now projected compared to the previous estimate of 1.18m provided in the 2017 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) coastal hazards guidance.

2.5      The new data shows that the new library should have a minimum floor level of at least RL4.3m (300mm higher than identified in 2021) due to the modelled increase in coastal inundation.

2.6      The design of the new library can cater for both river flooding and coastal inundation, through the ability to raise the floor level in the future and incorporating secondary flow paths within the library development. However, access to both a new library in the Maitai precinct and to existing inner city buildings is more challenging as the new data shows that over time to stay ahead of coastal inundation, road levels in the vicinity of the Trafalgar/Halifax intersection would need to be raised by around 800mm (300mm more than earlier figures) to provide reasonable security of access at 2130 and that is significant.

2.7      Officers are recommending, notwithstanding that the revised FMP shows virtually no change to the 2021 FMP, that more work be undertaken to better understand the implications of the increase in coastal inundation levels specifically with respect to increased road levels in relation to the new library and the inner city, of which the preferred library site is a part. 

2.8      Engagement on the Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Planning (DAPP) process has commenced for low lying coastal areas and the lower Maitai river, and a strategic approach to preparing for future flood risks in these areas is still some time away. The assets within the inner city are significant, and officers acknowledging that the inner city is key to Nelson’s ongoing economic prosperity, are cognisant that no Council decisions have been made as to the future of the inner city.

2.9      Officers propose to undertake further work to understand the impacts of raising road levels across a wider area in the inner city (and the Wood) and bring that analysis back to Council to support a decision about progressing the new library.

2.10    Officers are however not advocating nor support this additional work being contingent on the outcome of the DAPP work currently underway, as adaptive planning is an ongoing process with the initial outcomes being a few years away.

2.11    Engagement currently underway is also recommended to continue as it will guide the look and feel of a new library.       

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update  (R26904) and its attachment A2897579; and

2.    Agrees to defer negotiations with Wakatū until further work is undertaken by officers to better understand the implications of the new data with regards to coastal inundation impacts and adaptive planning for the inner city; and    

3.    Notes that officers will report the implications of the increased coastal inundation flooding as a result of new information from NZ SeaRise with respect to the new library site and inner city back to a future Council meeting; and  

4.    Agrees that the new library community engagement (which has already commenced) continues on the basis that this will guide the vision of a new library irrespective of location.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      A report was presented to Council on 23 September 2021 dealing with the matter of flood modelling and an FMP for the proposed library site. That full report is linked here for ease of reading. Council resolved as follows:

   “Agrees that the flood modelling presented in the Nelson Central Library Redevelopment - Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041) demonstrates that the proposed Nelson Central Library development (corner of Trafalgar/Halifax Streets) has negligible effect on adjacent properties if design and landscape features are incorporated into the design brief; and

   Approves the Nelson Central Library Development Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041)”.

4.2      That approved FMP set the following requirements for the new library:

4.2.1   A secondary flow path within the site to mitigate the risk of the development having an impact on upstream flood levels;

4.2.2   A minimum floor level of at least RL4.0m; and

4.2.3   The ability to raise the floor level at a trigger level of RL3.7m.

4.3      New information has been released by NZ SeaRise: Te Tai Pari O Aotearoa showing location specific SLR projections along with vertical land movement. For the Maitai River estuary, that new data shows that land levels are subsiding by an average of around 2mm per year and with respect to coastal inundation that flood levels for 2130 have increased by around 300mm for RCP8.5M, and that SLR of 1.48m is now projected compared to 1.18m provided in the 2017 MfE coastal hazards guidance.

4.4      This NZ SeaRise work has been supported by MfE which issued interim guidance reflecting the new NZ SeaRise data in late July. 

4.5      Current LIM notations, applied to all properties affected by coastal inundation includes 1% AEP and 1.5m SLR. Should Council adopt a different scenario, for example RCP 8.5H+ at 2130, then that would increase SLR from 1.52m to 1.96m and would require a change to the LIM notifications. That would be the subject of a future report to Council.  

4.6      Officers having reviewed this new data have:

4.6.1   Refreshed the river flood modelling and the new library FMP; and

4.6.2   Assessed the implication of the increased SLR with respect to access to not only any new library but existing buildings in the inner city.

4.7      Each is discussed in turn hereafter.

5.       Discussion – Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan

5.1      Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) has re-run all the September 2021 future flood modelling scenarios. This work was previously peer reviewed by Stantec and the re-modelling has merely inputted the new tidal parameters. T&T will be in attendance to answer any questions. The FMP addendum containing the updated baseline model and options re-modelling results is appended as Attachment 1. 

5.2      The revised river flood modelling, with the 300mm increase in tidal level and compared to the baseline scenario, shows that the difference in river flood levels is almost indistinguishable from the 2021 FMP and that the assessment of effects is unchanged by the adoption of the new information. Overall, the new library would have a negligible effect on adjacent properties.

5.3      However, the increased SLR predicted by the new information has implications on the final floor levels for the new library. For ease of reading and comparison, the previous mitigations and proposed mitigations are shown below. To retain the 100 year horizon for the building the proposed mitigation required is shown in the table below.

Previous mitigation 

Proposed mitigation

A secondary flow path within the site to mitigate the risk of the development having an impact on upstream flood levels. This will provide benefits to adjacent areas in a flood event

No change

The building should have a minimum floor level of at least RL4.0m

The building should have a minimum floor level of at least RL4.3m due to the increase in coastal inundation level

The ability to raise the floor level of the building at a trigger level of RL 3.7m

The ability to raise the floor level of the building at a trigger level of RL4.0m

5.4      The proposed adaptable design for the library (albeit with an increased final floor level of 300mm), including the ability to raise the floor level in the future, is intended to protect the building from the storm surge and river flooding likely to be experienced at 2m of relative SLR. This means the building would be flood resilient to at least 2130 (20 years earlier than previously projected) as long as the floor level is raised as planned.

5.5      It is important to note that Council does not have a final design for the library at this stage.

6.       Coastal Inundation

6.1      The new information with respect to coastal inundation shows that flood levels for 2130 have increased by around 300mm for RCP8.5M, and that sea level rise (SLR) of 1.48m is now projected for 2130 compared to 1.18m provided in the 2017 MfE coastal hazards guidance. Refer to the table below for a summary.

 

 

MfE 2017 Guidance

New SLR data

2130 RCP 8.5M

now SSP5 8.5 +VLM (50%tile)

 

1.18m

 

1.48m

2130 RCP 8.5H+

now SSP5 8.5 +VLM (83%tile)

 

1.52m

 

1.96m (see also item 4.5)

6.2      This increase in SLR of 300mm for RCP 8.5M has implications not only for any new library but also for properties in the inner city – specifically to maintain access.

6.3      Officers have always acknowledged that raising roading levels in areas that will be affected by coastal inundation because of SLR will need to be undertaken, and that this would be done in a staged and progressive manner. This would be necessary to ensure a reasonable level of access is maintained, for not only the new library but also for the existing and future adjacent properties in the inner city.

6.4      Previously road levels around the Trafalgar/Halifax intersection were anticipated to be raised by 500mm to provide for access during a king tide in 2130 assuming the RCP 8.5M scenario. Under the new parameters this increases to 800mm. Having to increase the road levels by this amount is significant and will especially impact on existing buildings/assets that cannot easily be raised.  

6.5      Irrespective of a new library, structures susceptible to SLR in the inner city will need engineered retrofitting (or built to a higher level when replaced over time) to offer protection from flooding. Whilst most buildings cannot easily be lifted, they will most likely also have physical limitations that could prevent them from increasing their ground floor levels to combat SLR – as raising floor levels will most likely compromise the look, feel, usability and functionality of existing ground floors and indeed may simply not be physically possible.

6.6      There will always be engineering solutions to complex engineering challenges including those faced here. However, the extent of coastal inundation on the inner city is significant and will be more frequent in future.

6.7      A king tide with SLR of 1.48m equates to a 1% AEP event with 1m SLR and what this means is that inundation will be more frequent in future as king tides occur on average once a year. What this means is that road levels will need to be raised across a wider area and the implications of this need to be worked through.

6.8      For this reason, officers recommend that further work on coastal inundation within the inner city is undertaken and analysed.

6.9      It is also recommended that the library engagement as per the recent Council approved Communications Engagement Plan continue. In this matter, pre-engagement meetings with key stakeholders are occurring concurrently with phase one of the communication strategy.

7.       Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Planning (DAPP) 

7.1      Work on the DAPP process has commenced for the low lying coastal areas and the floodplain of the lower Maitai river, with community engagement on values underway. This is step-three of a ten-step process and a strategic approach to dealing with the coast and Maitai River flooding is still some time away.

7.2      Officers are not advocating nor support that this additional work be contingent on the outcome of the coastal and Maitai River DAPP work. Instead, it is planned to undertake work to assess the impact of raising road levels across a wider area of the central city and report the findings to Council to inform decision making on the library project.

7.3      Officers will continue to consider any new information relevant to the library project that arises, including as part of the ongoing DAPP process. 

8.       Options

8.1      The 2021 FMP has been refreshed following receipt of new information and that shows that the library, provided mitigations are included in the design, will have a negligible effect on adjacent properties.

8.2      However, the new data shows that coastal inundation has increased from that assessed using the previous 2017 MfE guidelines and officers are recommending more work be undertaken to better understand future access issues.

8.3      Two options are presented for Council to consider – either:

8.3.1   Defer negotiations with Wakatū until further work is undertaken (and continue with library engagement); or

8.3.2   Do not defer negotiations with Wakatū and continue with the proposed site.

Option 1: Defer negotiations with Wakatū until further work is undertaken. Recommended option.

Advantages

·   Allows further work on coastal inundation with respect to inner city access and for the DAPP process

·   Allows for the release of central government legislation (Natural and Built Environments Act, Spatial Planning Act, Climate Adaptation Act) that will give direction for land use planning 

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Inevitable delays to negotiations with Wakatu with associated reputational risk

·   Inevitable delay to construction of a new library compared to the approved programme

·   Interim work to existing library may be required to address an ageing facility

Option 2: Do not defer negotiations with Wakatū

Advantages

·    Allows Council to continue with the library work including negotiations with Wakatū

·   Acknowledges that the modelling demonstrates that flood impacts on adjacent properties are minimal and can be managed

·   Recognises that further work on flood mitigation will be required to inform the design process

·    Allows the design brief to include secondary flows paths at an early stage   

Risks and Disadvantages

·    New RMA Reform legislation may provide direction on land use planning that would discourage a new public facility at this site prior to completion of an adaptive planning process.

9.       Conclusion

9.1      The flood modelling for the new library has been refreshed based on new information. This revised modelling shows that off-site effects are limited and can be mitigated by the incorporation of design features and through building design and adaptability.

9.2      The effects of the wider coastal inundation shown in the revised modelling of the inner city is more complex and officers have suggested a way forward on this matter.

10.     Next Steps

Depending on the decision of Council, officers will undertake more work to better understand the implications of the increased coastal inundation on inner city access or continue to negotiate with Wakatū.

 

 

Author:          Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2897579 - DNV Library Flood Modelling Addendum Report Final June 2022  

 

Important considerations for decision making

     Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The provision of library services is a core function of local government. This report contains advice that demonstrates that the proposed library building can be designed in a manner that does not cause significant environmental effects in relation to stormwater movement and flooding. The project supports the economic, cultural, environment and social wellbeing of the community.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report was requested by the Council as part of a suite of reports required to give effect to its Long Term Plan 2021-31 decision in relation to the library development. The recommendations in this report fit with the following community outcomes:

•      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, and resilient

•      Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

     Risk

This report deals with the specific risk of the library development causing flood impacts on adjacent sites and makes recommendations in relation to the design of the building and surrounding landscaping that can mitigate any risk. This report also assesses the overall risk to the inner city from coastal inundation based on the new data.

     Financial impact

This recommendation has no financial impact. The library development is a budgeted project in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because Council has already consulted on this location as its preferred site for the library through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 process and this report proposes a pause in the project rather than a change to existing decisions. The community will have access to the information contained within this report as part of the wider communication strategy in relation to the project.

     Climate Impact

Current and future climate change impacts have been factored into the modelling used in this report. The implication of coastal inundation and sea level rise from climate change is not insignificant and this report proposes a better understanding of the issues before work on the new library proceeds.  

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

Decisions on the Nelson Central Library development project are matters reserved for Council.

 


Item 9: Nelson Central Library - Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 10: Central Library Development Project Progress Report to End of August 2022

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27191

Central Library Development Project Progress Report to End of August 2022

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To update Council on the progress of the major project – the Central Library Development Project.

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Central Library Development Project Progress Report to the End of August 2022 (R27191).

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      The Central Library Development project is a major project for the Nelson Region. The contemporary library will create an enticing community hub with library services at its heart that will help to transform Whakatū Nelson and enrich the lives of Nelsonians. It will be a welcoming and inclusive place that brings the community together to connect in new ways. For example, it may be an incubator for learning, creativity and innovation, whilst also being a safe place for all.

3.2      The Central Library Development project gives effect to the key actions identified in Te Ara ō Whakatū – the pathways of Nelson by creating an enticing destination facility in the Central City during the daytime and evening. In particular, the project delivers on:

3.2.1   Great Places – creating an exciting social space offering appeal across a wide age range.

3.2.2   Precinct Power – creating a gateway to the riverside precinct and a stimulus for further redevelopment of the precinct by Wakatū Inc.

3.2.3   People at Play – enhancing the current library offering as a safe and inviting place for children in the Central City.

3.3      At its 18 May 2021 meeting, Council:

(2)      Reconfirms that, having considered submissions on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and having considered the business case, 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 completion of a flood mitigation plan for the proposed building footprint including consideration of effects on adjoining sites.

3.4      Further, Council:

(3)     Confirms that, prior to negotiations taking place:

·     Council will approve the land exchange negotiation team and its brief; and

(4)     Confirms that on completion of negotiations:

·    Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication strategy), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping; and

(5)     Notes that under best practice a Quality Assurance Framework is used for the life of the project

(6)     Confirms that prior to design

·    Council will approve the level of any shared community spaces (including provision for community organisations) in the library building project scope; and

·    Council will approve climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability objectives for the new library building and surrounding landscaping.

(7)     Notes the guiding principle of developing an accessible community space, that officers also consider housing opportunities in the planning process and to report to Council on considerations; and

(8)     Confirms that, should negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange be unsuccessful, officers will seek confirmation from Council to proceed with Option Four – to construct a new high specification library on the current site.

3.5      Subsequently, at its 23 September 2021 meeting, Council made the following resolutions:

2.      Amends clause 4 of resolution CL/2021/090 made during the 18-20 May 2021 Council meeting, to:


 

Confirms that:

·    Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication strategy and engagement plan), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping, noting that this work will run in parallel with land exchange negotiations; and

3.6      The Flood Mitigation Plan was also presented to Council at its 23 September 2021 meeting, where it was resolved that Council:

Agrees that the flood modelling presented in the Nelson Central Library Redevelopment - Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041) demonstrates that the proposed Nelson Central Library Development (corner of Trafalgar/Halifax Streets) has negligible effect on adjacent properties if design and landscape features are incorporated into the design brief; and

3.7      Officers confirmed that the flood modelling would continue to be revisited if new and pertinent evidence arises or there are changes in the legislative context that may impact the development. 

3.8      New information has recently been released by NZ SeaRise: Te Tai Pari O Aotearoa, which is the subject of a separate report, Nelson Central Library – Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update, to the 22 September Council meeting. The key recommendations by officers from this report are summarised in section 4.3.

4.       Discussion

4.1      Since the June 2022 Council meeting, notable progress has been made with the Central Library Development Project. Key achievements and progress are detailed in the following sections.

4.2      Site negotiations

4.2.1     The land exchange negotiations have been steadily progressing with Wakatū Incorporation (Wakatū). A draft Pre-development Agreement is now largely complete.

4.2.2     Further discussions are awaiting the outcome of Council’s consideration of the Nelson Central Library – Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update report at its 22 September meeting (see section 4.3).

4.2.3     Geotechnical testing, a critical part of due diligence for the site, was undertaken in June 2022.

4.2.4     The draft geotechnical report has been received by Wakatū, as commissioner of the work, and shared with Council. The report identifies that the site is deemed to be susceptible to liquefaction in a moderate to strong earthquake up to potentially nine metres deep and could experience a sudden loss in bearing capacity with lateral movement towards the Maitai River.

4.2.5     The draft geotechnical report provides options to mitigate this specific risk and also considers various foundation scenarios to cater for a building between two and six stories.

4.2.6     Whilst these still need to be considered further and costed, there are no fatal flaws to building on the site and the report notes that, throughout New Zealand, developments are successfully undertaken on ground which could be expected to have similar or worse performance than the site.

4.2.7     The final geotechnical report will be provided to elected members as soon as it is available. Officers are awaiting confirmation of a likely date from Wakatū.

4.3      Flood modelling

4.3.1   New information has been released by NZ SeaRise: Te Tai Pari O Aotearoa showing location specific sea level rise (SLR) projections along with vertical land movement.

4.3.2   The refreshed river flood modelling for the library shows the baseline river flood level in the vicinity of the new library is indistinguishable from the 2021 modelling. However, the new information shows that flood levels from coastal inundation for the inner city for 2130 would increase by around 300mm. Sea level rise of 1.48m is now projected compared to the previous estimate of 1.18m provided in the 2017 Ministry for the Environment coastal hazards guidance.

4.3.3   The officer’s recommended response is the subject of a separate report, Nelson Central Library – Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update, to the 22 September Council meeting.

4.3.4   The key recommendation in the Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update report is that further work on Council’s preferred site is deferred until more work is undertaken by officers to better understand the implications of the increase in coastal inundation levels with respect to increased road levels in relation to the new library and the inner city.

4.3.5   Officers propose to undertake further work to understand the impacts of raising road levels across a wider area in the inner city (and the Wood) and bring the analysis back to Council to assist a decision about progressing the new library on the currently preferred site.

4.3.6   The recommendation to defer further work on the site does not include the engagement currently underway which will guide the look and feel of a new library.

4.4      Housing opportunities

4.4.1     A workshop with elected members on the housing opportunities was held on 23 March. The opportunity for housing either within the library site or as part of the wider precinct development can be explored further during the concept design phase for the project.

4.5      Sustainability objectives

4.5.1     Beca was engaged to develop climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability objectives for the new building and surrounding landscaping.

4.5.2     The draft report was received in late May and reviewed by the Governance Reference Group and internal stakeholders in June.

4.5.3     The updated draft sustainability objectives were received on 12 July 2022 and are provided in paragraph 4.5.5 below. These are provided for information only, with the objectives and full report to be formally considered by elected members in the new triennium.

4.5.4     The draft project sustainability vision is:

To be an exemplar low-carbon focussed development – demonstrating a leadership approach to climate adaptation, while targeting holistic environmental sustainability benefits for all building users, and the Nelson community.  The project will contribute to a sense of Nelson identity and adopt best practice design and performance approaches, focussing on enhanced wellbeing, equity, and inclusiveness.

4.5.5     While minimising carbon emissions is a key priority of the sustainability objectives, a people-centred approach, focussing on an enhanced visitor and staff experience within the facility is also considered. For example, this can be achieved with good:

·     Daylight and management of glare

·     Views of and connection to nature

·     Thermal comfort

·     Indoor air quality

·     Acoustic performance.

4.5.6     The objectives are intended to ensure a design approach that balances minimising negative environmental impact whilst focusing on achieving a high-quality environment offering comfort, health and wellbeing for all building users and the local community.

4.5.7     Once approved by Council (future report), the next step in ensuring the achievement of the project’s sustainability objectives is to embed the objectives in the project brief and procurement process, and to develop specific measures and monitoring for the objectives.

4.5.8     The proposed targets are classified by the following environmental sustainability attributes:

·     Comfort, health and wellbeing

·     Energy and emissions

·     Water efficiency and conservation

·     Materials and waste

·     Transport

·     Local emissions

·     Landscaping, plants and site ecology.

4.6      Communication

4.6.1     At its 22 June 2022 meeting, Council made the following resolution addressing its 23 September 2021 amendment (see section 3.5):

Approves the Central Library Development Communications Strategy as set out in report (R26933) and its attachment A.

4.6.2     In accordance with the Communication Strategy, the first phase of communication work has focussed on context setting and building community excitement and engagement with the project.

4.6.3     Good progress has been made in developing communication content for use in the various channels identified. For example, new content has been uploaded to Shape Nelson, fortnightly email updates to elected members have commenced, and the first email update to stakeholders was sent on 18 July.

4.6.4   The new communication material on Shape Nelson introduces initial context information on the:

·    knowledge economy

·    stimulating our youth

·    enabling our experienced residents (older adults)

·    attracting and retaining a valued workforce

·    lifting people out of social isolation

·    a city centre to be proud of.


 

4.6.5     More recently, the communication effort has focussed on preparing further draft content with perspectives from different stakeholders on the unmet needs and opportunities the project could deliver on. This is intended to be used on the Shape Nelson project page and potentially for the media.

4.6.6     With the recent flooding and state of emergency this communication effort has been temporarily paused as it was considered inappropriate timing to release articles.

4.7      Pre-engagement with key stakeholders

4.7.1     Over the past eight weeks face-to-face meetings have been held with 50+ individuals representing over twenty key stakeholder organisations, ranging from volunteer and community groups to social service providers, youth, and multi-cultural representatives.

4.7.2     The overwhelming message received has been one of support for the concept of a ‘library plus’ or multi use development with a library at its heart. A strong desire to maximise the opportunity has been expressed by all.

4.7.3     Key stakeholders met with have included:

·     Age Concern

·     Blind Citizens NZ

·     Cawthron Institute

·     Chamber of Commerce

·     DIA

·     Kainga Ora

·     Makeshift Spaces

·     Male Room

·     Ministry of Primary Industries

·     Multicultural Nelson Tasman

·     Nelson College for Girls

·     Nelson Marlborough DHB

·     NMIT

·     NRDA

·     Oranga Tamariki

·     Volunteer Nelson

·     Whanake Youth

4.7.4   While each organisation has its own objectives and priorities, consistent themes have been raised at many meetings. Any themes will need to be prioritised and assessed within the wider concept and design of the project before decisions are made on what and how to include within the project design and budget.

 

 

Strand

Emerging Themes

Social

The desire for a shared community space where our diversity is celebrated in a way that is dignified and visible

A safe indoor/climate-controlled space within the city centre that is welcoming to all and always accessible

A place where diversity is celebrated in a way that invites others to participate (passively or actively)

A place where there is always help to navigate social or health services (note: this is probably the most frequently requested service that is missing in Nelson)

A youth space - since the closing of The Hub in New Street Nelson Youth has been left without anywhere indoors to congregate in a welcoming and safe way

A place that helps combat social isolation

A living room environment for those who do/will live in our city centre

A place volunteer groups can use free of charge (or at a very affordable price) - there are issues with existing facility hire rates

 

 

Economic

A place to work remotely or meet colleagues that is well resourced but also helps address social isolation - increasing demand as working patterns change 

The opportunity to celebrate our ocean economy - both in design and supporting infrastructure

Give Nelson a sense of direction, growth and pride that will help attract new businesses and attract/retain professional workers

Investigate the opportunity to incorporate a mid-sized conference facility (studies show economic opportunity - NRDA)

Help close the productivity gap ($1.5bn per year) though the investment in a knowledge hub/facility that inspires and facilitates

 

 

Cultural

A place that celebrates Nelson's multicultural community - by being welcoming and well used, and through its design

 

A place that is welcoming and flexible - some quiet private spaces, some open air externally facing spaces. Caters to a wide range of cultural preferences and needs.

 

Desire for cooking facilities - food is a vital component of many groups/communities’ gatherings and a fundamental way to connect with others in the community

 

Music and dance facilities should also be incorporated into community meeting spaces and ideally flow out or open up to the outside to invite others in

 

A desire to celebrate our Māori heritage and culture in a modern and vibrant way - not as a historic reference

 

A design that allows casual observation of cultural activity - helping to better integrate into Nelson and also attract interest and the opportunity to share and learn together

 

A place to celebrate our arts community in all its forms and celebrate what they add to our community/identity

 

 

Environmental

An opportunity to embrace the changing climate and give confidence in our ability to work with it - not run away from it

 

An opportunity to embrace our coastal location and all of the opportunities the ocean presents us with

 

To create a building that is in harmony with the environment and not an imposition on it (organic style design and materials, low level, human scale). Non institutional feeling!

 

Create green spaces within and without the building, including community gardens

4.8      Iwi Engagement

4.8.1     The Iwi Engagement Plan, being led by the Iwi Liaison officer, is continuing to progress.

4.8.2     Iwi Chairs have appointed Rangitāne GM Corey Hebberd to the Central Library project Governance Reference Group, which is viewed as a significant step in giving effect to Council’s partnership with iwi.

4.8.3     In mid-August the Iwi Liaison officer presented to Te Ohu Toi Ahurea and discussed iwi engagement in the library. There was a wide-ranging and constructive discussion including acknowledging the lessons that can be learned from other similar projects.

4.8.4     The next steps agreed were that iwi would receive an engagement paper that outlined opportunities to engage throughout the project and that a workshop would be held to have a more in-depth discussion about the library opportunity ahead of concept design.

4.8.5     It was agreed that due to the capacity constraints of iwi, this would be better combined with another proposed workshop around Toi Māori and Te Tauihu design processes. This proposal is now progressing, and a workshop is expected in the next couple of months.

4.8.6     Papers have been drafted and will be distributed to iwi in early September 2022.

4.9      Community Engagement

4.9.1     The two-month public engagement process is currently scheduled to commence in early October 2022. Detailed planning for this process has not yet commenced.

5.       Finance

5.1      Budget expenditure was well within the estimates for the 2021/22 financial year and for the projected 2022/23 financial year. The following expenditure is to 23 August 2022.

5.2      Breakdown of actual project expense in 2021/22 and 2022/2023 financial years.

 

5.3      Budget, forecast and actuals

 

5.4      Funding Strategy

5.4.1   While an initial high-level draft funding strategy was prepared in March 2022, investigating and identifying any significant funding opportunities or partners in a more fully developed funding strategy is now considered to be a priority action.

6.       Risks

6.1      A detailed risk register has been prepared for the project, which is regularly updated as any new risks are identified, or risks are closed off.

6.2      Project risks continue to be actively monitored by the Project Control Group, Governance Reference Group and Steering Group and are being reported to Council’s Audit, Risk and Finance committee in September 2022.

7.       Conclusion

7.1      Further work on the preferred development site is currently awaiting Council’s consideration at its 22 September meeting of the Nelson Central Library – Flood Modelling and Flood Mitigation Plan Update report.

7.2      Preparation of communication material and the pre-engagement meetings with key stakeholders are progressing well. The stakeholder meetings are eliciting valuable insights on opportunities and gaps that the community hub with a library at its heart could deliver on as part of reinvigorating the central city and lifting the performance of Nelson.

7.3      It is intended to increase the focus on these activities in the lead up to the proposed public engagement process, which is programmed to commence in October 2022.

8.       Next Steps

8.1      A decision on whether or not to defer planning for the preferred development site will be made at the 22 September Council meeting.

8.2      A decision to whether or not to approve the draft project sustainability objectives will be made by Council early in the new triennium.

8.3      Pre-engagement meetings with key stakeholders are ongoing.

8.4      Communications effort will focus on the development of materials to support and lead into the wider community engagement process.

8.5      The hosting of a combined hui on the central library project, Toi Māori and Te Tauihu design processes will be progressed within the next couple of months.

8.6      The identification of funding and partnering opportunities through the development of a comprehensive funding strategy will be progressed.

8.7      The dates for wider community engagement will be finalised.

 

Author:          Alice Heather, Central Library Development Project Director

Attachments

Nil

 


 

Item 11: Elma Turner Library - Ceiling Tiles

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27194

Elma Turner Library - Ceiling Tiles

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide an update of matters relating to ceilings at the Elma Turner Library (ETL).

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Elma Turner Library - Ceiling Tiles (R27194) and its attachments (714127617-7600 and 714127617-7774).

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      As a response to the receipt of earthquake prone notices for the Civic House Tower Block and Savings Bank buildings for the suspended ceilings, other Council buildings with similar ceiling tiles were investigated. The heavy suspended ceiling tiles at ETL had previously been identified as a risk.

3.2      Remediation of the heavy suspended ceiling tiles at the ETL was included in the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31, where it was identified that the ceiling tiles pose a safety hazard. A budget of $200,000 was allocated for the replacement of the tiles to be undertaken in 2021/22. Further investigation as the project progressed identified that the cost to replace the ceiling tiles would be much higher than originally estimated due to the integration of the building’s heating system in the tiles.  Further work was planned to provide options for remediating the ceiling tiles, to consider either bracing the existing ceiling and leaving the heavy tiles in place, or replacing the heavy tiles with a lightweight alternative and providing an alternative heating system for the library. Either option would have required a request for additional unbudgeted capital funding.

3.3      On 3 June 2022, further investigations of the ceiling tiles at the ETL were completed. Initial observations found tiles were much heavier than expected, weighing between 8kg and just over 11kg in public spaces and some of the staff areas, with some lightweight tiles in the back-of-house areas. There was no visible diagonal bracing to the suspended two-way ceiling grid, which is fixed to partitions and walls around the perimeter.  

3.4      Due to the weight of the tiles, the vulnerability of many library users e.g., older adults and young children and the lack of furniture to provide cover in an earthquake, the decision was made by the Chief Executive to temporarily close the ETL to the public from 9 June 2022 while more work was undertaken to better understand the risk and what could be done to mitigate it.

3.5      Following remedial works, the ceilings in the Children’s Library and Activity room were able to be classified into the ‘lowest risk’ category defined in the attached consultant’s report.  Based on the retrofit work and the assessed low-risk, the retrofitted spaces could be reopened for public use.

3.6      Construction works began on 14 July 2022 and construction was completed on 19 July 2022, with library staff preparing the pop-up library space from 20 July and reopening the library to the public on 25 July 2022. Opening this area has allowed the ETL to return to offering a physical space for the community while the rest of the building is assessed with a view to improving bracing, edge restraint, and tile clipping work.

4.       Discussion

Closure Decision

4.1      Even though legislative obligations did not require closure, the new information relating to the weight of the tiles was concerning enough to make the difficult decision to close the library as a precaution until more information about the risk and options to mitigate that risk was available.

4.2      Council’s consultant was asked to prioritise interim solutions that could remove the immediate hazard to the extent the tiles would not be considered earthquake prone. There are some challenges associated with the size of the ETL and the fact the heating system is integrated with the tiles and the fire alarm system detectors are mounted to the ceiling.

4.3      In order to provide continued services to the community, branch library hours of operation were extended and a kiosk collection point was set up in the Civic House customer service centre.

4.4      The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) released new seismic risk guidelines for building owners and occupiers in July 2022. These guidelines provide guidance on understanding seismic assessments and how to make appropriate risk-informed decisions about occupancy. The risk assessment that had been completed for the decision for the ETL closure was consistent with this guidance.

Importance Level (IL) Decision

4.5      A building is given an Importance Level (1-5) determined by risk to human life, the environment, economic cost and other risk factors in relation to its use. The categories are based on risk levels for building collapse according to the building type, use and occupancy. Category one is the least important; category five is most important. As a point of comparison, a building used for Civil Defence has an IL4 determination.

4.6      Council has sought advice and relevant guidance from its consultant for the determination of Importance Level for the ETL. Under AS/NZS1170-0 Structural Design Actions (Part 0: General Principles) examples and factors, considering the facilities and intended use of the building, Council determines that the ETL will be rated IL 2. See table below for considerations in determining the IL level for a building.

4.7      Key factors considered in the determination of IL 2 for the ETL are; it is a normal structure and not fitting in other importance level categories, there is no intent for more than 300 people to congregate in one area on a regular basis, and it is not intended for public assembly.

 

 

NZS1170-0 Table 3.1 – Consequences of Failure

NZS1170-0 Table 3.2 – Building Types NZ

Building Code Compliance – Section A3

IL2

Ordinary

Medium consequence, normal structures

Normal structures and structures not in other importance levels

Buildings not included in Importance Levels 1, 3, or 4

Buildings posing normal risk to human life or the environment, or a normal economic cost, should the building fail. These are typical residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.

IL3

High

High consequence, major structures

Structures that as a whole may contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community or pose risks to people in crowds

More than 300 people can congregate in one area

Commercial /industrial/ retail designed to accommodate more than 5000 people and with gross area >10,000m2

Public assembly buildings >1000m2

Buildings of a higher level of societal benefit or importance, or with higher levels of risk-significant factors to building occupants. These buildings have increased performance requirements because they may house large numbers of people, vulnerable populations, or occupants with other risk factors, or fulfil a role of increased importance to the local community or to society in general.

4.8      Most libraries are IL2 buildings, however larger libraries which are regularly used for functions with capacity for more than 300 people to congregate in one area are typically rated as IL3, for example Christchurch’s main library Tūranga.

4.9      There are implications for the complexity of engineering design and cost to remedy ceiling tiles based on whether the ETL is rated as an IL2 or IL3 building.

4.10    The ETL is located on Halifax Street which is considered a transport route of strategic importance. This fact does not impact the IL of the building.

4.11    If an assessment of the building was to find that it would have the potential to impede transport on Halifax Street, subsequent collaboration between the structural engineer and the Council under its regulatory function, would determine whether the ETL is a ‘priority building’. If this was to be the case, the timeframes for strengthening the building under and Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) notice would be halved from 25 years to 12.5 years.

4.12    There is currently no earthquake prone building notice in place for the ETL.

4.13    Council’s consultants and a specialised contractor have provided estimated prices to strengthen the remainder of the ETL’s ceilings based on concept stage work to 67%NBS and 100%NBS (IL2).  The scope of the pricing has been set to improve ceiling areas that are currently medium or high risk.   

4.14    The estimated pricing shows that it will be a requirement for allocation of additional unbudgeted capital funding in 2022/23 for seismic strengthening of the ceilings at the ETL, which will be requested as per the timeline at 6.1 below.  This additional capital funding requirement for the work to strengthen the ETL’s ceilings is estimated to be between $1 million and $2.5 million based on the extent of strengthening that is decided (67%NBS or 100%NBS).

Detailed Seismic Assessment – Suspended Ceilings and Non-Structural Partitions

4.15    Council’s consultants completed a targeted Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) of the suspended ceilings in the ETL at the end of June 2022, which found that most of the suspended ceilings consisted of heavy weight tiles with limited lateral bracing to the ceiling grid members (see attachment for copy of the DSA).

4.16    The ceilings in the ETL are generally proprietary, fibrous plaster tiles in a two-way suspended grid, being generally 1200 x 600mm and rough cast texure. The ceiling tiles consist of some standard tiles and some ‘Panectric Radiant Heat Layin’ panels which provide heating to the building space.

4.17    The ceilings were classified into three risk categories based on the %NBS of the grid members, bracing and connections, tile weight, degree of tile restraint in the ceiling grid and the furniture available in a space to provide protection as part of a “drop, cover, hold” mitigation plan.  The seismic assessment of ceilings in the main areas of the building is summarised in the following table.  The areas are depicted by the plans in attachment 1, page 10.

4.18    The table below shows that the majority of the ETL’s public areas fell into the highest risk category, including the children’s area, the issuing area, the Maitai river and Halifax sides of the library, and the research room.

 

Table

Description automatically generated

4.19    In order to enable the ETL to reopen to the public, significant life safety risk must be reduced, as vulnerable people are less able to shelter under desks.

Pop-Up Library

4.20    To facilitate a potential reopening of the ETL, and a higher level of service than the kiosk at Civic House provided, work was undertaken on the Children’s Area and Activity Room.

4.21    Following completion of construction works, the ceilings in the Children’s Library and Activity room were able to be classified into the ‘lowest risk’ category defined in the consultant’s DSA report.  Based on the retrofit work and the assessed low-risk, the retrofitted spaces could be reopened for public use.  This work was completed at a cost of $98,000 from the existing ceiling tile remediation budget of $200,000. The remaining budget will be carried over to the 2022/23 year.

4.22    Opening this area has allowed the ETL to return to offering a safe physical space for the community while the rest of the building was assessed looking bracing, edge restraint, and tile clipping work.

5.       Next Steps

5.1      A previous structural DSA for the ETL building dated 6 December 2013 reported on the seismic capacity of the primary structure of the building (reported as 42% NBS). 

5.2      That structural DSA was completed prior to the July 2017 MBIE guidelines “The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings” and did not assess non-structural elements. The ETL was not considered to be earthquake prone as the previous assessment was over the 34%NBS threshold to be considered earthquake prone.

5.3      Council’s consultants have been instructed to undertake a new DSA for the primary structure of the library. The DSA is estimated to cost $42,000 and will be funded from the carried forward capital budget.

5.4      There is a risk that the %NBS for the building may change from 42%NBS due to changes brought about by the July 2017 Guidelines. This may result in additional structural work being required.

6.       Timeframe

6.1      The following table identifies the key steps required for construction to enable the ETL to reopen fully.

 

Item

Task

Timeframe

1

Design & Engineering for Building Consent (ceiling strengthening only)

6 weeks

2

Structural DSA – progressing to next steps subject to results of this assessment

Anticipated 31 October 2022

3

Report requesting allocation of additional unbudgeted funding for seismic strengthening

Anticipated December 2022

4

Building Consent processing time

4 weeks

5

Design & Engineering for Building Consent (If minor structural strengthening only is required)

6 weeks

6

Amended building consent (if required for structural improvements)

3 weeks (if required)

7

Lead time to source supplies and schedule resourcing

3 weeks

8a

Construction Period split into Stages

7 weeks + 8 weeks (15 weeks)

8b

OR Construction Period all in one go

10-12  weeks

6.2      The timeframe for 8a or 8b above is for ceiling works only, any structural work required would be in addition to this timeframe.

6.3      Ceiling Retrofit Options have been provided by Council’s consultants (attachment 2). Design and engineering for building consent for the ceiling strengthening (item 1 in the table above) can progress within existing budgets and can begin now.

6.4      There will be a requirement for allocation of additional unbudgeted capital funding in 2022/23 for seismic strengthening of the ceilings at the ETL. There may also be additional costs for structural strengthening, which will become known once the structural DSA is completed at the end of October 2022.

6.5      The timeframe may be impacted by approvals for additional funding and the outcome of the structural DSA.

 

 

 

Author:          Rebecca Van Orden, Manager Property Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:   714127617-7600 Elma Turner Library - Detailed Seismic Assessment of Ceilings and Partitions RevB-redacted (Circulated separately)

Attachment 2:   714127617-7774 Elma Turner Library Ceiling Retrofit Options letter Beca 2Aug2022-redacted (Circulated separately)  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The provision of library services is a core function of local government which supports the cultural and social wellbeing of the community.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report fits with the following Community Outcomes:

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

•      Our communities are healthy, safe, and resilient

     Risk

Council faces reputational risk from long term closure of the City’s largest library facility.

There is a risk that the structural DSA will result in a score of less than 34%NBS, and Council will need to be prepared to make further decisions on expenditure or closure of the facility based on the outcome of the DSA.

     Financial impact

There will be a shortfall for recommended works that will require a decision from Council to fund.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance and no engagement has been undertaken. The pop-up library and extended hours at branch libraries are providing a library service to the community but not the extent that the community is used to or expects. No engagement will be required to update the public and stakeholders of the progress of this project, however media releases will inform the public of decisions and progress.  

     Climate Impact

There is no direct climate impact from the matters in this report.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

        The Community and Recreation Subcommittee has the delegation to         consider matters relating to Libraries. Due to timing and with approval of         the Mayor and the Community and Recreation Subcommittee Chair, this         report has been brought directly to Council.

 

 


 

Item 12: Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed Site

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27212

Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed Site

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To approve part of the Millers Acre building and carpark to be used as the long-term central city bus interchange (hub).

2.       Summary

2.1      Council has entered into a new bus contract that will commence in July 2023. Whilst Council has recently purchased the existing bus depot site (off Wakatu Square) and will continue to operate services from this location in the interim, it is not fit-for-purpose as a long-term bus hub.

2.2      A detailed multi criteria analysis (MCA) has been undertaken and points to Millers Acre as the preferred long-term location of a new city centre bus hub.

2.3      This report is seeking approval for Millers Acre to be the long-term, central city bus hub.

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed site (R27212) and its Attachments (1862260321-18221 and 336940202-1318); and

2.    Approves Millers Acre as the long-term location for the new central city bus hub; and

3.    Approves that following approval of the location of the new bus hub at Millers Acre by Council, that officers initiate the necessary planning, design and consenting this financial year that will allow implementation of the new bus hub to commence next financial year.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      Past and present Long Term Plans (LTPs) and Regional Land Transport Plans (RLTPs) have identified the need for a new central city bus hub. The LTP 2021-31 includes capex funding for an inner-city bus hub of $1.4m This figure assumes Waka Kotahi subsidy which is as yet unconfirmed.

4.2      The current Nelson bus terminus/depot is no longer fit-for-purpose. It is located on recently acquired Council land at 25 Bridge Street, and some bus routes begin and terminate nearby in Council owned Wakatu Lane.

4.3      Council has received feedback through submissions to the Regional Public Transport Plan, past Annual Plan submissions, as well as via service requests that the current bus depot is unpleasant and unattractive to bus users. Common complaints include the lack of weather protection, the litter, the poor state of seating and the inaccessible toilet facilities. This is inconsistent with Council’s goal to grow public transport patronage. It is desirable to move services to a new location given the poor condition of the current terminus and the lack of integration and poor visibility between it and the Wakatu Lane bus stops.

4.4      Two Council workshops have been held on 26 April and 1 September 2022 to inform elected members of options investigated. The initial workshop presented an MCA report which is appended as attachment 1. This MCA identified Millers Ace as a preferred location, but officers were tasked to carry out more urban design work on four locations.

4.5      At the second workshop officers were given a clear steer to prepare a report noting Millers Acre as the preferred location for the future inner city bus hub. A summary of the material presented at the second workshop is appended as attachment 2.

5.       Discussion

5.1      Initially as part of the business case development a report was commissioned to provide Council (NCC) with a high-level MCA assessment of potential future sites for the central city bus hub. Thirteen options were assessed against a baseline of the existing bus depot in Bridge Street. The assessment highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each of the 13 sites. Millers Acre, utilising part of the Millers Acre building, emerged as the preferred location as a new bus hub. Te Ara ō Whakatū – the pathway of Nelson, Nelson’s City Centre Spatial Plan was included in considerations.

5.2      Officers work has been to identify a location for a new bus hub and note that this differs from a ‘bus depot’.  A hub is a location where passengers can safely transfer between various Nelson bus services. Drivers can layover but buses cannot. A bus depot generally does not include public access, or ‘in service’ buses. It is a facility for maintenance and storage of buses. The current SBL site is a hybrid site that is a combination of a depot and a public facing interchange.

5.3      The MCA criteria for the bus hub included a mixture of five customer focussed, three operational, and two deliverability criteria as below:

·    Accessibility – for all ages and abilities

·    Visibility – easy to find and all route stops visible to all users

·    Comfortable – weather protection/ good amenity

·    Facilities- access to public toilets/ adequate seating / drivers’ rest and meals breaks / space for information and storage

·    Safety – site is publicly visible and has good lighting

·    Capacity -sufficient space to provide the required number of bus bays

·    E- Bus charging – has space required to support this

·    Efficiency -easy and safe ingress/egress for buses with minimal delays

·    Affordability- Cost considerations include the purchase/lease of the bus hub site or space to provide driver facilities/customer amenities

·    Ability to implement - considers ease of implementation including potential objections to loss of parking

5.4      Subsequent to the Council workshop on 26 April 2022 three of the sites were further considered with an urban design lens. Those sites were Halifax Street, Wakatu Square and Millers Acre. A fourth on street site in Hardy Street East outside NMIT was also considered.

Option investigation

5.5      Following the initial MCA, and the discussion at the second workshop, Option 1a at Millers Acre has emerged as the preferred option for the following reasons:

5.5.1   It leverages the Millers Acre building’s existing facilities and the open space of the Millers Acre Carpark. There is a vacant area within the complex (ex-Simply NZ retail) that is suitable as a bus lounge.

5.5.2   Whilst on the edge of the city centre, it is easy to locate and linked to key destinations due to its proximity to Trafalgar Street.

5.5.3   Weather protection and public toilets are provided and there is the opportunity to further improve customer amenity by converting a vacant retail space.

5.5.4   Halifax Street is a two-way road with sufficient width to accommodate buses. Wide footpaths are provided on both sides of Halifax Street, and signalised intersections at Trafalgar Street and Collingwood Street provide safe crossing points for pedestrians.

5.5.5   Although the site is off-street, which reduces passive surveillance and the ability for people on the street to see the buses, the site is relatively busy, and CCTV is planned for additional security.

5.5.6   The site provides potential for expansion, without relocation, should the bus service be expanded in coming years.

5.5.7   Current intercity bus use of the site can continue

5.5.8   There is opportunity for nearby retail operators to benefit from increased foot traffic if they become the BEE CARD ticketing agent.

5.5.9   Many of the objections raised as part of early engagement with nearby businesses can be mitigated.

5.6      Lot 6 Deposited Plan 2368 and Section 4 Survey Office Plan 350256 held in Record of Title 229690 is held in fee simple by Nelson City Council for no specific purpose. 

5.7      Any future bus hub would be well supported by additional high quality on-street bus stops. The future bus routes and bus stops will be concentrated on the ring road and will reduce the overall distances to a bus stop within the City Centre.

5.8      Under the new contract buses will all be here at once – allowing for an “integrated service” and easy transfer from one bus to another. Bus storage, bus maintenance and bus charging is at the bus depot and this is elsewhere and provided by the contractor.

5.9      At the Millers Acre site the established tree and seating amenity will remain at front of lounge, and detailed design will deal with how the bus hub relates to the commercial edge and the river and Halifax Street.

5.10    To implement this site as the central city bus hub, Millers Acre Carpark would need to be reconfigured to provide parking and turning space for six buses. The pavement is likely to need strengthening to accommodate the heavier vehicles, and some public car parking will be lost. Officers carried out early engagement with businesses in the area prior to the April workshop.

5.11    Officers have assessed the number of buses using the hub at any given time and manoeuvring requirements will result in a reduction in the order of 43 carparks at Miller Acre. A draft plan of option 1 a layout is shown in the powerpoint appended as attachment 2. This plan shows the retention of approximately 21 short term parks, (subject to detailed design), including relocated accessible carparks, bike parking, loading and existing EV charger bay. The public carparks have separate access to and from the bus hub and it is proposed that separation is provided using urban greening such as a hedge.

5.12    Parking data supports retention of short-term parks only with 72% of users in a typical summer month staying less than 1 hour, and an additional 16% staying between 1-2 hours.

5.13    Parking revenue lost due to displaced public carparks amounts to approximately $17,000 a year at Millers Acre. If the bus interchange goes on-street or on other Council owned parking space (e.g. Wakatu Square) parking revenue will also be impacted.

5.14    The Nelson Dental Centre situated at the far northeast corner of Millers Acre has customer parking independent from the public space of Millers Acre and an easement to that customer carpark exists. This easement would require adjustment to accommodate the terminal, however, good access to the Dental Centre will be maintained.

5.15    The Nelson Parking Strategy included provision for potential reallocation of public space that has traditionally been used as carparking and a bus hub at this location is not inconsistent with the adopted Strategy.

5.16    Parking loss was considered as part of the “affordability and implementability” aspect of other options. The Stantec MCA report and Attachment 2 contain a summary of parking loss at alternative locations. 

5.17    If the inner city bus interchange were to be on-street approximately 20 carparks would be lost. Experience with placement of a covered bike stand suggests retailers would object if the bus stops were outside their premises.

5.18    If the hub was to be in Wakatu Square in excess of 30 carparks would be lost to enable bus turning movements and buses would be operating in a mixed-use environment. Driver facilities, public toilets and shelter from the weather would need to be constructed on site, potentially further reducing available parking.

5.19    Two other off-street locations were considered that did not result in loss of public carparking but required land purchase at a significant cost. Millers Acre is an existing Council owned transport asset.

Early Engagement with nearby businesses

5.20    In April initial pre-engagement was undertaken to seek feedback from tenants of Millers Acre on the use of the area as a bus hub. The businesses in the immediate area were also contacted for feedback. Feedback was mixed.

5.21    Tenants were contacted directly through email. The businesses in the surrounding area were contacted through a letter. Letter delivery was completed by hand, and photographs were taken for evidence to ensure businesses received the letter. Some businesses were closed due to the current COVID situation. These businesses were provided the information via email where possible. Known email contacts were also contacted when we had not received feedback (notably State Cinemas).

5.22    Subsequently, a follow-up email was sent to tenants to capture feedback from those that had not sent through information.

5.23    Feedback from some tenants and nearby businesses expressed a range of concerns. Loss of parking was the primary concern, with many businesses stating their customers drove to their respective businesses (notably older customers). Some businesses welcomed the proposal saying it would increase foot traffic and serve their patrons who were bus customers well.

5.24    Safety concerns were also raised by some businesses relating to the movement of buses in and around the area, especially near the popular walkway. These concerns also related to the safety of their customers. These businesses had spoken to the businesses next to the current bus depot, who stated that violence, damage and litter was common from some bus patrons.

5.25    Amenity was another area that some businesses were worried about. They felt that moving the bus depot to this location would change the feel of the area from relaxed destination linked to the shared pathway and river, to a busy bus depot. Many businesses had invested heavily in their premises, and so changing the environment would have an impact.

5.26    Officers are confident that the perceived safety and amenity concerns raised as part of the feedback can be mitigated. Pending approval officers will re-engage with these businesses and provide a face to face opportunity for them to view design renders, explain the difference between a hub and a depot, and explain benefits of a new fully electric bus fleet.

Fit with Te Ara ō Whakatū (CCSP)

5.27    CCSP supports a new bus network to access the city centre. It has a strong preference for bus interchange and passenger stops located on the ring roads to enable people-focused, place-based outcomes in the city centre. Attachment 2 contains a map showing how the new bus routes move around the ring road system with Millers Acre as the hub. 

5.28    CCSP preference is for an interchange at the Millers Acre location with proximity to Halifax St, Trafalgar Street (highest pedestrian flows), and future Riverside Precinct.

5.29    Alternatives considered on Bridge Street Linear Park or Trafalgar Street result in significant impacts on achieving CCSP outcomes (places for people, urban greening, cycle access, etc.)

5.30    Bus movement (including stops) can be considered on Hardy Street in the central city and achieve CCSP aspirations with consideration of locations.

Alternative uses for Millers Acre 

5.31    Millers Acre is currently having external cladding re-done at a total cost of $1.46M, that will provide a high quality structure for existing commercial tenants through to at least 2040.

5.32    The potential for the site to be a possible location for a new library, should an arrangement with Wakatu Corporation not eventuate, has been explored by the library Governance Group but it is not deemed suitable due to the value of the current asset and remedial works. The site has not been assessed for housing potential.

6.       Funding

6.1      The new pubic transport contract and its associated new routes commences on 1 July 2023. The new service can operate from the current depot in Bridge Street on a temporary basis while location of a future site is determined and then constructed.

6.2      The LTP includes capex funding of approximately $1.4m for a central city bus hub, spread over a number of years. That figure assumes Waka Kotahi subsidy of 51% which has not yet been secured. More work on a   detailed business case is required to apply for subsidy and a site must be identified before that work can commence. Full cost estimates have not yet been prepared for the proposed re-fit of space required in the Millers Acre building, or for the resurfacing and vehicle access separation required. This would be progressed if the location is approved. In 2022/23 $500,000 is available to commence this work, with further budget in following years (23/24 $106,000, 24/25 108,000 and 25/26 $571,250). Waka Kotahi procurement rules will require this work to be competitively tendered and possible staging could be considered.      

6.3      There will be an associated opex cost for use of the Millers Acre building. It is intended that Council will pay market rate rental at the Millers acre building as would any other tenant (currently $48,128 pa plus outgoings, to be reassessed prior to commencement of lease). There will also be ongoing cleaning, power, maintenance and security costs and future renewal costs will need to be budgeted in the next LTP. No funding from Waka Kotahi has yet been approved and a detailed funding application will be completed once the future site is approved by Council.

7.       Options

7.1      Two options are presented to Council for consideration – Approve or not approve Millers Acre as the preferred location. Officers recommend approval.

 

Option 1: Approve part of Millers Acre and part of the Millers Acre building as the proposed location of Nelson City Bus hub. Recommended option

Advantages

·   Supports professional assessment of locations and multicriteria analysis 

·   Officers can continue with subsidy funding applications with confidence.

·   Progresses the provision of a fit-for-purpose bus hub, supporting the Council LTP outcome of sustainable transport and mode shift. 

·   Does not require land purchase as Millers Acre is already a transport asset and repurposes an existing Council facility thereby reducing capital cost.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Loss of public car parking spaces at this location

 

Option 2: Not approve part of Millers Acre and part of the Millers Acre building as the proposed location of Nelson City Bus hub.

Advantages

·    No loss of public car parking at this location 

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Contradicts professional assessment of locations and multicriteria analysis

·   Delays any planned improvement in  the level of service at interchange facilities offered to bus patrons.

·   Delays development of the site at 25 Bridge Street which will be required as an interim hub.

 

                                                                                                                                                                              

8.       Conclusion

8.1      Part of Millers Acre and part of the current Millers Acre building is, following the multi-criteria analysis, the preferred location of the central city bus hub. This location will provide a fit-for-purpose bus hub, supporting the Council LTP outcome of sustainable transport and mode shift. Officers seek approval from Council to progress funding applications, planning permissions and the finalise routes for the new public transport contract.

9.       Next Steps

9.1      Officers will prepare information for the community on the preferred Millers Acre location using Shape Nelson

9.2      Officers will engage further with directly affected parties providing to them new information and visuals that were not available at the time of initial engagement in April 2022.

9.3      Officers will investigate preliminary costings, prepare a detailed business case and associated funding applications.

 

Author:          Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1:   1862260321-18221 MCA Bus hub locations April 2022

Attachment 2:   336940202-1318 Summary from Workshop 2 - Bus hub options  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in this report support the purpose of local government whereby the recommended decision enables Council to play a role in promoting the social, economic, and environmental, wellbeing of the community through provision of infrastructure that supports a sustainable transport system

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report fit with the community outcome that our Infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure, and transport networks. Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.

     Risk

There is a risk that some members of the community do not support the recommendations in this report, particularly the loss of current public carparking spaces in Millers Acre. 

     Financial impact

Forecast costs are included in the LTP and assume Waka Kotahi subsidy. Further detailed funding applications to Waka Kotahi require completing once the location and capex and ongoing opex costs are better understood.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance. Nearby businesses that could be affected, have been consulted. Further engagement is planned if the site is agreed to which will include new information with regard to mitigation of concerns previously raised and artists impressions of the facility.

     Climate Impact

This proposal support Council’s leadership towards reduction in carbon emissions by making alternative modes of travel competitive and attractive when compared to private car travel. Providing a higher level of service for public transport users and increasing safety perceptions and amenity of our supporting transport infrastructure can influence travel behaviour that could have a positive effect on climate change and encourage modal shift.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

This matter is cross-committee as it falls within the delegation of the Infrastructure Committee, Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee and Urban Development Subcommittee, and therefore is a matter for Council.  

 

 


Item 12: Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed Site: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 12: Nelson City Bus Hub - Proposed Site: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Recommendations from Committees

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27241

Recommendations from Committees

 

 

 

 

Author:          Robyn Byrne, Team Leader Governance

Attachments

Attachment 1:   1399367370-7648 Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit AnnualReport 2021-22.pdf (Circulated separately)

Attachment 2:   1399367370-7649 NTRLBU Business Plan 23-24 V0 20220829 DRAFT.pdf (Circulated separately)

Attachment 3:   A2921574 NTRLBU Draft Amended and Restated Deed of Agreement.pdf (Circulated separately)

Attachment 4:   A2921572 NTRLBU Draft Updated Terms of Reference.pdf (Circulated separately)

Attachment 5:   1080325921-64 NRSBU Annual Report.pdf (Circulated separately)

Attachment 6:   1080325921-63 NRSBU BusPlan 2023-2024 Sepember 2022 Draft V0_1 (Circulated separately)   


 

Item 14: Status Report

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R26690

Status Report

 

 

1.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Status Report (R26690) and its attachment (1982984479-4496).

 

 

 

 

Author:          Robyn Byrne, Team Leader Governance

Attachments

Attachment 1:   1982984479-4496 Status Report - Council - September 2022   


Item 14: Status Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 15: Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27230

Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To support the Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council to sign the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council, on behalf of the Nelson community.

2.       Summary

2.1      In 2005, the then Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council signed the Memorandum of Understanding between Tangata Whenua ō Whakatū and the Nelson City Council (the MOU, Attachment 1) with six iwi representatives affiliated to Whakatū marae.

2.2      It has been seventeen years since the MOU was signed.

2.3      Since March 2019, Council and iwi have been in discussion regarding the review of the MOU. This has espoused the development of a Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council (the Partnership Agreement, to be tabled), and now includes partnership with eight iwi.

2.4      Te Waka a Māui Iwi Chairs hui will consider signing the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council at their meeting on 20 September 2022. A final Partnership Agreement will be provided to Council after this meeting.

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council (R27230) and its attachment/s (); and

2.    Supports the Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council to sign the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022; and

3.    Authorises the Mayor and Kaihautū, Manager Māori Partnerships to approve any minor amendments required to finalise the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022; and

4.    Notes that the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council will be signed at the next Iwi-Council Partnership hui on 28 September 2022; and

5.    Notes that a collective Relationship Agreement with the eight Te Tauihu iwi, Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council and Marlborough District Council may supersede the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (s4) to establish and maintain processes to provide Māori with an opportunity to contribute to decision making processes.

4.2      Local government authorities are distinct from the Crown, however the Treaty of Waitangi is an important framework for understanding partnership with iwi. In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibilities to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Council has a duty under the Local Government Act 2002 to facilitate participation by Māori in its decision-making processes.

4.3      The Long-Term Plan (2021-2031) highlights Councils commitment to strengthening partnerships with iwi and Māori of Te Tauihu and providing opportunities for Māori involvement in decision-making processes in a meaningful way. This includes building effective, lasting and genuine partnerships with all eight Te Tauihu iwi at governance, management and operational levels.

4.4      In 2005, six iwi representatives from the following organisations signed the MOU:

4.4.1   Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust;

4.4.2   Te Rūnanga o toa Rangatira;

4.4.3   Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Charitable Trust;

4.4.4   Te Ātiawa Manawhenua ki Te Tauihu Trust;

4.4.5   Ngāti Koata nō Rangitoto ki Te Tonga Trust;

4.4.6   Ngāti Tama Manawhenua ki Te Tauihu Trust.

4.5      In 2014, the eight iwi of Te Tauihu settled claims with the Crown for breaches to the Treaty of Waitangi. The MOU does not currently recognise Councils relationship with Rangitāne and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō who have cultural interests in Whakatū/Nelson. However, Nelson City Council does recognise Treaty Settlements in the Whakatū region, including:

4.5.1   Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tauihu and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka a Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014;

4.5.2   Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014, and;

4.5.3   Ngāti Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014.

4.6      Beyond statutory obligations Nelson City Council recognises the longstanding kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and unbroken connection of iwi to this whenua across generations through the principle of ahikā (occupation).

4.7      At a Council meeting held on 13 December 2018, Council agreed to establish the Iwi-Council Partnership Group to support partnership, that involves the Mayor of Nelson, Deputy Mayor, two elected members and the eight iwi Chairs. The role of the advisory group is to review the MOU, develop an Engagement and Partnering Strategy and to provide recommendations on progressing partnership.

 

5.       Development of a Partnership Agreement

5.1      The MOU from 2005 is now outdated and does not provide clarity, or a level of detail sufficient to reflect the aspirations and progression of the Council and iwi partnership, as to where it is today.

5.2      It is important that expectations within a Partnership Agreement are clear to form the basis for a meaningful and robust relationship. Not clarifying what is expected creates a risk that the Partnership Agreement could unintentionally damage relationships by each party having a different understanding or expectations of each other. 

5.3      Nelson City Council and the eight iwi have indicated a desire to progress a partnership in a meaningful way and have agreed to review the MOU. Furthermore, a new Partnership Agreement would provide an opportunity to shape an agreement with iwi that provides for a meaningful relationship with clear commitments to structure, process and potential outcomes.

5.4      Some key functions resulting from developing a partnership agreement with iwi representatives has been to clarify:

i. what iwi wanted to achieve

ii. what Nelson City Council and iwi want to achieve together

iii. what are we going to do together, and

iv. what will happen at: operational, management and governance levels.

6.       Timeline of Iwi-Council Partnership hui

6.1      The following sets out a timeline of Nelson City Council and iwi partnership hui:

6.1.1   1 March 2019 – A workshop was held to discuss the guiding principles between iwi and Council. A draft document was provided to members for feedback.

6.1.2   9 May 2019 – A workshop was held and facilitated by Kiwa Hammond to discuss the values and principles of partnership. The levels of engagement were discussed and agreed to be at the right level, i.e. staff to staff, management to management, Chair to Mayor. Kawa Whanaungatanga was suggested as a title, however it was agreed that a Partnership Agreement was a more suitable title. It was noted that elected members would like more engagement with iwi leaders to discuss collective priorities.

6.1.3   18 July 2019 – An updated draft Partnership Agreement tabled for discussion. The vision was discussed, and the meeting agreed on “Oranga Iwi, Oranga Kaunihera, Oranga Whakatū”. This whakatauki (proverbial saying) reflected the importance of wellbeing of iwi, Council and the wider Whakatū region.

6.1.4   19 November 2019 – Forums for Iwi-Council engagement at governance, management and operational levels were agreed to.

6.1.5   24 June 2020 – Iwi Chairs advised that they supported the process and requested Council table the draft Partnership Agreement with the Te Waka a Māui (TWAM) secretariat for further discussion at their next meeting.

6.1.6   9 December 2020 – Iwi Chairs were not able to make a collective decision on the Partnership Agreement. It was noted that this discussion may take considerable time as there were complex matters to work through. Council emphasised that the partnership with iwi was invaluable. 

6.1.7   23 March 2021 – The Chair for the next Iwi-Council Partnership Group meeting would progress this matter at the next TWAM hui.

6.1.8   23 June 2021 – Discussions continuing amongst iwi at the next TWAM hui in August 2021.

7.       Discussion on a collective Te Tauihu Iwi and Council Relationship Agreement

7.1      The following sets out a timeline of discussions between the eight iwi Chairs, Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council and Tasman District Council:

7.1.1   30 March 2022 – the three Councils receive correspondence from TWAM iwi Chairs advising that the eight iwi of Te Tauihu wished to progress an “all of iwi and all of Council” relationship agreement. A Relationship Agreement Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o te Waka a Māui and Councils was presented to the three Councils for consideration.

7.1.2   31 May 2022the three Councils met to discuss progressing a collective relationship agreement.

7.2      Once adopted, a collective Relationship Agreement with the eight Te Tauihu iwi, Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council and Marlborough District Council may supersede the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council.

8.       Options

8.1      Officers recommend Option 1.

Option 1: Support the Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council to sign the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022

Advantages

·   Strengthens commitment to build a  meaningful partnership with iwi;

·   Provides clarity on commitments to structure, process and potential outcomes

·   Reflects a current understanding of partnership between iwi and Council;

·   Continuity of strengthening partnership with iwi.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   None obvious

Option 2: Do not support the Mayor of Nelson, the Deputy Mayor of Nelson and the Chief Executive of Nelson City Council to sign the Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council 2022

Advantages

·    None obvious

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Outdated MOU in place that does not reflect the current understanding of partnership between iwi and Council;

·    There would be a considerable delay in adopting a Partnership Agreement which may mean that further revisions are needed;

·    Frustrations from partners;

·    Lost opportunity for continuity of strengthening partnership with iwi. 

9.       Conclusion

9.1      The draft Partnership Agreement has been developed in partnership with iwi Chairs and elected members through the Iwi-Council Partnership Group. The final Partnership Agreement will be provided to Council following the meeting with the eight iwi Chairs of Te Tauihu on 20 September 2022.

9.2      This reviewed Partnership Agreement contributes to honoring Councils commitment to strengthening our partnership with iwi and recognises the longstanding ahikā and kaitiakitanga of the eight iwi and their significant contribution in this region.

10.     Next Steps

10.1    If Council approves the final Partnership Agreement for adoption, the next steps would be to finalise any minor changes. Then prepare the document for signing at the next Iwi-Council Partnership Group meeting on 28 September 2022.

 

 

Author:          Pania Lee, Kaihautu

Attachments

Attachment 1:   Memorandum of Understanding 2005  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Council has a duty under the Local Government Act 2002 to facilitate participation by Māori in its decision-making processes.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This matter aligns with many of Council’s community outcomes outlined in the Long Term Plan, including:

·    Our communities are healthy, safe inclusive and resilient

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

·    Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective and community engagement.

 

     Risk

 The goal of reviewing a Partnership Agreement with the eight iwi is to provide clarity for meaningful engagement, and greater opportunity for Māori to contribute to decision making. Support of this Partnership Agreement is low risk.

Sections of the community may raise race-based concerns with Council support of a Partnership Agreement. However, the Partnership Agreement is consistent with Councils commitment to strengthening its partnership with iwi.

     Financial impact

There is no financial impact to Council.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance to iwi and the community in Nelson and of low to medium significance for the wider the community.

     Climate Impact

There is no direct climate impact from the Partnership Agreement.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have been involved throughout the development of the draft Partnership Agreement and have contributed to the draft document being considered with this report.

 

     Delegations

Under Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 clause 31 the Council retains all responsibilities, duties, functions and powers that must be exercised by Council and where delegations are prevented by legislation.  It has also retained certain key responsibilities, duties, functions and powers that it wishes to exercise.

 

 


Item 15: Adoption of Partnership Agreement between Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui and Nelson City Council: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 16: Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27185

Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032

 

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To consider public feedback on the draft Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023 and adopt the final Strategy.

2.       Summary

2.1      Council approved the draft Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023 for public feedback on 18 August 2022. This followed extensive
pre-engagement over 2 years in the development of the draft.

2.2      The great majority of feedback on the draft Strategy was positive. This report recommends some minor changes be made to the Strategy adoption, to respond to feedback.

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032 (R27185) and its attachments; and

2.    Adopts Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032; and

3.    Authorises the Group Manager Community Services to approve any minor editorial amendments required to finalise the Strategy; and

4.    Notes that a Taonga Tuku Iho Steering Group will be established to agree an Action Plan to deliver outcomes for the Strategy; and

5.    Notes the current working group will be develop the structure, membership and terms of reference for the new Steering Group.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      It has been 16 years since Nelson City Council adopted the Whakatū Nelson Heritage Strategy in 2006. Over this time, there has been a quantum shift in how our community understands heritage and how we see ourselves within it. Taonga Tuku Iho offers an holistic approach to understanding heritage located within a te ao Māori framework. This approach encompasses built heritage, as well as the importance of natural and metaphysical heritage, such as language, stories and the arts.

4.2      The purpose of Taonga Tuku Iho is to inspire a step change in the way we view and approach our heritage and collective identity, together as people of Whakatū Nelson. It will act as a blueprint and set the direction for the protection and delivery of taonga tuku iho outcomes for Whakatū through a partnership approach. By nurturing and honouring our diverse relationships, our aim is to enhance the cultural wellbeing and sense of identity and connection of our community. 

4.3      Taonga Tuku Iho began in 2020 and Council engaged Business Lab to facilitate engagement with iwi, the heritage individuals, organisations, agencies, and other interested parties. In 2021, Making Everything Achievable supported the qualitative analysis and writing of Councils first bicultural strategy. In 2022, O’Donnell & Co was engaged as a writer and co-editor of the strategy.

4.4      Council intends to continue to work collaboratively with the community on fine tuning the Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy Action Plan 2022-2025 alongside iwi and key heritage partners. Once the Strategy has been adopted by Council, a community led Steering Group will be established to manage the delivery of outcomes for Taonga Tuku Iho.

Engagement with iwi and community partners

4.5      Iwi have been engaged throughout the Strategy development process which has resulted in a bi-cultural document supported by iwi.  Engagement was through one-to-one interviews with all eight iwi at the beginning of the engagement process. This included three iwi hui in 2020, and regular updates to iwi leaders.

4.6      This Strategy has been drafted and reviewed by community partners including iwi. Key participants provided their feedback that was incorporated into the final draft Taonga Tuku Iho Heritage Strategy 2022-2032 (version 14) prior to it being made available for public feedback. When it was time to request formal feedback on the draft there was very little to add.

Public feedback process

4.7      At its meeting on 18 August 2022, the Community and Recreation Committee approved the draft Strategy public feedback document and engagement approach (R2616). A final draft Strategy has been attached as Appendix 1. The public feedback period ran for three weeks ending on 9 September 2022.

4.8      The opportunity to provide feedback was promoted through Council’s website, social media, Our Nelson and at two drop-in sessions held at Customer Services on Tuesday 30 August and Thursday 1 September.  A short feedback form was provided, which could be completed online.

4.9      Invitations to provide feedback were also emailed to a number of community groups who had not already provided feedback prior to the draft Strategy being approved for public feedback.

4.10    We did not have anyone participate in the drop-in sessions and received five submissions through Shape Nelson. This reflects the community familiarity with the strategy to date.

5.       Themes of the feedback

5.1      The feedback contained a variety of commentary, suggestions, ideas for new actions and interest to engage with the Steering Group. The Strategy has been updated to respond to feedback (Attachment 2) and other ideas provided are being collated by staff to consider in the implementation phase.

5.2      Some of the main themes to emerge from feedback include:

5.2.1   Support of the Strategy in recognising Māori perspectives and enhancing the visibility of Māori narratives.

5.2.2   Support of a holistic framework within the Strategy that may contribute towards positive social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

5.2.3   Support for the protection and preservation of heritage sites, artefacts, and traditions.

5.2.4   Recognition that colonial stories have overshadowed other stories of significance and the opportunity to be more inclusive and celebrate Nelson’s cultural diversity.

5.2.5   Support for emphasising the statement in Haere Whakamua, Activating the Strategy - “we are in the midst of perhaps the most significant shift in the way we create, curate and share stories in human history”.

5.2.6   Importance of celebrating heritage, rather than just preserving and protecting heritage.

5.2.7   Importance of access to resources to do things well rather than doing more with the same or less resources.

5.2.8   The importance of an Action Plan that ensures consistency of approach over a long period of time “Sustainability for future generations should be an integral part of the workplan design for all initiatives.”

6.       Responding to the feedback

6.1      Outlined below are the main changes to the draft Strategy in response to feedback.

6.1.1   Hei Tirohanga, Vision - include reference to ‘celebrate’ taonga tuku iho.

6.1.2   The development of the Action Plan should allocate resources to do projects well, rather than more with fewer resources.

6.1.3   Emphasis is placed on the opportunity for stakeholder participation in the implementation of the Strategy through the Steering Group and ongoing Action Planning process.

7.       Other improvements to the Strategy

7.1      Outlined below are other changes to the draft Strategy to improve readability.

7.1.1   Photographers listed on page two rather than throughout the document on images.

7.1.2   Enlarge font on pages 12 and 15.

7.1.3   Update images on pages 20 and 21 to a recent image.

7.1.4   Publish an additional, accessible version of the Strategy with minimal graphics and large font to make it more readable.

8.       Strategy Implementation

8.1      A Steering Group will be established to oversee the implementation of the strategy. The Group will be made up of key community stakeholders including iwi representatives. A key function of the new Steering Group will be to deliver and update the Taonga Tuku Iho Action Plan as a living document.

8.2      The current working group will be requested to develop the structure, membership and terms of reference for the new Steering Group. It is important that this is led by the community, as this is their strategy where there are responsibilities and accountabilities across the community. If Council were to set the structure for the new steering group there is a risk that the community will view the outcomes of the Action Plan as solely Council’s responsibility.

8.3      Budget was allocated for the implementation of Taonga Tuku Iho in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031. $60,000 has been approved for Taonga Tuku Iho Strategy Partnerships Projects and $35,000 for Taonga Tuku Iho Strategy Implementation.

9.       Options

9.1      Officers recommend Option 1.

 

Option 1: Approve Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023, for adoption (recommended option)

Advantages

·   The final Strategy will reflect public feedback and generate a greater sense of ownership by the wider community.

·   Whakatū Nelson will have a clear framework for working together collectively to protect and maintain taonga tuku iho.

·   Implementation of the Strategy can begin immediately.

·   Community will continue to have input into the shared action plan.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Feedback period was impacted by the weather event and groups may not feel they had enough time to provide considered feedback.  However, key stakeholders reviewed the document prior to the feedback period and it should be noted that this is the start of the journey together and not the end as implementation of the strategy evolves in consultation with the community.

 

Option 2: Do not approve Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023, for adoption

Advantages

·    Nonobvious

Risks and Disadvantages

·    There would be a considerable delay in approving the Strategy which may mean that some elements need to be reconsidered.

·    Lost opportunity to set a framework for the community to work together to protect and maintain taonga tuku iho.

·    Resource and funding invested in the development of the Strategy would be lost.

·    Not reflecting the public feedback process, in which the majority expressed support for the direction of the Strategy.

 

Option 3: Delay approval Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023, for adoption to allow for further feedback

Advantages

·    Groups have more time to provide feedback

Risks and Disadvantages

·    There would be a delay in approving the Strategy which may mean that some elements need to be reconsidered.

·    Frustration from the key stakeholders who provided feedback prior to the public feedback period that approval of the Strategy has been delayed.

 

10.     Conclusion

10.1    Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy has been developed in partnership with the community over a two-year engagement period.  The draft Strategy has support from the eight iwi of Te Tauihu as well as other key partners from the heritage sector.  Whilst limited feedback was received during the feedback period strong support for the Strategy has been shown and officers would recommend that the Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2023 for adoption.

11.     Next Steps

11.1    If Council approves the final Strategy for adoption, the next steps would be to finalise the design version of the Strategy for public release and respond to all of those who provided feedback during the public feedback process. Much of the implementation actions lead by Council will come within the remit of the Community and Recreation Committee and there will be opportunities to integrate this with other workstreams already underway.

 

 

Author:          Pania Lee, Kaihautu

Attachments

Attachment 1:   1351923920-1042 Taonga Tuku Iho Strategy

Attachment 2:   839498445-9696 - Taonga Tuku Iho Redacted Submissions - Sep2022  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Adopting Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy for Whakatū Nelson fits with the purpose of Local Government as it will deliver outcomes to the local area and contribute to the social and cultural wellbeing of the community.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report aligns with the Arts Heritage & Events Activity Management Plan 2021-31.  It supports the Council Community Outcomes:

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

·    Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

·    Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

     Risk

 There is a risk that some in the community will object to the effort and resources proposed to be invested in the heritage sector. This can be mitigated by pointing to the intensive engagement and strong community support for the Strategy.

     Financial impact

No additional funding is sought in this report. The new Strategy would guide Council funding decisions.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance to iwi and the heritage community in Nelson and of low to medium significance for the wider the community. Engagement included extensive pre-engagement and a three week period for the public to provide feedback on the draft Strategy.

     Climate Impact

The decisions in this report will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have been involved throughout the development of the draft Strategy and have contributed to and endorse the draft document being considered with this report.

     Delegations

Council holds the delegation to approve final versions of strategies, policies and plans.

      

 

 


Item 16: Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 16: Adoption of Taonga Tuku Iho, Heritage Strategy 2022-2032: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 17: Civic House Refurbishment Project

1351923920-1042

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27053

Civic House Refurbishment Project

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To revisit the decisions related to the Civic House and Post Office Savings Building refurbishment project.

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Civic House Refurbishment Project (R27053); and

2.    Revokes Council Resolution CL/2021/049 of the 11 May 2021:

(2)   Approves, subject to final confirmation of         funding through the Long Term Plan 2021-    2031,         option 1: staged refurbishment of Civic House         contained within the Civic House     Refurbishment         Business Case (A2618201), noting that the scope         includes:

        -      Progressively refurbishing each floor of Civic           House over an eight year period;

        -      Moving the Chamber to the ground floor;

        -      Providing a Councillor lounge adjacent to the         Chamber;

-      Providing a consistent, modern staff working         environment on each floor with a range of         work areas;

-      Raising the ground floor of Civic House to         mitigate flooding based on a 1% AEP river         flood event in 2080;

-      Implementing measures to reduce electricity         use by 20% and eliminate diesel use by 2030

-      incorporating design principles which deliver to Council’s climate change objectives

-      providing for accessible and inclusive design

-      recognising iwi partnership; and

        (3)   Notes that the following renewals will be        prioritised ahead of the overall refurbishment        due to asset end of life or safety concerns:

       -      tower block roof;

       -      ventilation, heating and boiler systems;                and

(4)  Requests the Chief Executive to provide a        further report to Council in relation to project        management (budget, quality and time) and scope        prior to the project commencing; and

(5)  Requests the Chief Executive to provide a        further report with regards to appropriate      levels        of earthquake strengthening.

3.    Approves the development of a new business case        (in line with Better Business Case methodology)       to take into consideration the impact of changes        since the previous business case was approved, to        include (but not be limited to) the following:

-     Seismic resilience issues

-     Workplace Strategy – working from home and hybrid future

-     Three waters reforms

-     Resource Management Act reforms

-     Review into the Future for Local Government

-     COVID-19 impacts

-     Coastal inundation impacts and sea level rise.

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      A Business Case was presented to Council on 11 May 2021 requesting decisions on the refurbishment of Civic House Project.  The recommendations as presented were approved with additional items being added.

CL/2021/049

(2)   Approves, subject to final confirmation of funding through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031, option 1: staged refurbishment of Civic House contained within the Civic House Refurbishment Business Case (A2618201), noting that the scope includes:

-      Progressively refurbishing each floor of Civic House over an   eight-year period;

-      Moving the Chamber to the ground floor;

-      Providing a Councillor lounge adjacent to the Chamber;

-      Providing a consistent, modern staff working environment     on each floor with a range of work areas;

-      Raising the ground floor of Civic House to mitigate flooding based on a 1% AEP river flood event in 2080;

-      Implementing measures to reduce electricity use by 20% and eliminate diesel use by 2030

-      incorporating design principles which deliver to Council’s climate change objectives

-      providing for accessible and inclusive design

-      recognising iwi partnership; and

(3)   Notes that the following renewals will be prioritised ahead of the overall refurbishment due to asset end of life / safety concerns:

       -      tower block roof;

       -      ventilation, heating and boiler systems; and

(4)   Requests the Chief Executive to provide a further report to Council in relation to project management (budget, quality and time) and scope prior to the project commencing; and

(5)   Requests the Chief Executive to provide a further report with regards to appropriate levels of earthquake strengthening.

3.2      Following approval of the recommendations, a project team was established to undertake investigation of the buildings to understand the level of work required to be undertaken.

3.3      The investigation work provided feedback that there were additional constraints to the building that were not understood when the business case was developed.

3.4      Additionally, impacts of COVID-19 have resulted in work being undertaken on hybrid work practices and a potential change in office space requirements for the organisation.

3.5      A briefing was given to Council on 12 May 2022 that outlined the changes that have occurred since the business case was presented in 2021, confirming that the business case was no longer valid and further work was required to understand the future needs of the organisation, and the constraints of the building.

3.6      The earlier decision to refurbish Civic House was based on estimated costs from 2020, however this cost is now expected to be significantly higher (the figures below were presented at the 12 May 2022 workshop).

Chart

Description automatically generated with low confidence

3.7      Therefore the capital budget that has been approved by Council will be insufficient to enable the refurbishment of Civic House to progress as planned.

4.       Discussion

4.1      To allow the project to move forward, it is recommended that the resolutions of May 2021 be revoked, and a new business case is developed which takes into account the recent impacts of COVID-19 on work locations and organisational requirements, along with the outcomes of the investigation work. The reviewed business case would then be brought back to Council for consideration.

4.2      In accordance with LGA s80 it is noted that the recommendations in this report are inconsistent with the prior decisions made in 11 May 2021 which are being requested to be revoked.

4.3      At the briefing to Councillors in May 2022, officers presented a number of items that had changed since the original business case developed was presented. These changes are significant enough that the business case requires review:

4.3.1   The roof structure has been identified as an earthquake seismic resilience issue

4.3.2   Workplace Strategy – working from home and hybrid future, and whether this will have an impact on the staff accommodation required long term

4.3.3   Three waters reforms

4.3.4   Resource Management Act reforms

4.3.5   Review into the future for Local Government

4.3.6   COVID-19 impacts affecting supply chain and contractor availability

4.3.7   Coastal inundation impacts and sea level rise

4.4      The other key issues requiring increased budget considerations as follows:

4.4.1   Seismic strengthening of the Bank Building

4.4.2   Earthquake prone building elements

4.4.3   Requirement to vacate the floors above and below the works

4.4.4   Rehousing staff during the construction period

4.4.5   To keep the building occupied would require more budget than to complete the work in a shorter period with the building unoccupied, cost benefit calculation on whether to do the work while staff continue to occupy the building

4.4.6   Additional budget required to deal to earthquake prone elements (roof)

4.4.7   Risk that as more investigation is undertaken the true nature of the physical condition of the building becomes better understood.

4.5      None of these considerations were taken into account in the Business Case and resolutions of 11 May 2021.

4.6      There are also other strategic considerations such as; city centre economic viability, and impacts of the Civic House refurbishment on other major facility projects, and co-location with other similar organisations, as part of a new business case.

4.7      It is therefore prudent to re-look at a way forward and produce a new business case that takes into account the many changes that have occurred since the original business case was presented.

5.       Options

5.1      The following two options have been identified:

 

Option 1: Revoke Resolutions (recommended option)

Advantages

·   Council can take into consideration the impacts of COVID 19, Hybrid Working, Council requirements for future accommodation

·   An opportunity to rethink building options

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Further time is required to investigate and complete a business case for consideration

·   Funding will need to be requested and confirmed for the outcome of the business case

Option 2: Retain Resolutions

Advantages

·    Nil

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Timeline for resolution is extended

·    Additional budget may be required

 

6.       Conclusion

6.1      Officers recommend that the resolutions of the 11 May 2021 regarding the Civic House refurbishment project are revoked and a new Business Case is undertaken.

7.       Next Steps

7.1      Prepare proposal for the new Council and Chief Executive to discuss

-   Project scope and considerations

-   Benchmarking other Council projects

-   Assess local land development options

-   Assess delivery options

-   Set up governance structure for the project including project parameters

From early 2023 onwards:

-   Document and approve project mandate

-   Document and approve high level business case

Document and approve initial stakeholder analysis

 

 

Author:          Rebecca Van Orden, Manager Property Services

Attachments

Nil

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Appropriate accommodation for staff helps Council’s ability to achieve outcomes, sustain staffing and provides a productive work environment, all of which contributes to the overall wellbeing of the Nelson community.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation to revoke the original resolutions and undertake a new business case fit with community outcomes:

·   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 region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

     Risk

Council risks increased difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in the future if a reasonable standard of accommodation cannot be provided.  As a building project there are many risks – the investigation activities, and COVID-19 impacts have identified the original recommendations are now not sustainable and need to re-addressed for the future Council requirements.

 

     Financial impact

A new business case will identify whether the existing budget is appropriate, and the estimated budgets for a number of options – this funding will need to be re-requested through the Long Term Plan process.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance as is to be managed within current budgets, with consultation through the Long Term Plan process for refurbishment budgets.

     Climate Impact

Potential options in the business case will consider climate impacts and climate resilience features.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

Council has retained all responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters for Civic House.

 

 


 

Item 18: Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27094

Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      The Nelson Tasman Housing Trust has asked Nelson City Council to consider discharging an encumbrance in favour of Council that is registered against the title of the Trust’s property at 285 Brook Street, Nelson (Lot 1 DP 443557).

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust (R27094) and its attachments (821857120-10, 821857120-11 and 821857120-12); and

2.    Approves the discharge of encumbrance instrument 8804711.5 from the title of 285 Brook Street, Nelson.

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      In November 2011, Council transferred ownership of 285 Brook Street, Nelson (the property) to the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust (NTHT) for the purpose of providing affordable housing. NTHT and Council entered into a deed, dated 8 November 2011, containing promises that are summarised as follows:

(a)       NTHT will notify Council if it intends to sell the property to a                 third party for providing affordable housing, in order to give                     Council the opportunity to acquire the property or approve the            sale to the third party; and

(b)       The property will be transferred to Council if at any point in the            future it ceases to be used for providing affordable housing.

3.2      The deed required NTHT to register an encumbrance on the title to the property to secure compliance with these promises. The encumbrance was subsequently registered against the record of title 554769 as encumbrance instrument 8804711.5.

3.3      The encumbrance restricts the ease with which the property can be on-sold to a third party for a period of 100 years (from the date of the instrument, being 8 November 2011) with Council having first right of refusal. The obligation requires the Encumbrancer (NTHT) of Lot 1 DP 443557 to give notice to the Encumbrancee (Council), of their intention to on-sell the property. The Encumbrancee has 20 working days to advise the Encumbrancer whether they wish to acquire the land themselves or whether they agree with the third party buying the property, and continuing to use of the land for the provision of affordable housing.

3.4      The encumbrance also states that if the land is no longer to be used for the provision of affordable housing, then the land will be transferred back to Council (as Encumbrancee) or entity nominated by Council.

4.       Discussion

4.1      NTHT has a mission to build and manage affordable rental homes for people on low incomes. NTHT currently has 50 homes and has a strategic plan to grow to 100 homes by 2026. Six homes were built in 2021, and another five homes are under construction in 2022, with two other sites lined up to deliver 18 more homes in Nelson in 2023-24. NTHT is actively working to acquire further brownfield sites to develop.  Its purpose is consistent with Council’s strategic focus on housing affordability and intensification.

4.2      NTHT is in the process of updating their loans and security arrangements with their bank, who are very supportive of the Trust’s plans to grow their community housing portfolio. The encumbrance limits how much the bank can lend to NTHT against the market value of the property, reducing NTHT’s total current borrowing capacity by $1 million.

4.3      NTHT understands that at the time, Council wanted a way to ensure protection of the site for ongoing use as affordable housing and believes that it has demonstrated longevity, strong management and governance, and reliability as a responsible housing partner. As a registered Charitable Trust, NTHT has a mechanism in the form of its Trust Deed which protects the continued use of the housing assets for affordable housing (see attachment 1 for Trust Deed).

4.4      As a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP), NTHT must meet rigorous performance standards set by the Government’s Community Housing Regulatory Authority (CHRA) and is monitored by CHRA every year. Based on their status with CHRA, NTHT currently has two 25-year central government contracts to provide public housing, and the number of such contracts will increase as NTHT builds more public housing.

4.5      This status, and its trust deed, ensures that if NTHT was to wind up, all housing assets would have to be transferred to a similar organisation with similar objectives to continue operating affordable housing.  Council has accepted these assurances as part of its agreement with NTHT to provide a Phase One Housing Reserve grant of $850,000 towards construction of five affordable homes at 99 Muritai St, Nelson.

4.6      Council’s interests are therefore protected by NTHT’s trust deed and its status as a registered Community Housing Provider and the encumbrance could be removed.

4.7      The Land Transfer Act 2017 now allows the registration of positive covenants in gross. These are covenants that require the covenantor to do something in relation to their land, that benefits another person. NTHT’s covenants fall within this definition.

4.8      It is an option for Council and NTHT to agree to discharge the encumbrance and register a covenant in gross against the title to the property. The registered covenants would be the same as the obligations set out in clauses 6 (a) and (b) of the encumbrance (i.e. the obligation to give notice prior to sale, and the obligation to transfer the land to the Council if it ceases to be used for affordable housing). However, the difference is that the registered instrument would not be a mortgage.

4.9      The benefit of this option for the Council is that it retains its ability to have notice of the covenants on the title to the Trust’s property and the covenants are binding on future owners of the property. The Council would lose that benefit if it just agreed to discharge the encumbrance.

4.10    The response from NTBT’s bank was that the effect of either an encumbrance on the mortgage or a covenant against the title is the same, in that it severely limits the security the bank is able to take on that property.

5.       Options

5.1      The following options have been identified, with option one being the recommended option.

 

 

Option 1: Discharge the encumbrance (recommended)

Advantages

·    NTHT as a housing partner can effectively secure funding to progress the objects of the Trust.

·    Enables progress in Council’s focus areas of affordable housing and intensification

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Loss of protection that the encumbrance provides, however this is mitigated by NTHT’s trust deed and requirements as a CHP.

Option 2: Discharge the encumbrance and register a covenant in gross

Advantages

·   Provides the same obligations

·   Binding on future owners of the property

·   Not considered a mortgage on the property

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Limits the ability of NTHT to secure more funding

·   Does not enable progress in Council’s focus areas of affordable housing and intensification

Option 3: Do not discharge the encumbrance

Advantages

·    Retains protections in original agreement.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Limits the ability of NTHT to secure more funding

·    Does not enable progress in Council’s focus areas of affordable housing and intensification

·    Limits the Trust’s ability to secure more funding

 

6.       Next Steps

6.1      If Council agrees to discharge the encumbrance, Council’s solicitor will be instructed to facilitate the discharge.

 

Author:          Rebecca Van Orden, Manager Property Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:   821857120-10 NTHT Trust deed 2004

Attachment 2:   821857120-11 NTHT Trust Rule Change 2015

Attachment 3:   821857120-12 NTHT Trust Rule Change April 2014  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

      

This decision aligns with the purpose of Local Government as it enables democratic decision making and action by and on behalf of the communities, to promote the social and economic well-being of the communities in the present and for the future (Local Government Act 2002, section 10 (1)).

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Supports the following Community Outcomes

·    Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

Supports the following Council priorities

·    Housing affordability and intensification

     Risk

There is a risk that discharging the encumbrance will enable NTHT to sell the property in the future. This risk consideration should be balanced with the benefits achieved by enabling NTHT to more quickly progress affordable housing projects.

     Financial impact

There is no financial impact for Council, the costs to discharge the encumbrance will be borne by NTHT.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance, therefore no engagement will be required to update the public and stakeholders of the progress of this project.  No engagement has been undertaken with the public on this matter.

     Climate Impact

        There is no direct climate impact from the matters in this report.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

The Council has the delegation to consider this issue.

 

 


Item 18: Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 18: Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 18: Discharge of Encumbrance - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 19: Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27180

Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To agree the August 2022 rainfall event qualifies as a natural calamity event for the purposes of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity, and to confirm the criteria for assessing rates remissions for affected land and properties.

2.       Summary

2.1      A severe rainfall event hit Nelson in August 2022, which brought widespread flooding and slips to the region. Staff recommend the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity be applied in response to the event.

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event  (R27180) and its attachment (839498445-7760); and

2.    Agrees that the August 2022 rainfall event qualifies as a natural calamity event for the purpose of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity; and

3.    Approves the criteria and level of remission rates for the August 2022 rainfall event, as set out in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.11 of this report; and

4.    Delegates the Group Manager Corporate Services and the Group Manager Environmental Management to determine applications for rates remission.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      As a result of Nelson’s severe rainfall event in December 2011, Council adopted a Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity in April 2012. The most recent update to the Policy was made through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 process. The current policy is attached (Attachment 1).

4.2      The general provisions for the remission of rates are:

4.2.1   the Policy applies to such rate payers and organisations as approved by Council by meeting the relevant criteria.

4.2.2   Council may delegate the power to approve rates remission to officers under section 132 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

4.2.3   Any ratepayer granted rates remission is required to meet all remaining and applicable rates in full that are owed in addition to the amount eligible for the rates remission.

5.       Discussion

5.1      With the severity of damage caused by the August 2022 rainfall event, urgent consideration needs to be given to how Council can aid Nelson citizens who are most impacted. The Policy provides a mechanism for Council to consider, on a case-by-case basis, providing rates relief to ratepayers unable to inhabit their homes or buildings.

Determining if the August 2022 rainfall event qualifies

5.2      To determine whether an event qualifies as a natural calamity event, the Policy states that “Council may remit wholly, or in part, any rate or charge made and levied in respect of the land, if: that land has been detrimentally affected by natural calamity, such as erosion, subsidence, submersion or earthquake, and:

5.2.1   as a result dwellings or buildings previously habitable were made uninhabitable; or

5.2.2   the activity for which the land and/or buildings were used prior to the calamity is unable to be undertaken or continued.

5.3      For the purposes of this Policy ‘uninhabitable’ shall mean a building cannot be used for the purpose it was intended due to Section 133 or Section 124 notice conditions being issued under the Building Act 2004.

5.4      The August 2022 rainfall event resulted in a significant civil defence response and recovery effort, with approximately 600 properties directly affected. For this reason, it is recommended that the August 2022 rainfall event does qualify as a natural calamity event for the purposes of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity.

Criteria and level of rates remission for the August 2022 rainfall event

5.5      The following criteria would be applied to determine qualifying properties for the August 2022 rainfall event:

5.5.1   The property was issued red or yellow sticker (under Section 133 of the Building Act) or a Section 124 notice, and the property was uninhabitable for 30 days or more from the issue of that sticker or notice, or

5.5.2   An Earthquake Commission assessment of the property has been carried out which indicates that the conditions and criteria in the Rates Remission Policy have been met, or

5.5.3   A certificate under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 is placed on the title of the property, or

5.5.4   A property has been removed due the natural calamity event, which has resulted in the Section 133 or Section 124 notice being lifted.

5.6      The timeframe for remission would typically commence from the date Council determines that the dwelling, buildings or land were made uninhabitable or unable to be used for the activity which they were used prior to the calamity. The remission would either end on the date five years after the commencement date, or the date that the land or buildings were deemed by Council to be able to become inhabitable or available for use.

5.7      Following the precedent from other weather events when Council have used the Rates remission policy, rates would be remitted on a pro rata basis for the following charges:

5.7.1   Water

5.7.2   Wastewater

5.7.3   Stormwater and flood protection

5.8      These rates would be remitted as they relate to the services that cannot be used when a property is unable to be occupied as a result of the event.

5.9      The annual per property charges including GST for these services for 2022/23 are:

5.9.1   Wastewater: $564.72

5.9.2   Stormwater and flood protection: $454.43

5.9.3   Water annual charge: $220.69

5.10    Using red or yellow stickered properties as at 5 September 2022 (of 175), the conservative maximum rates remission unbudgeted for 2022/23 would be $167,000 (at $1,078 per household excluding GST).

5.11    There would be no remission on the General Rate or Uniform Annual General Charge (being part of the General Rate) as these charges fund services that are not property specific, such as roads, libraries, parks and community facilities.

5.12    Typically insurance will up to $20,000 (but policy terms vary) of accommodation costs. Where ratepayers are struggling to pay the remaining rates on the property (general rate and UAGC) they will be directed to the Mayoral Relief Fund which is available to support the impacted ratepayers and residents.

5.13    Quotable Valuation (QV) will undertake a review of the impacted properties to understand if there is an adjustment required to the land and/or improvements value.  Any adjustment to the valuations will take effect from 1 July 2023 for rating purposes. 

          Financial considerations

5.14    The Policy allows Council to provide rates relief during the rating year. As the rates remission would not have been budgeted for, it would have an impact on the current year financial position as it would not have formed part of the rates collected in that year ie 2022/23.

5.15    If the period of time that the dwelling, buildings or land were uninhabitable goes into the new rating year, the rates remission would be budgeted for and all other ratepayers would bear a share of the cost for providing this rates relief.

5.16    The level of remission provided by Council is dependent on the severity of the event but would also need to consider the impact on both the financial position of Council and the impact of the rates remission on other ratepayers.

Circumstances that do not qualify for rates remissions

5.17    It is recommended that the following circumstances do not qualify for rates remission:

5.17.1 Where a red or yellow or Section 124 notice has been issued but has been lifted within 29 days and the dwelling or building can be reoccupied. The Policy is aimed at those who cannot return their property for one month or more.

5.17.2 Where a dwelling or building can be occupied and the occupier is still able to use the greater part of their land and/or the activity for which the land is used can be recommenced within 30 days.

5.17.3 Where a red or yellow sticker or Section 124 notice has been lifted but the occupier does not feel safe returning to the property. Other ratepayers should not be required to cover rates when a property has been deemed safe to occupy.

5.17.4 Where the ratepayer requests a remission as the cost of the event to them has been significant. The Policy does not cover rates remission for people experiencing financial hardship.

5.17.5 Where any losses arising to the property including for loss of use of, or income from the use of, the property are covered by insurance.

5.17.6 Where it is clear from the Earthquake Commission report that the criteria in the Rates Remission Policy have not been met.

Application of the Policy and delegations for determining the extent of remission

5.18    A ratepayer must provide a written application to Council within six months of the event, or within such further time as Council may allow, for a rates remission to be considered. All property owners who will be eligible will be notified of the process, and those who meet the criteria will be provided with an application form.

5.19    The Policy states that Council will consider rates remission on a case-by-case basis. The extent of any remission shall be determined by Council or its delegated officer(s). The delegated officers, as stated in the Nelson City Council Delegations Register – Officer Delegations Manual, are the Group Manager Corporate Services and Group Manager Environmental Management.

6.       Options

6.1      Staff recommend Option 1. 

Option 1: Council approves the use of the Rates Remission Policy in response to the August 2022 rainfall event (recommended)

Advantages

·   Council will have a mechanism to provide ratepayers most affected by the August rainfall event with rates relief.

·   Council will be taking action to support Nelson citizens most adversely affected by the rainfall event.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Unplanned expenditure in the current financial year.

Option 2: Council does not approve the use of the Rates Remission Policy in response to the August 2022 rainfall event

Advantages

·    No impact on the current year financial position.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Nelson ratepayers most adversely affected by the rainfall event will not be provided with any rates relief.

·    Council not seen to be supporting Nelson citizens most impacted by the rainfall event. 

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1      Following the August 2022 rainfall event, which significantly impacted many ratepayers in Nelson, staff recommend Council agrees that the event qualifies as a natural calamity event for the purposes of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity. 

7.2      The proposed process for providing rates remission for ratepayers affected by the August 2022 rainfall event strikes a balance between providing relief to affected property owners and ensuring that the increased rates burden that will subsequently fall on all ratepayers is reasonable and fair.

8.       Next Steps

8.1      If Council approves the recommendations in this report, staff will prepare communications to the public on how ratepayers can apply for rates remission.

 

Author:          Nikki Harrison, Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:   839498445-7760 - Rates Remission Policy  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Enabling ratepayers to apply for rates remission following the severe rainfall event in Nelson will contribute to social and economic wellbeing. It provides a mechanism to support those most adversely affected by providing rates relief while they recover from the event. 

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation supports the following Community Outcome “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”.

     Risk

There is a risk if the recommendation is not passed that Council is seen as not being concerned at the impact of the event on ratepayers.

There is a risk that some affected ratepayers will feel the criteria for assistance should be broader. Messaging about the balance to be achieved between assisting those affected and ensuring fairness to all ratepayers can mitigate this risk.

     Financial impact

Rates remission would have an impact on the current year financial position as it did not form part of the rates collected in the year.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance to those most adversely affected by the August 2022 rainfall event but of low significance to the wider community. For this reason, no engagement has been undertaken and the need to act with urgency also supports this.

     Climate Impact

The recommendations in this report support the ability of ratepayers to recover from a severe weather event, which can be expected to occur more frequently due to climate change.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

The Council has the following delegations to consider rates remission.

Areas of Responsibility:

·    The power to make a rate

·    To delegate decisions to determine the extent of rates remission to the Group Manager Corporate Services and Group Manager Environmental Management.

 

 


Item 19: Rates remission for landowners affected by the August 2022 rainfall event: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 20: Infrastructure Holdings Limited

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27257

Infrastructure Holdings Limited

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To reconsider recommendations from the 7 June 2022 Joint Shareholders Committee.

1.2      To add to the information provided in the Council report on 12 July 2022, to assist with decision making.

2.       Summary

2.1      As part of their Long Term Plans (LTPs) both Tasman District and Nelson City Councils consulted on a proposal to form a Holding Company to hold their respective investments in Nelson Airport Ltd and Port Nelson Ltd. In adopting their respective LTPs 2021-2031 the councils included the setting up and funding of the proposed holding company (Infrastructure Holdings Ltd).

2.2      The Joint Shareholders Committee (JSC) has oversight of the jointly owned Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). A staff, and an external advisor working group was formed to give effect to the LTP decisions. This group provided progress reports, documents, and advice to the JSC which in turn made recommendations to the two councils.

2.3      The JSC resolved to recommend to both councils the establishment of the holding company (Infrastructure Holdings Ltd). That recommendation included the key company formation documents and the shareholders agreement, regulating the relationship between the two council shareholders. Proceeding with the proposal would have required the agreement of both shareholding councils.

2.4      The recommendation from the JSC was referred to the two councils and comprised the Holding Company Report and attachments (including 7 June JSC changes to Constitution and Shareholder Agreement, and the Summary of Constitution and changes, including 7 June JSC Report).

2.5      The Tasman District Council, at the Full Council meeting on 30 June 2022 considered the recommendations from the JSC. The resolution in support of the proposal was put to this Council which voted on the motion by division, carrying it 8 - 4. The same recommendations were considered by the Nelson City Council at its full Council Meeting on 12 July 2022. The resolution was put to the Nelson City Council which voted on the motion by division It was lost 5 - 7.

2.6      As a result of the Nelson City Council’s decision, the holding company proposal cannot proceed. Significant costs and staff time were incurred in developing the detailed proposal and foundation documents for the holding company. This Council’s share of the joint cost is circa $209,000 (+GST) along with its own external legal costs $22,000. Resulting in total costs of $231,000.  If a decision is made not to proceed with the Infrastructure Holdings Limited formation, then decisions are required to closeout the project and account for unbudgeted project operating expenditure of this $231,000.

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Infrastructure Holdings Limited (R27257) and its attachments (1511110536-309 and 1511110536-310).

Recommendation from the Joint Shareholders Committee 7 June 2022

The Council notes that:

Purpose

A.    The purpose of these resolutions is to seek the Council’s approval of the documents and transactions necessary to approve the:

a)    Restructuring Proposals (including the Initial Share Issue); and

b)    Financing Proposals (including the New Share Issue). 

B.    The Restructuring Proposals, Initial Share Issue, Financing Proposals and New Share Issue are explained below.

A new holding company for Port Nelson Limited and Nelson Airport Limited

C.    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (together, the Shareholders) have together been investigating the incorporation of a holding company which they will own in equal shares. The holding company will hold and administer investments in entities in which the Shareholders have a substantial interest for the benefit of the Nelson and Tasman regions, being Port Nelson Limited (PNL) and Nelson Airport Limited (NAL). 

D.    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council through their Long Term Plan process and Joint Shareholders Committee (JSC), have each received and reviewed advice from Deloitte about operational synergies of holding investments, being PNL and NAL, in a holding company, and tax structure options.

E.    The name agreed for the holding company is Infrastructure Holdings Limited (IHL).

F.    The initial directors approved for IHL are Catherine Taylor, Paul Steere, Gerrard Wilson and Paul Zealand and an independent chairperson is being recruited.

Restructuring Proposals

G.    As part of the proposal to incorporate IHL, it is proposed that each of the Shareholders transfer all their shares in PNL and NAL to IHL (Share Sale) for $8,446,000 in total (Purchase Price). The Purchase Price will be owed to the Shareholders in equal portions (being $4,223,000 each). The Crown holds, and will continue to hold, one special “Kiwi Share” in NAL.

H.    The Purchase Price allocation is:

a)    $2,400,000 for the shares in NAL; and

b)    $6,046,000 for the shares in PNL.

I.     Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council will each subscribe for 42,230 ordinary shares in IHL (being 84,460 ordinary shares in total) (Initial Shares), at an issue price of $100.00 per share (Initial Share Issue). The total subscription amount for the Initial Shares is therefore $8,446,000 (Initial Subscription Amount), which is equal to the Purchase Price. 

J.     Accordingly, the Purchase Price will be satisfied on a cashless basis by set-off against the Initial Subscription Amount.

K.    The sale of shares in PNL and NAL and the subscription for the Initial Shares will be referred to in these resolutions as the “Restructuring Proposals”.

Financing Proposals

L.    The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA) is a limited liability company owned by central government and local authorities. It was established to borrow funds and then on-lend those funds to local authorities and (now) council-controlled trading organisations (CCTOs) at lower margins than those local authorities and council-controlled organisations would otherwise pay. 

M.    Currently, PNL and NAL service their debt requirements through ordinary bank borrowing from Westpac New Zealand Limited (Westpac). However, it is projected that PNL’s and NAL’s debt requirements and financing costs may increase over the next 10+ years to meet infrastructure-upgrade demands.

N.    Given the projected increase in PNL’s and NAL’s debt requirements and financing costs, IHL’s primary purpose is to operate as a treasury vehicle for PNL and NAL. To achieve this purpose, it is further proposed that (Financing Proposals) IHL will:

a)    join the LGFA borrowing programme (LGFA Accession) as a CCTO, following which, IHL will be able to borrow funds directly from LGFA by issuing securities to LGFA;

b)    enter into borrowing and risk hedging facilities with Westpac, which is PNL’s and NAL’s current bank; and

c)    on-lend amounts borrowed from the LGFA borrowing programme and Westpac to PNL and NAL under intra-group funding arrangements.

O.    Joining the LGFA borrowing programme will enable IHL to access cheaper core debt on behalf of PNL and NAL. As a “port company” under the Port Companies Act 1988, PNL is not permitted to join LGFA and NAL does not have the scale to make joining LGFA economical.  It is considered that, once implemented, the Financing Proposals will deliver considerable financial benefits, including savings in financing costs for PNL and NAL and, consequently, increased dividend return to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (as the ultimate owners of PNL and NAL). Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council through their Long Term Plan process and the JSC have each received and reviewed advice from Deloitte about LGFA funding benefits.

P.    PNL and NAL will continue to require the flexibility offered by Westpac’s transactional banking products. IHL will also enter into borrowing and risk hedging facilities with Westpac for working capital requirements and risk-management (such as interest-rate hedging).

The LGFA Accession and Westpac facilities

Q.    LGFA and Westpac will require certain credit support as conditions to the LGFA Accession and the availability of the Westpac facilities. Such credit support will include:

a)    a subscription from the Shareholders for an agreed amount of uncalled and unpaid equity capital in IHL (further details are described below);

b)    IHL, PNL and NAL will each cross-guarantee each other’s obligations to LGFA, Westpac as lender under borrowing facilities and Westpac as counter-party to risk-management facilities (together, the Finance Parties); and

c)    IHL, PNL and NAL will each grant general security over all of their personal property in favour of the Finance Parties.  In the case of IHL, this will include security over its right to call for uncalled and unpaid equity capital.

R.    As mentioned above, it will be a condition to the LGFA Accession and the availability of the Westpac facilities that the Shareholders subscribe for, and IHL issues to the Shareholders (New Share Issue), a further 1,165,000 ordinary shares each (totalling 2,330,000 ordinary shares) in IHL (New Shares) for an issue price of $100.00 per share. The total amount payable for the New Shares will therefore be $233,000,000 (Issue Amount). The Issue Amount will remain uncalled and unpaid until such time as the directors of IHL make a call on the New Shares for the Issue Amount. 

Shareholder approvals

S.    The Restructuring Proposals and the Financing Proposals will require the approval of the Shareholders as:

a)    the proposals are, or may be, “major transactions” (as defined in section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act));

b)    the Initial Share Issue and the New Share Issue require the agreement of IHL’s entitled persons (as that term is defined in the Act) for the purposes of section 107(2) of the Act. The only entitled persons of IHL will be the Shareholders; and

c)    Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (as the shareholders of IHL) must consent, for the purposes of section 50 of the Act and for all other purposes, to becoming the holder of the Initial Shares and the New Shares.

T.    Accordingly, IHL’s board of directors will, at the relevant times, separately request that Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council (as shareholders and entitled persons of IHL) confirm and approve IHL’s entry into, execution and performance, of the:

a)    Restructuring Proposals (including the Initial Share Issue); and

b)    Financing Proposals (including the New Share Issue),

by separate unanimous resolutions and entitled persons’ agreements.  The unanimous resolutions and entitled persons’ agreements for the Restructuring Proposals and the Financing Proposals are together referred to as the “Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements”.

Next steps

U.    In order to incorporate IHL and give effect to the Restructuring Proposals, the Shareholders will need to:

a)      register IHL as a limited liability company on the New Zealand Companies Office and each complete the Companies Office requirements in relation to the incorporation of IHL (such as shareholder consent forms) (Companies Office Forms);

b)      appoint directors to the board of IHL (including an independent chairperson);

c)      cause IHL to adopt the constitution in the form attached (the Constitution);

d)      enter into a shareholders’ agreement (which will include the subscription provisions for the Initial Shares) with IHL, in the form attached (the Shareholders’ Agreement);

e)      enter into a sale and purchase agreement with IHL relating to the transfer of shares in PNL and NAL in the form attached (the Sale and Purchase Agreement);

f)      execute and deliver the share transfer forms (in the form attached) in relation to the Sale and Purchase Agreement (the Share Transfer Forms); and

g)      any other documents necessary or desirable in connection with the Restructuring Proposals.

The Companies Office Forms, Shareholders’ Agreement, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Share Transfer Forms and any other documents captured by paragraph U.g) above, are together referred to as the “Restructuring Documents”, and the transactions contemplated by the Restructuring Documents are referred to as the “Restructuring Transactions”.

V.    In order to give effect to the Financing Proposals, each of the Shareholders will need to enter into:

a)      a subscription agreement (in the form attached) with IHL, under which the Shareholders will subscribe for the New Shares (Subscription Agreement);

b)      (as part of the LGFA Accession) accession deeds to the multi-issuer deed and notes subscription agreement (which Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council are each already a party to) (Accession Deeds); and

c)      any other documents necessary or desirable in connection with the Financing Proposals.

The Subscription Agreement, the Accession Deeds and any other documents captured by paragraph 0 are together referred to as the “Financing Documents” and the transactions contemplated by the Financing Documents are referred to as the “Financing Transactions”.

Documents

W.   The Council tables the most recent drafts of the Restructuring Documents, the Subscription Agreement and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements.

X.    The Council has not tabled copies of the Accession Deeds because they are not yet available for the Council to review and approve.  However, the Accession Deeds will be based on the standard form for accession deeds scheduled to the LGFA Multi-Issuer Deed and Notes Subscription Agreement respectively.

That the Council resolves:

1.    the Council consents, for the purposes of section 50 of the Act and for all other purposes, to being the joint owner in equal shares of the Initial Shares and the New Shares;

2.    the form of the Constitution be approved, and the Shareholders will cause IHL to adopt the Constitution;

3.    the Restructuring Documents and the Restructuring Transactions (including, specifically, the Initial Share Issue) are approved, and any pre-emptive rights available to the Shareholders in relation to the Share Sale are to be waived in the Sale and Purchase Agreement;

4.    the Financing Documents and the Financing Transactions (including, specifically, the New Share Issue) are approved;

5.    the forms of the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements are approved;

6.    the Council enters into and, following execution, delivers and performs its obligations under, each of the Restructuring Documents and the Financing Documents and that these documents may be executed by:

a)    (in the case of agreements) the Chief Executive; and

b)    (in the case of deeds) two elected members,

on behalf of the Council, subject to any minor amendments cleared by both Tasman District Council’s and Nelson City Council’s legal advisors;

7.    when requested to do so by the board of IHL, the Chief Executive is authorised to sign the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements on behalf of the Council, subject to any minor amendments cleared by both TDC’s and NCC’s legal advisors;

8.    the Chief Executive is authorised on behalf of the Council to, subject to clearance by both Tasman District Council’s and Nelson City Council’s legal advisors:

a)    approve any further minor amendments to the Restructuring Documents, the Financing Documents and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements prior to their execution; ands

b)    enter into, execute, and deliver such other agreements, instruments, notices, communications, and other documents; and

c)    do such other things, in connection with the Restructuring Documents and the Restructuring Transactions, the Financing Documents and the Financing Transactions, and the Unanimous Shareholder Resolutions and Entitled Persons’ Agreements, as the Chief Executive may consider necessary.

OR

2.    Approves unbudgeted operating expenditure of $231,000 in the 2022/23 financial year relating to Nelson City Council’s 50% share of the Infrastructure Holdings Limited project costs incurred by Port Nelson Limited and Councils legal costs.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      The Tasman District Council and the Nelson City Council resolved to form a holding company for their investment in Port Nelson Limited and Nelson Airport Limited.  This was consulted on and agreed as part of their respective 2021-2031 Long Term Plans.  The role of the holding company is primarily as a funding vehicle for the port and airport companies. The total uninflated savings (over and above any additional costs) that would be achieved range from $822,000 per annum in the first year through to just under $2 million per annum in 2032. These are considered substantial savings by the companies compared with other projects.

4.2      This matter has been considered at the Joint Shareholders Committee meetings on 15 February 2022 (Principles document), 5 April 2022 (Constitution and Shareholders Agreement) and 7 June 2022 (Constitution, Shareholders Agreement, restructuring and financing arrangements documentation).  It has also been considered at a Joint Confidential briefing on 2 May 2022 (restructuring and financing arrangements) and a NCC Confidential briefing on 12 May 2022 (constitution and Shareholders Agreement). A NCC workshop was also held on 28 June 2022.

4.3      The recommendations from the 7 June 2022 Joint Shareholders Committee meeting were considered at the 12 July Council meeting and the resolutions were lost.

4.4      There are a number of matters that need to be further considered by Council before the project is closed out.

5.       Discussion

5.1      Considering Nelson City Council’s decision on 12 July 2022, TDC is intending to take a project closeout report to its council meeting on 22 September noting the NCC decisions and approving unbudgeted operating expenditure of $209,000 (plus GST) being the 50% share of the Infrastructure Holdings Limited project costs incurred by Port Nelson Limited.

5.2      Port Nelson Limited has been carrying the costs of engaging the external advisors, for advice and development of the necessary detailed foundation documents and policies for the holding company project. This Council’s share of the joint cost is circa $209k (+GST).   The Port has invoiced both councils for these costs at our request, rather than deduct them from the next Port Dividend Payment.

5.3      Both Nelson Airport Ltd and Port Nelson Ltd will also have incurred significant staff and board costs given the high level of their engagement with the project. These costs have been met by the companies and they are not seeking to recover these costs from the Council Shareholders.

5.4      Had the proposal proceeded these costs would have been borne by the Holding Company and offset against future savings primarily from the reduced group borrowing costs.

5.5      In addition to these costs the Council has incurred its own legal advice costs of $22,000. 

5.6      The absence of the Airport at the 12 July 2022 Council meeting may have led to a perception that they didn’t support the Infrastructure Holdings Limited proposal – this is not the case.

5.7      There have also been questions about what other entities could fall under the Infrastructure Holdings Limited structure.  This was considered during forming up the consultation on the Holding Company but it was considered that getting the structure up and running to realise the funding savings was the priority but the councils’ could consider other entities in the future.

5.8      It has been raised that any additional dividends received by Council due to the formation of Infrastructure Holdings Limited could be put into a reserve for the events, topping up the Housing Reserve, or to provide additional funding to the Emergency Disaster Fund. All of these options are possible but this would require further consultation and is therefore a matter for the future Council.    

6.       Options

6.1      The decision is either to proceed with the Infrastructure Holdings Limited formation by approving the restructuring and financing documents recommended from the Joint Shareholders Committee or to not proceed.

 

Option 1: agrees to the recommendations from the Joint Shareholders Committee meeting 7 June to approve the Restructuring and Financing Documents

Advantages

·   Allows the work plan to proceed in a timely way and in the manner agreed by the Working Group and as reviewed by the two councils’ external advisors.

·   The Transaction Documents in their current forms meet the statutory and legal requirements to give effect to the holding company proposal.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   The Restructuring and Financing Documents may not align with all Councillor preferences

Option 2: do not proceed with the Infrastructure Holdings Limited proposal agreed in the LTP2021-31.

Advantages

·    No more staff resource and external costs incurred from Councils or subsidiaries

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Project costs incurred by Port Nelson Limited to be met by Councils of $209,000.

·    Lost opportunity for savings. The total uninflated savings (over and above any additional costs) range from $822,000 per annum in the first year through to just under $2 million per annum in 2032. 

 

Author:          Nikki Harrison, Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:   1511110536-309 CL-12July2022-Supplementary Information - Holding COmpany decision R26950

Attachment 2:   1511110536-310 Holding Company Progress Report 3  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Local Government Act 2002 states that the purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.

The recommendations are required to give effect to the holding company formation decision contained within both councils Long Term Plans. Those plans are the result of democratic local decision-making.

The savings to be achieved by a decision to proceed with the holding company would also contribute to the economic wellbeing of the community.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations are not inconsistent with either Councils’ policy and are necessary to give effect to the previous decisions to form the holding company.

This recommendation is consistent with the Community Outcomes of:

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

• Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

     Risk

 The decision to form the proposed holding company has been previously consulted on. The strategy of both councils is focused on ensuring the holding company is formed as envisaged and the LGFA funding benefits are captured for the benefit of the port and airport companies and ultimately the council shareholders.

There is a low risk associated with the recommendations.

The following are the main identified project risks:

• LGFA resourcing and response times. Staff understand that the LGFA is heavily involved in the Three Waters reform;

• The immature nature of the LGFA process causing delays. LGFA lending to CCTOs is a new process. Staff understand our proposal is only the third such proposal for the LGFA. Likewise, although security groupings are not new for Westpac, working with the LGFA on such a proposal is new; and

• Other risks set out in the Options section of this report.

     Financial impact

It is currently proposed that the holding company setup, governance, and administration costs will be funded via the dividend streams from the subsidiary companies. Costs of borrowing will be passed directly through to the subsidiary companies.

The proposal has a positive financial impact on both councils as it will reduce borrowing costs for the Group through accessing long-term funding from the LGFA. This is estimated to reduce Group borrowing costs by approximately 1%-1.5% per annum. This reduction in costs should translate to increased dividends to shareholders.

Staff and advisors have assessed the financial risks from issuing the uncalled capital as remote. The financial impact of any call on uncalled capital would not exceed amounts the councils would have contributed directly to the subsidiary companies under the current arrangements. Due to the financing of the Group as a whole, the likelihood of the council shareholders being required to contribute capital should an event occur has been reduced.

If a decision is made to not proceed, $209,000 of unbudgeted project operating expenditure incurred by Port Nelson Limited will need to be met by Council in addition to council’s legal fees.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance because it is formalising documentation required to set up the holding company. The proposal to form the holding company was consulted on as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation by both councils. Following that consultation both councils agreed to the formation of the holding company primarily as a funding vehicle for the port and airport companies. Further engagement with the community is not required. Elected members can rely on their knowledge of the views and preferences of the community when making these decisions.

     Climate Impact

These decisions have no climate impact.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

     Delegations

This is a decision of Council.

 

 


Item 20: Infrastructure Holdings Limited: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 20: Infrastructure Holdings Limited: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 21: Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R26111

Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To consider the public feedback on the Draft Nelson Marina Masterplan.

1.2      After consideration of public feedback, to approve the Nelson Marina Masterplan as the guiding document for the future development of Nelson Marina.

2.       Summary

2.1      Nelson Marina (Marina) is a Council owned facility that reached capacity some years ago, has a large waiting list and has significant parcels of undeveloped land.  Pressure has been applied by the community to invest in and further develop the facilities for marina users and the community at large.

2.2      The Nelson Marina Masterplan (Masterplan) is a long-term dynamic planning document that creates a ‘big picture’ vision to meet the needs within the Nelson community.  It addresses the challenges and opportunities related to the maritime economy, business, movement of people, the natural and built environments, community wellbeing, culture and heritage.

2.3      The Masterplan seeks to invigorate the Marina by creating a mix of public access and activities for residents and visitors to Nelson who enjoy being both on and near the water.

2.4      The Masterplan will guide the enhancement of the Marina as a haven for boats to be berthed, safe launching and retrieving of small trailer vessels, enhanced repairs and maintenance facilities and a dedicated area for the fast-growing sea sports sector, ensuring the mixed uses and water access requirements around the marina are performed in a safe manner.

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report (R26111) and its attachment, Nelson Marina Masterplan (149934158-8518); and

2.    Notes the changes made to the Masterplan after public feedback from the consultation phase; and

3.    Adopts the Nelson Marina Masterplan as the guiding plan for developing Nelson Marina; and

4.    Notes that the proposed location of the new Sea Sports Facility at 305 Akersten is approved in principle, subject to the following:

i.             That further studies are completed to ensure that the proposed water-based structures will be safe for the launching and retrieval of all watercraft and participants in most weather conditions; and

ii.    That the land and buildings are independently deemed safe for the new activity; and

5.    Notes that iwi will be partnered with to ensure that each project within the Masterplan is designed to uphold the mana of tangata whenua, acknowledging that the design, layout and allocation of space is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that the marina is an area of significance to iwi; and

6.    Notes that the Nelson Marina Extension requires further work with Iwi and affected stakeholders to uphold the mana of tangata whenua and ensure that the environmental health of the Haven is preserved; and

7.    Notes officers will begin the design, timing, consenting and budgetary work for the priority projects as outlined in the Masterplan to feed into the Long Term Plan process; and

8.    Delegates to the Mayor, Chair of the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive, authority to approve any minor amendments required to the Masterplan prior to final public release.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      In December 2017, Council approved the Nelson Marina Strategy, which included the recommendation to develop a full Nelson Marina Masterplan.

4.2      In December 2020, Council engaged Wardale Marine Consulting Ltd (Wardale) to research the supply and demand for marina facilities and to use this research to develop a concept for the Masterplan. 

4.3      Wardale presented the Masterplan concept and accompanying demand and supply research to a Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee (Subcommittee) confidential briefing in April 2021.

4.4      On 24 June 2021, Council confirmed, in principle, decisions of the Long Term Plan recommendations (CL/2021/092) from the Subcommittee that the Council requests officers to complete a Masterplan for the water side of the Marina.

4.5      Officers and Wardale consulted with various interest groups, stakeholders, and the Nelson Marina Advisory Group (NMAG) to formulate a Masterplan looking at both the land based and water side requirements for the marina over the next 10+ years.

4.6      On 9 June 2022, the Subcommittee made a recommendation to take the Masterplan to public consultation (R26569). 

 

4.7      On 14 June 2022, Council confirmed the recommendation for public consultation (CL/2022/099).

 

4.8      The public consultation period was open from 20 June to 20 July 2022.

 

4.9      An executive summary engagement document - Draft Nelson Marina Masterplan Public Feedback (A2893152)) was widely distributed, providing a broad outline of the Masterplan without the need to read the Masterplan (A2893150) (96 Pages).

4.10    Through the consultation period, direct engagement occurred with the following stakeholders:

4.10.1 Te Tau Ihu Iwi

4.10.2 Nelson Marina Advisory Group (NMAG)

4.10.3 Nelson Marina Berthholders Association (NMBHA)

4.10.4 Friends of the Haven

4.10.5 Marina contractors

4.10.6 Port Nelson Limited (PNL)

4.10.7 Nelson Harbourmaster

4.10.8 The Sea Sports Alliance (SSA):

·   Nelson Rowing Club

·   Nelson Iron Duke Sea Scouts

·   Nelson Sea Cadets

·   Local Waka Ama Clubs

4.10.9 Surrounding Businesses:

·   Motueka Nets

·   Aimex Shipyard

·   Talley’s Fisheries

·   Ruby’s Espresso

4.10.10       Tasman District Council

4.10.11       Property developers

4.10.12       Berthholders

4.10.13       Other marina users

4.10.14       Nelson community

4.11    Information on the Masterplan and the consultation was disseminated through the following platforms:

4.11.1 Emailing the Masterplan to, and meetings with, the stakeholders noted in 4.10.

4.11.2 Distribution of the Draft Nelson Marina Masterplan Public Feedback document (A2893152)

4.11.3 Emails to berthholders, those with boats in the trailer park and commercial local contractors

4.11.4 Signs placed at the marina office, boat ramp, on each jetty, the hardstand gates, and the rubbish compounds.

4.11.5 A public online Zoom/Teams session

4.11.6 Two public meetings

4.11.7 Consultation page on Shape Nelson

4.11.8 Nelson Marina newsletter

4.11.9 Social media – Nelson City Council and Nelson Marina Facebook

4.11.10       Our Nelson

4.11.11       Series of media releases targeted at the following publications:

·   Nelson Weekly

·   Nelson Mail (Stuff)

4.12    The Masterplan and supporting documents were made available through a download link on Shape Nelson and the Nelson Marina website, with hardcopies able to be viewed in the following locations:

4.12.1 Nelson Marina Office

4.12.2 Nelson City Council Customer Service Centre

4.12.3 Nightingale Library – Tahunanui

4.12.4 Stoke Library – Stoke

 

4.13    A total of 1752 people visited the Shape Nelson portal with 200 submissions received.  89% of respondents stated that they were in general agreement with the direction of the Masterplan.

5.       Discussion

5.1      A total of 200 submissions were received on the Masterplan.

5.2      Of the 200 submissions, 89% of respondents were in favour of the Masterplan with 41% overwhelmingly positive. 3% of submitters considered the Masterplan to be overly ambitious.

 

5.3      Submitters represented seven distinct groups with the majority of submissions coming from berth holders and sea sports users (combined 67%).

5.4      The support for the Masterplan by each group is represented below:

 

Te Tau Ihu Iwi Feedback

5.5      In discussions and meeting with Te Tau Ihu iwi, they do not feel there has been enough consultation with local iwi during the initial planning phases.  Noting that this is a general helicopter view of the potential future for the marina, Te Tau Ihu iwi would like to see Council engage on each specific project to commission Cultural Effects Assessments to be able to inform and educate the developers, Council and governance team of the cultural and historical significance of the area to iwi, in particular the Mahitahi (Maitai) River and Nelson estuary.

5.6      Any improvements to the Marina are seen as an opportunity to uphold the mana of tangata whenua, so designs, layout and the allocation of space is seen as an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that this is an area of significance to iwi.

5.7      All 8 Te Tau Ihu iwi would like to have a seat at the governance table for Nelson Marina under the new governance model and that all 8 iwi should be involved in the development of this plan and each project as they progress.

5.8      Environmental protection should be of utmost importance with any design feature within the Masterplan.

5.9      Te Tau Ihu iwi do not support further extension of Nelson Marina into the haven without the involvement of all 8 iwi of Te Tau Ihu.

Combined Results

5.10    Respondents were asked to choose the projects important to them and to rank those projects in order or priority.  The results are slightly skewed due to the high number of sea sports submissions (39%), hence below respondents are separated into their main area of interest.

5.11    Overall, the new Sea Sports Facility is the highest priority project by a very significant margin.  

5.12    Public features and the environment make up the top 5, with health and safety, water quality, the public promenade and the café development rounding out the top 5 priorities.

 

 

Berth Holder Feedback

5.13    Berth holders at the Marina were primarily concerned with development in and around the water space and the current lack of availability of berths.

5.14    The top priority project by a considerable margin is the installation of a floating fuel dock for the marina.  This is followed by the Marina extension, increased security, the hard stand development and the relocation of the sea sports facility.

5.15    16% of berth holders think that the timeframe for development is too long and that we need more berths short term (23%), more catamaran berths (9%) and to make larger berths a priority (18%).  4% of berth holders are against the proposed Marina extension.

 

5.16    Nelson Marina Advisory Group

5.16.1 NMAG is a voluntary committee convened in early 2017 by Council to provide advice on the operations, management and development of the Marina.  There is no iwi representation on NMAG.

5.16.2 NMAG contributed significantly to the development of the Masterplan and has commended the content and format of the document, and the scale of consultation behind it.

5.16.3 NMAG gives its full support of the masterplan with the following suggestions:

·   Include the Nelson Marina Vision in the masterplan document;

·   The reinstatement of the condemned tidal grid (area for drying out a vessel during tides) for simple maintenance projects such as replacing anodes;

·   Hold the boat ramp configuration until after the Sea Sports is relocated to ensure that the design is fit for purpose once the area is used differently; and

·   Provide clarity on the funding model for the Sea Sports Centre.  NMAG believes that this should be a community project and funded as such, rather than from the Marina closed account.

5.16.4 NMAG recognises that the proposed increased levels of service will result in an increase in berthing fees. It would like to see these phased in over time so that berth holders can prepare and make decisions with plenty of time.

5.17    Nelson Marina Berth Holders Association

5.17.1 NMBHA advocates for and on behalf of its members to engage with Marina management, Council and other Marina related community groups, organisations, and businesses.  Members all own a boat currently berthed at the Marina.

5.17.2 NMBHA completed a joint submission with NMAG and echoes the sentiments above.

5.18    Tasman Bay Cruising Club

5.18.1 Tasman Bay Cruising Club (TBCC) represents around 350 members, many of which are also berth holders at the Marina.  The club is located on the shore of the Marina.

5.18.2 TBCC is generally supportive of the Masterplan and would like to see an emphasis on the fuel berth upgrade, better hard stand area and a larger travel lift.

5.18.3 TBCC is not supportive of losing small entry level berths, and has concerns about an already short supply of parking.

5.18.4 Importantly, TBCC does not support the idea of the promenade wrapping around its clubhouse but is prepared to work with Council to come to a solution that works for all.

 

          Sea Sports User Feedback

5.19    Overall, respondents that identified themselves as sea sports users believe the development of a Sea Sports Facility as being of the highest priority.  To round out the top 5, health and safety, water quality, the public promenade, and the café development feature quite highly.

 

5.20   

97% of respondents were positive about the proposal for a new Sea Sports facility.

 

5.21    Sea Sports users

are extremely positive and excited about a new facility, an option that has been discussed for many years.  Of the responses, 79% agree, in principle, the proposed new location with 17% wanting the new facility to be built in the current location and 4% wanting council to look for an alternative location.

5.22   

Importantly, although 79% agree with the proposed new location, this comes with a very strong caveat that the support is only there if Council can ensure, through design and engineering, that the proposed new location is safe in all tides and most weather conditions for the launch and

retrieval of vessels and is safe for all participants/users of all ages.

 

 

5.23    Sea Sports Alliance

5.23.1 SSA is a quasi-committee of all current users of the Sea Sports facility.  This alliance is likely to become more formalised in the near future, to represent all users when working with council on development and design the new Sea Sports facility.

5.23.2 Overall, SSA is in favour of the masterplan and see the development of a new Sea Sports facility to be of the highest priority.  This has been talked about for many years but has never come to fruition.

5.23.3 SSA supports, in principle, a fit for purpose facility on the Nelson Haven that is large enough to suit all clubs of SSA.  They are positive about the location, provided that the safety of launching and retrieval of both boats and members in all conditions can be assured.

5.23.4 SSA suggests that an in-depth investigation into the suitability and long-term financial viability of the current buildings vs demolish and rebuild at the same existing location to be an important next step.

5.24    Sport Tasman

5.24.1 Sport Tasman (ST) has a general interest in sport and recreation facility development in the region.  ST supports the draft masterplan and has particular interest in ensuring that space and consideration has been provided for recreation activities/sports within the Marina space.

5.24.2 ST was initially involved in bringing SSA together and is excited to see the inclusion of a new sea sports facility in the Masterplan.  ST’s insights indicate a projected increased demand on space fuelled by a rising population and fast-growing participation rates in non-powered water sports.

5.24.3 ST does have concerns over the safety of launch and retrieval of vessels and participants in the proposed location which will need to be alleviated for full support.  The area needs to be accessed in all tides.

5.24.4 ST would like to have included in the design of the facility - adequate boat storage, wash down areas, amenities, and parking for peak demand.

5.25    Sea Sports Users

5.25.1 Submissions were received from the individual groups that make up the Sea Sports Alliance.

5.25.2 Submissions were received from:

·   Nelson Rowing Club

·   Waka Ama

·   Iron Duke Sea Scouts

·   TS Talisman Navy Cadets

·   Nelson Canoe Club

·   Nelson Surf Ski Club

·   Nelson Windsurfers

5.25.3 Submissions from the individual clubs echoed the sentiment of the Sea Sports Alliance and Sport Tasman in 5.23 and 5.24.

5.25.4 Several operation details and design requests were received that have been recorded and will form the basis of further discussions once in the design phase.

 

Boat Ramp User Feedback

5.26    Boat ramp users are primarily concerned with the boat ramp area and storage for their vessels with the boat ramp reconfiguration and the increased size of the trailer boat storage being the main two priority projects.

5.27    Making up the top six is improved health and safety, increased water quality and development of the public promenade and café.

 


Nearby Businesses Feedback

5.28    Nearby businesses were very positive about the public promenade, believing it will increase traffic and potential customers to the area.

5.29    Making up the top five priority projects were the café development, dry stack, hard stand development and the marine centre development.

 


5.30    Port Nelson Limited

5.30.1 PNL conditionally supports the proposed updates to the Marina, in keeping with supply and demand for public access to the water and waterfront.

5.30.2 PNL recognises the need to provide for this access, particularly in a region with a reputation for significant coastal features and water recreation opportunities.

5.30.3 PNL’s major concern is any proposed changes to land use in the port and marina area that may prompt the pressure to adopt more stringent operational controls to mitigate reverse sensitivity effects.  PNL is and needs to remain a 24-hour, 365-day operation.

5.30.4 PNL notes that the port industrial area is a finite resource and should remain as marine related industry, and strongly opposes any residential development which they want clearly acknowledged in the Masterplan.

5.30.5 Carparking and increased traffic around the port area is of concern.  Although it acknowledges the need for more parking, PNL requests elaboration on the strategies that will be put in place to manage the risk relating to increased small vehicle traffic in the precinct.

5.30.6 PNL recognises that there are several projects within the Masterplan that are either on or adjacent to PNL land which they would not be prepared to give up to non-essential non-port activities. That said, further discussion is welcomed on each of the areas in question where opportunities could exist for both PNL and the Marina/Council.

5.30.7 PNL has concerns about increased boating traffic in the harbour with the extension of the Marina and welcomes further discussion on how this risk can be mitigated.

5.30.8 Overall, PNL supports the upkeep and modernisation of Marina facilities, as well as appropriate use of the waterfront for the public.  Negotiation and collaboration between the two parties will be critical to the success of the Marina and PNL would value the opportunity to be involved with any further engagement in the pursuit of pro-active resolutions to any issues as they arise.

5.31    Plant and Food Research Limited

5.31.1 Plant and Food Research Limited (PFR) is located on the northern edge of Akersten Street adjacent to the proposed Marina extension.  PFR’s submission was made by Landmark Lile Resource Management on PFR’s behalf.

5.31.2 PFR operates a fish research facility with a range of sensitive scientific equipment on site and a sea water intake pipe running out north into the haven.  PFR is concerned about the implications of any development in the short and long term on its operations, including:

·   Construction vibrations and runoff;

·   Overlap of the Marina extension over PFR’s current sea water intake;

·   Plumes and pollution created by initial and ongoing maintenance dredging;

·   Impact of the Marina extension on water quality for the growing of juvenile fish for fish farming;

·   Concern over parking and increased traffic as well as the potential impacts on amenity values for staff in terms of privacy, noise, and visual effects.

5.31.3 PFR would like to stress that it is not opposed to the Masterplan in principle and views it as a potentially positive development for Nelson.  PFR would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Marina and Council to discuss its concerns in more detail, and work together on solution to these challenges.

 

Local Resident Feedback

5.32    Local residents were defined as those living in and around Nelson who do not identify as a current regular user of the Marina for water sports or boating activities.

5.33    The local resident category is strongly influenced by a youth view with 50% of respondents in this category being students from Nelson College.

5.34    Local residents consider the sea sports facility to be the priority project, closely followed by the boat ramp reconfiguration.

5.35    Rounding out the top 5 is the public promenade, improved water quality and the café development.

 



 

Organisational and Institutional Feedback

5.36    Nelson Harbourmaster

5.36.1 The Nelson Harbourmaster supports the Masterplan and in particular:

·   supporting the development of a floating pontoon on the fuel dock;

·   from a navigational safety perspective, deconflicting of non-powered and powered vessels in confined waters is encouraged and supported.

5.36.2 The Harbourmaster would like to see a space for dinghy storage ashore for the vessels at mooring, and better toilet and shower facilities at the boat ramp.

5.37    Te Whatu Ora – Nelson Marlborough Public Health Service

5.37.1 Nelson Marlborough Public Health Service – Te Whatu Ora (NMPHS) is a key organisation involved in the health and wellbeing of the people within Te Tau Ihu.

5.37.2 NMPHS made its submission in recognition of its responsibilities to improve, promote and protect the health of people and communities under the Pae Ora 2022 and the Health Act 1956.

5.37.3 NMPHS supports the Masterplan and has made the following comments:

·   Health and safety improvements should be a priority for the Marina;

·   NMPHS is pleased that the Marina will be working towards its Clean Marina status and supports the idea of stormwater reuse and processing, sewage pump out facilities and a complete recycling facility;

·   NMPHS supports the introduction of more sustainable energy sources and alternative transport modes.  NMPHS recommends that consideration should be given to introducing a bus service to the Marina.  All sustainability initiatives listed in the Masterplan are supported. NMPHS requests that any new facility should consider sea level rises;

·   NMPHS supports the public promenade and strongly encourages the design to ensure it is wide enough to accommodate prams and wheelchairs with minimum slope.  It is suggested that Council engages with Barrier Free NZ Trust to provide accessibility advice during the planning stages;

·   NMPHS would like to see the pocket park re-established with the inclusion of public toilet facilities, water fountains and sunshade.

5.38    Disabled Peoples Association

5.38.1 The Disabled Peoples Association (DPA) supports the Masterplan noting that it is future focused and will encourage transport mode shift, physical activity, create community cohesion and contribute to improved community wellbeing.

5.38.2 DPA would like Council to ensure that the promenade and general Marina development addresses inclusion and accessibility to ensure that vulnerable pedestrians are able to use the area.  DPA would like to be consulted to assist with accessibility during the design phase.

5.38.3 DPA would like to see a separation between pedestrians and cyclists on shared pathways, several mobility parks with increased space for larger wheelchairs and accessible water fountains along the promenade.

5.39    Bicycle Nelson Bays

5.39.1 Bicycle Nelson Bays (BNB) supports the bicycle and walking link between the city and the Marina but are concerned about the traffic in the area.  It is suggested that a raised pedestrian and cycleway crossing be installed at Akersten Street to safely link the promenade to the Marina.

5.39.2 BNB does not support any additional parking as this does not support the Emissions Reduction Plan.

 

6.       Changes to the Final Nelson Marina Masterplan as a result of Consultation

6.1      As a result of the feedback received during the consultation process, the following changes have been made to the Masterplan:

6.1.1   Consultation has confirmed there is a strong public support for the move of Sea Sports to the new site, subject to confirmation that the site is fit for purpose.  On this basis the Masterplan document has been updated as follows to reflect the recommendation that the site be approved in principle for the Sea Sports Facility:

·    Wording has been inserted to clarify that further studies will be conducted to ensure that the proposed water-based structures will be safe for the launching and retrieval of all watercraft and participants in most weather conditions and that the land and buildings are independently deemed safe for the new activity;

·    The concept plans and render images for the Sea Sports Facility have also been updated to show additional water-based structures to provide a safe launching area; 

·    Name members of the Sea Sports Alliance that are expected to have interest in being involved in the new facility and note that there will likely be some other groups that have interest in being involved in the facility.

6.1.2   Addition of the Nelson Marina vision statement from the 2017 Nelson Marina Strategy to the Masterplan document.

6.1.3   Addition of a section on the strategic partnership between Council, Marina and Te Tau Ihu iwi, including:

·    Summary of the existing memorandum of understanding with Te Tau Ihu iwi; and

·    That Te Tau Ihu iwi are to be partnered with to ensure that each project within the Masterplan is designed to uphold the mana of tangata whenua, acknowledging that the design, layout and allocation of space is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that the Marina is an area of significance to iwi; and

·    That the Nelson Marina Extension requires further work with Te Tau Ihu iwi and other affected stakeholders to uphold the mana of tangata whenua and ensure that the environmental health of the Haven is preserved.

6.1.4   A list summarising the parties consulted during the Masterplan process (refer to section 4.11) and a note that further conversations and opportunities for key stakeholders to input into projects will be provided as part of project delivery consultation planning.

6.1.5   Clarification that the timetable dates relate to project delivery, but that work will commence in advance (for small projects this typically be in the prior year and for large projects many years prior to project delivery).

6.1.6   A minor adjustment to the land ownership map.

6.1.7   A statement has been added acknowledging that many submissions made comment on the specific details of various projects.  Although these detailed comments cannot all be incorporated into the Masterplan (as it is a high-level strategic overview), these comments have been compiled and will be referred to as the details of each project are designed and worked through.  Some small refinements to the wording in the Masterplan have been made to acknowledge some of the good ideas and suggestions made by key stakeholders, e.g. inclusion of a playground within the revitalised pocket park.

 

 

 

7.       Options

Option 1: Approve the Nelson Marina Masterplan

Advantages

·   Sets the strategic direction for the Marina

·   Provides for development and increased employment for the region

·   Provides a destination for Nelson residents

·   Allows the Marina to grow with demand

·   Ensures land is fully utilised

·   Provides for the changing nature of boating

·   Separates powered and non-powered water activities

·   Develops Nelson as a marine refurb hub

·   Creates a return on investment for Council

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Significant investment

Option 2: Approve Nelson Marina Masterplan with Changes

Advantages

·    Allows elected members to make changes to the Masterplan

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Decisions may not be aligned with the sentiment of various stakeholders

Option 3: Not approve the Nelson Marina Masterplan

Advantages

·    Minimal Investment

Risks and Disadvantages

·    The Marina has no strategic direction

·    The land and asset of the Marina remains underutilised

·    Creates political pressure to utilise the land for other non-marine related activities

·    Wait list remains large with Nelson residents having to keep their vessels in alternative Marinas

 

 

 

 

8.       Conclusion

8.1      The Marina is a Council owned facility that reached capacity some years ago and has significant parcels of undeveloped land.  Pressure has come from the community to invest in and further develop the facilities for Marina users and the community at large.

8.2      The Masterplan is a long-term dynamic planning document that creates a ‘big picture’ vision to meet the needs within the Nelson community.  It addresses the challenges and opportunities related to the maritime economy, business, movement of people, the natural and built environments, community wellbeing, culture and heritage.

8.3      89% of the community provided feedback in support of the Masterplan, many claiming that it was long overdue.

8.4      The Masterplan has the full support of NMAG and the Nelson Marina Berth Holders Association.

8.5      Officers recommend Council approves and adopts the Masterplan as the guiding development document for the Marina.

9.       Next Steps

9.1      If the recommendations in this report are approved, the following would be the next steps:

9.1.1   The public are advised that the Masterplan has been adopted by Council and is well distributed and advertised.

9.1.2   Discussions with Te Tau Ihu Iwi on how they would like to be engaged in our partnership with them and formalise said partnership.

9.1.3   Council continues negotiations with PNL over the procurement of 305 Akersten Street.

9.1.4   Officers conduct due diligence on each of the Masterplan projects and prepare comprehensive budgets for the short term (first 3 years) projects, while preparing a budget for the entire Masterplan to be incorporated into the Long-Term Plan (LTP).

9.1.5   Officers develop business cases for each of the projects within the Masterplan.

9.1.6   Officers begin the RMA and other consent processes to allow each project within the Masterplan to proceed over time.

9.1.7   Cross Council projects are developed with the relevant Business Units, with design, responsibility and budgets delegated as required.

9.1.8   Business cases are brought back to Council for approval.

9.1.9   The Marina carries out development in accordance with the agreed terms of the Masterplan and Council’s LTP.

 

Author:          Nigel Skeggs, Manager Nelson Marina

Attachments

Attachment 1:   Nelson Marina Masterplan (149934158-8518)  

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Approving the Masterplan will support local democratic decision-making process to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of both the Nelson community and Marina stakeholders.  This is consistent with the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Masterplan will set and drive the Long-Term Plan for the Marina and will work to complement the connectivity of the city to the Marina by activating the area to enhance general public use.

3.   Risk

 There is a reputational risk to Council if development does not proceed with the Masterplan.  Much of the land under the Marina has laid vacant for over 20 years and there is significant marina stakeholder and public pressure to see this valuable resource utilised.

As the plan is long term and aspirational, there is a likely risk that some in the community will consider the plan to be too ambitious. Despite an extensive community engagement process to date, speaking with people with diverse viewpoints, it is likely not everyone will consider that their views and comments are reflected in the plan.  These perspectives were reflected in the public feedback process.

There are risks around delays in delivery of the projects in the plan, and the timing of the projects.  This risk will be mitigated by undertaking ongoing engagement through the life of the document.

4.   Financial impact

The financial impact on ratepayers and the Marina community will be moderate to high, depending on the project.  Public realm projects are proposed to be funded from rates and marina improvements through marina fees and charges. Most of the large commercial projects will only proceed on a self-funded business case (user pays) as described in the funding section of the Masterplan. 

The funding mechanism for the new Sea Sports Facility is yet to be finalised by Council but it is expected to be funded by a range of sources including rates and a contribution from the marina.

The Masterplan will require additional staffing and project management to be investigated further and brought back to Council once the Masterplan has been adopted.

The Masterplan will assist Council to prepare a Long-Term Plan with future capital and operational budgetary requirements for Nelson Marina.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

While a moderate level of public interest exists for the development of the Marina, the Masterplan is considered of low to medium significance when considered against all criteria in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Therefore, a standard consultation and feedback process was undertaken with a high degree of engagement as per the process outlined in this report. 

Three public evening meetings were also held.

The public feedback period was from 20 June to 20 July 2022. 1752 people visited the Shape Nelson website page, and 200 submissions were received.

6.   Climate Impact

This decision does not have a direct impact on climate; however, the Masterplan does take climate impact into consideration throughout the entire document with several direct and indirect climate mitigation measures.  In particular the Masterplan will account for sea level rise, increased frequency of storm events and land slumping around the reclamation.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Meetings were held with the Te Tau Ihu Environmental panel during the consultation process.   In discussions and meeting with Te Tau Ihu Iwi it is clear that they do not feel there has been enough consultation with local Iwi during the initial planning phases.  Noting that this is a general helicopter view of the potential future for the marina, Te Tau Ihu Iwi would like to see council engage on each specific project to commission Cultural Effects Assessment’s to be able to inform and educate the developers, council and governance team of the cultural and historical significance of the area to Iwi, in particular the Mahitahi (Maitai) River and Nelson estuary.

Any improvements to the marina is seen as an opportunity to uphold the mana of Tangata Whenua, so designs, layout and the allocation of space is seen as an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that this is an area of significance to Ngā iwi.

As officers work through each project of the Masterplan, a formal partnership process will be developed to ensure the close involvement and participation of Te Tau Ihu Iwi.

 

8.   Delegations

The Strategic Property and Development Subcommittee has the following delegations to consider the future Governance of Nelson Marina:

Areas of Responsibility:

·    Marina Precinct

Delegations:

·    Powers to decide the developing, monitoring and reviewing of strategies, policies and plans, with final versions to be recommended to Council for approval. 

Powers to Recommend to Council:

·    Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans;

All other matters within the areas of responsibility or any other matters referred to it by Council.

Although the Masterplan was to be received by the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee, due to timing pressures this report is being brought directly to Council.

 


Item 21: Nelson Marina Masterplan Deliberations Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 22: Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R26940

Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To consider and adopt the Constitution and confirm the process for the formation of the Management Council Controlled Organisation company and appointment of the board to manage and operate Nelson Marina on behalf of Council as the asset owner.

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation (R26940) and its attachment/s Nelson Marina CCO Constitution (149934158-8500); and

2.    Approves the incorporation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation company; and

3.    Approves the Constitution for the Management Council Controlled Organisation (149934158-8500); and

4.    Notes that a Management Agreement, Delegations and Structure between Council and the Management Council Controlled Organisation will be developed and brought to Council for approval prior to the appointment of Directors; and

5.    Notes the timeline for the transition of the governance of Nelson Marina from a Council managed facility to the Management Council Controlled Organisation; and

6.    Approves the recruitment process for the board positions as per Council policy - Appointment of Directors/Trustees of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations; and

7.    Agrees that further consultation is required with iwi partners as to how iwi representation can be achieved in the new governance model; and

8.    Delegates to the Chair of the relevant committee, Chief Executive and Group Manager Corporate Services to make adjustments and changes to company documentation, the recruitment process and proposed schedule, provided the changes are substantially consistent with the decisions made herein.

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      In mid-2021, Council approved an independent s17a review of the governance options for Nelson Marina.

3.2      The s17a review recommended that the best option for future governance was through the formation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation (Management CCO)(R26108).

3.3      On 3 December 2021, the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee approved the preferred option and recommended to Council the undertaking of public consultation on the proposal to establish a Management CCO as per section 56 of the LGA 2002.

3.4      On 8 December 2021, Council ratified the decision to consult. Council consulted on the governance options available to Council from 20 December 2021 to 20 February 2022.

3.5      Public consultation confirmed the establishment of a Management CCO as the preferred governance structure for Nelson Marina. The report was received and reviewed by the SDAP subcommittee with a recommendation to Council to approve the decision (R26685).

3.6      The 10 May 2022 Council meeting resolved:

Resolved CL/2022/001

1.     Approves the formation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation (Management CCO) for Nelson Marina.

2.    Approves the development of a Statement of Expectation, Statement of Intent, a Management Agreement, and recommended board structure for Nelson Marina by the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee for consideration by Council.

3.  Confirms that the Manager of Nelson Marina will not be appointed to the Council Controlled Organisation, Marina Management Governance Board.

3.7      This report is designed to outline the terms on which the Management CCO will operate.

4.       Discussion

4.1      Under the CCO model, each CCO, including a Management CCO:

4.1.1   operates at arm’s length from the council;

4.1.2   has an independent board that is accountable to the council for the CCO’s performance;

4.1.3   is a separate legal entity, with directors being responsible for overseeing the management of the business;

4.1.4   must implement the strategic direction and objectives set by the council as its shareholder (section 59, LGA 2002 – “Principal objective of a council-controlled organization”).

4.2      In general, the role of the council is to set the strategic direction, plans and expectations for CCOs, and to hold them to account on behalf of Nelsonians. The Governing Body (or its committees, under delegation) is responsible for:

4.2.1   developing plans and strategies that CCOs must give effect to appointing and removing directors;

4.2.2   determining board member remuneration;

4.2.3   commenting on the content of draft statements of intent, and approving final statements of intent;

4.2.4   monitoring and assessing the performance of CCOs (including board performance);

4.2.5   taking decisions as shareholder (e.g. approving major transactions under the Companies Act or the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

4.3      The role of a CCO is to deliver services for Nelsonians, and through this, to implement the direction set by the council as its shareholder. CCOs are expected to act in the best interests of Council for the benefit of all Nelsonians.

4.4      The role of the Management CCO will be guided by the strategic objectives developed and set by Council and the approved Statement of Intent.

4.5      The board of a CCO is accountable to the governing body of Nelson City Council.

4.6      The board employs a CCOs chief executive/marina manager, who is accountable to the board. 

4.7      The board provides direction to the chief executive/marina manager and staff of the CCO.

4.8      Some of the key elements of how a CCO should undertake its role include:

4.8.1   Demonstrating the principles of good governance, having a clear understanding of the council’s priorities and objectives.

4.8.2   Have a strong awareness of the public service ethos, recognising the organisation’s public ownership and the obligations this creates.

4.8.3   Decision-making must reflect consideration of Māori interests and values. To support the council’s commitment to achieving better outcomes with Māori, CCOs should establish enduring relationships with Māori based on respect and understanding.

4.8.4   CCOs should deliver services efficiently and effectively in a way that displays prudent use of resources and assets and provide value for money for Nelsonians.

4.8.5   CCOs should make operational decisions that are aligned with the council’s expectations and strategic directions.

4.8.6   All members of the council group should work with each other to promote the council’s vision, and build collaborative relationships built on communication and respect.

4.8.7   All members of the council group should be transparent and have an open and honest approach in working with each other and the community.

4.9      The council expects the board of each CCO to:

4.9.1   act lawfully

4.9.2   make decisions consistent with the CCO’s constitution and Statement of Intent (SOI)

4.9.3   follow the Board Appointment and Remuneration Policies for board members of CCOs.

4.10    CCOs may be established for the purpose of achieving commercially focused objectives. At times, these objectives may appear to conflict with objectives seeking a more public/community good outcome.  While commercial activity and revenue generation may be an important aspect of CCOs role and functions, CCOs fundamentally exist to deliver on, and achieve, the strategic goals which have been set, and agreed with Council.

Management CCO Incorporation

4.11    Incorporating a new company in NZ is a relatively straight forward process.

4.12    Nelson Marina Ltd was incorporated in 1966 and is held by a third party but is not operating.  An alternative name for the CCO will need to be decided upon.

4.13    In NZ, a company can be incorporated with a registered constitution or alternatively can register without one and be automatically governed by the Companies Act 1993.  Officers are recommending a bespoke constitution which is attached (149934158-8500).

4.13.1 The constitution has been aligned to a simple shareholding structure with only one class of share.

4.13.2 This constitution is based on the principle that majority rules and that directors can act without shareholder approval wherever possible, provided decisions are in line with the council approved Statement of Intent.

4.13.3 The constitution has been independently legally reviewed.

          Board of Directors

4.14    Officers are recommending that the board is comprised of five (5) board members with decisions made by a majority vote.  The chairperson will not have a casting vote.  For flexibility, the constitution requires a minimum of three (3) and maximum of seven (7) board members.

4.15    In consultations with Te Tau Ihu iwi, all iwi have requested a seat each on the board.  Officers do not see this as a practical solution due to the effect that this will have on board numbers, finances and required skill sets, but are recommending a direct engagement with iwi partners to ensure they are included in the future governance of Nelson Marina.

4.16    For the remaining four (4) seats the procurement process will be as per the NCC policy – Appointment of Directors/Trustees of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

4.17    It is noted that the policy above is currently under review by Council, and any appointments will be made under the policy current at the time of recruitment.

5.       Options

5.1      Council may either approve the documentation and process for the incorporation of the Management CCO (Preferred Option), approve with changes to the documentation presented, or not approve proceeding.

 

Option 1: Approve the constitution and the incorporation of the Management CCO and the board recruitment process (Preferred Option)

Advantages

·   Follows previous Council decisions to form a Management CCO as the future governance model for Nelson Marina after public consultation

·   Allows officers to progress the company incorporation

·   Allows officers to start the recruitment process

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Nil

Option 2: Approve the constitution and the incorporation of the Management CCO and the board recruitment process with changes to the documentation presented in this report

Advantages

·    Allows detailed input from Council in the formation of the Management CCO documentation and direction

Risks and Disadvantages

·    May delay the implementation of the Management CCO

·    Further legal advice may be required to review any changes to the documentation, so that officers are satisfied that the documentation remains compliant with all Companies Act requirements.

Option 3: Do not approve the constitution and the incorporation of the Management CCO and the board recruitment process

Advantages

·    Nil

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Goes against previous Council decision to form a Management CCO

 

6.       Next Steps

6.1      If the recommendations in this report are approved, the following would be the next steps.

6.1.1   Incorporate a new company to be the Management CCO with the Nelson Marina Constitution (149934158-8500) as the foundation document.

6.1.2   Develop a management agreement, delegations and structure for the operation of the Management CCO.

6.1.3   Appoint a Council approved recruitment company to work through the skills matrix requirements and advertise the board seat positions.

6.1.4   Work in direct partnership with Te Tau Ihu iwi on the options available to ensure that iwi have representation in the future governance of Nelson Marina.

6.1.5   Interview and recruit the board as per the Council policy – Appointment of Directors/Trustees of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

6.1.6   Seek final approval from Council for the new board appointment and confirm Statement of Expectation.

6.1.7   Begin operating the Marina under the Management CCO.

6.1.8   Board to create a Statement of Intent to be presented to and signed off by Council.

6.1.9   Board to take over management of Nelson Marina on behalf of Council.

7.       Proposed Timeline

·   October/November 2022 – Develop skills matrix, recruitment advertisement and advertising strategy with People and Capabilities. Register and incorporate company with approved constitution. Develop management agreement, delegations and structure for and between the Management CCO and Council.

·   January 2022 – Advertise board positions.

·   February 2023 – Shortlist and interview candidates.

·   March 2023 – Present preferred candidates to Council for decision. Statement of Expectation approved by Council.  Management Agreement and delegations approved by Council.

·   March 2023 – Appointment of Directors.

·   April 2023 – First board meeting – induction and transition.

·   May 2023 – Board develop and submit to Council, Statement of Intent.

·   1 July 2023 – New Financial Year – Management CCO takes over the management, operation and responsibility of Nelson Marina.

 

Author:          Nigel Skeggs, Manager Nelson Marina

Attachments

Attachment 1:   149934158-8500 - Nelson Marina CCO Constitution  

 

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Approving the incorporation of a Management CCO will support local democratic decision making and action to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the Nelson community.

The Management CCO will ensure that a suitably qualified board oversees the governance of Nelson Marina on behalf of Council, and in line with the strategic objectives set by Council.

     Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is consistent with Council’s objectives to provide effective governance of community assets.

It will also allow the Marina to enhance the community Marina assets and provide dedicated governance to the organisation. The board of the Marina will still be guided by and accountable to the Council.  Council will still retain full ownership of the assets.

     Risk

 The primary risks for Council in not moving forward with the Governance model of the Marina to a Management CCO are both financial and reputational.  

Having a suitably qualified, commercially orientated Board of Directors with direct responsibility for financial performance of the Marina will significantly reduce these risks to Council.

A Management CCO model will allow for accountability of performance through a third party to Council and ensure that a model is in place to be dynamic enough to achieve said goals in the desired timeframes.

Over time, and as the Marina develops, there is the potential for amended fees and charges for marina services to be set by the CCO.  If this were to occur, having a commercial board appointed to the CCO will assist by bringing additional expertise to decision-making about the setting of fees and charges at appropriate rate, and by sheltering elected members from potential political pressures associated with changes to any marina related charges.

     Financial impact

The immediate costs of setting up a Management CCO will come through the cost of consultants and additional Council staff hours.

Ongoing additional costs will come in the form of Directors Fees, Company Secretary fees and the costs associated with running the board.  

This will be offset by improved financial and operational performance into the future.

     Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance as it requires the formation of a new Governance structure to manage and control a rate payer owned asset.  Regardless of the perceived level of significance however, consultation was undertaken under Section 56 of the Local Government Act.

     Climate Impact

This decision does not have an impact on climate change. Responsiveness to climate impact would become a performance measure for a new Board.

     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Te Tau Ihu iwi have indicated that each of the 8 iwi would like a seat at the governance table.  As Nelson Marina is too small to justify the expense of such a large board, officers have recommended further discussion with iwi on the best way to ensure iwi partnership representation in the recommended governance model.

     Delegations

The Strategic Property and Development Subcommittee has the following delegations to consider the future Governance of Nelson Marina:

Areas of Responsibility:

·    Marina Precinct

Delegations:

·    Powers to decide the developing, monitoring and reviewing of strategies, policies and plans, with final versions to be recommended to Council for approval. 

Powers to Recommend to Council:

·    Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans;

All other matters within the areas of responsibility or any other matters referred to it by Council.

 

Although the decision on the governance of Nelson Marina would normally go through the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee, due to timing pressures this report is being brough directly to Council.

 


Item 22: Nelson Marina Management Council Controlled Organisation Formation: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 23: Approval of the Better Off Funding proposal

 

Council

22 September 2022

 

 

REPORT R27193

Approval of the Better Off Funding proposal

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To approve the funding proposal for Council’s allocated $5.18 million tranche 1 Better Off funding.

2.       Summary

2.1      Under the Government’s Better Off Funding package Council has been allocated a total of $20.72 million, over two tranches, with the application for tranche 1 due by 30 September. Council has agreed the seven projects to be including in the funding package and approval is sought for the attached application to be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs.

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Approval of the Better Off Funding proposal (R27193) and its attachments (1601344813-168); and

2.    Approves the funding proposal (1601344813-168) for Tranche 1 Better Off Funding be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      The 25 August 2022 Council Meeting resolved:

Resolved CL/2022/178/

Agrees that staff prepare a draft funding proposal to the Department of Internal Affairs for Better Off Funding for the following projects;

a.     Te Ara Ō Whakatū City Centre Playspace

b.     Railway Reserve Lighting from Annesbrook to Saxton Field

c.     Arts and Creativity Strategy

d.     Iwi Capacity Building

e.     Community Car Sharing

f.      Whai Oranga Wellbeing Centre

g.     Nelson Tasman Urban Development Agency

to be approved by Council at a meeting in September 2022; and

Agrees that staff also include a rebuild of the ItsOn events website in the funding proposal, to use any funds not used by the six priority projects.

4.2      Staff have prepared the attached application (Attachment 1) for submission to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

 

5.       Funding package

5.1      The attached application outlines the process Council has followed in agreeing its package, estimated costs, timelines and milestones as well as an explanation of how each project meets the DIA criteria and the engagement undertaken with iwi. Amounts have been included for each project to cover project management and administration to avoid pressure on already stretched Council resources. DIA has indicated there will be flexibility to move funding within the package as work progresses and costs and timeframes are better understood.

6.       Options