Agenda of Council - Thursday, 23 May 2024

1. Notes that, subject to the approval of Tasman District Council, the fees and charges at the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit will increase from $212 to $250 (excluding GST) as proposed in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 and 2024/2025 Business Plan; and

2. Notes that there are no changes to the 2024/2025 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Business Plan (1995708647-50); and

3. Notes that there are no changes to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (1995708647-49).

6.2 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 3 May 2024

6.2.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Long Term Plan Submission Feedback Report

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Notes that there are no changes to the 2024/2025 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan (1080325921-246) adopted to populate the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2024 – 2025 Annual Plans; and

2. Notes that there are no changes to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (1080325921-753) adopted to populate the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2024 – 2034 Long Term Plans.

7. Deliberations on the submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation and related matters 36 - 224

Document number R28349

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on the submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation and related matters (R28349) and its attachments (1852948764-1105, 2010958706-11426, 332184083-5473, 332184083-5474, 1852948764‐1007, 1852948764‐1006, 1852948764‐1004, 1852948764‐ 1125); and

Buy-out of private properties affected by slips

2. Approves the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles (Attachment 2: 2010958706-11426); and

3. Agrees to accept the Central Government buy-out support offer, noting the change of up to 17 properties, and apply the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles; and

Council’s forestry approach

4. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species; and

Marina Council Controlled Organisation proposal

5. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to establish an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation for the Nelson Marina by 1 July 2025; and

Housing Reserve Fund changes

6. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund to enable it to be used to provide vulnerable housing support; and

7. Requests the Housing Acceleration Taskforce to develop criteria to allow the Housing Reserve to consider applications relating to vulnerable housing support and for these criteria to be brought to Council for approval; and

All-weather sports turf

8. Approaches Sport Tasman requesting that it undertakes an assessment of the case for investing in an all-weather turf, including but not limited to consideration of affordability, impact on wider sports facilities, timing, environmental impact and location, and reports back to Council with a recommendation on whether and how an all-weather sports turf should be established in Nelson; and

9. Allocates additional funding of up to $20,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for the assessment of the all-weather turf proposal; and

10. Agrees that while the further assessment of the all-weather turf proposal is undertaken that budgets relating to this matter in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 remain as proposed in the Consultation Document, noting the change in name for this funding allocation from ‘All-weather turf’ to ‘Sports ground improvements’; and

11. Requests that staff bring to Council for approval in early 2024/25 the draft scope and terms of reference for engaging Sport Tasman to undertake this work; and

Tāhunanui Beach facilities

12. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to construct a new facility for the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club and to upgrade the changing facilities at Tāhunanui Beach Reserve; and

13. Agrees that Council’s funding contribution to the construction of a new facility for the Nelson Surf Lifesaving Club is capped at either 50% of the total capital cost or $1.65 million, whichever is the lesser amount; and

Arts Hub

14. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2), as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to purchase an existing building and establish an arts hub with fit out to be funded by the community; and

Paru Paru Road car park

15. Approves budget of up to $1.25 million (uninflated) across years 2024/25 and 2025/26 for the construction of a carpark off Paru Paru Road at Rutherford Park, subject to resource consent and necessary approvals; and

16. Notes that the finalised design, budgets and programme will be reported back to Council via the City Revitalisation Taskforce; and

Montreal/Princes Drive Intersection

17. Approves bringing funding of $226,000 (uninflated) capital expenditure per annum forward from years 13-17 of the Draft Infrastructure Strategy to years 4-8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 to accelerate the Montreal/Princes Drive intersection; and

City Centre revitalisation feedback

18. Approves budget of $100,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for city revitalisation initiatives including some funding for the proposed community-led taskforce; and

Tasman Environment Trust

19. Approves budget for the Tasman Environment Trust towards its operating costs, subject to appropriate projects being identified in the Nelson area, as follows:

a. 2024/25 - $10,000 operating expenditure

b. 2025/26 – $20,000 operating expenditure

c. 2026/27 – $30,000 operating expenditure

d. 2027/28 to 2033/34 – $40,000 operating expenditure per annum; and

Multicultural Nelson Tasman

20. Approves dedicated operational funding in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 for Multicultural Nelson Tasman of $5,000 in Year 1 and $25,000 in Years 2 to 10; and

Nelson Provincial Museum’s new ARC (Archives, Research and Collections) Facility

21. Approves the carry forward of $3.04 million funding for the Nelson Provincial Museum’s new Archives, Research and Collections facility from 2023/24 to 2024/25 and 2025/26 with the funds divided equally between the two years; and

Recommendations from Saxton Field Committee 17 May 2024

Note: Staff do not support Clause 22a

22. Approves the amendments to the Saxton Field Capital Works Programme, as consulted through Nelson City and Tasman District Council’s Draft Long Term Plans 2024-2034, following consideration of submissions, as follows:

a. Netball Surface Renewal – bring forward $27,500 of the total surface renewal budget ($211,356) from 2027/28 to 2024/25 to fund 50% of the feasibility study for the proposed netball court roof

b. Play Facilities – bring forward $15,000 budget from 2028/29 to 2024/25

c. Play Facilities – bring forward $250,000 budget from 2029/30 to 2026/27

d. Harakeke Green Irrigation and Subsurface Drainage – defer the full budget from 2025/26 to year 2027/28

e. Harakeke Green Cricket Wicket Blocks – defer the full budget from 2026/27 to 2028/29

f. Saxton Entrance Development – defer the full budget from 2024/25 to 2026/27

g. Baseball Diamond – move $100,000 from the baseball diamond budget from 2024/25 to the play facilities budget in 2025/26

h. Noting that this does not increase the budget for capital works at Saxton Field but merely reallocates and rephases proposed budgets

i. Noting that the recommendations are also subject to approval by Tasman District Council; and

Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp

23. Allocates budget of $15,000 operating expenditure in 2025/26 for the Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp investigation; and

Adam Chamber Music Festival

24. Approves that the Adam Chamber Music Festival current level of biennial events funding be included as a line item in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 across the ten years, noting that biennial accountability reports would be provided to Council staff and a more in-depth performance review would be undertaken after every third festival event and brought to a Council meeting for consideration; and

25. Approves reduction of the allocation for the Nelson Events Fund economic component by the same amount as proposed to be allocated to the Adam Chamber Music Festival line item in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034; and

Funding for Sister City country relationships

26. Approves a total funding provision of $8,000 operating expenditure in Year 1 and $12,000 thereafter to support Nelson’s existing sister city relationships; and

27. Approves $8,000 annual operating expenditure to support Sister City Coordinating Group activity and any future sister city relationships in the United States of America; and

28. Approves funding of $5,000 operating expenditure to be added to years 2, 5, and 8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 as a provision for future Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits; and

Financial Strategy

29. Approves replenishing the General Emergency Fund by $17 million over the last four years of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, resulting in an average additional 1% rates increase in 2030/31, 2031/32, 2032/33 and 2033/34; and

30. Requests that staff add footnotes to the first reference to the rates cap in the Long Term Plan document and the Financial Strategy referring readers to the growth and inflation assumptions in the Significant Forecasting Assumptions; and

Additional matters raised in submissions

31. Approves the approach to additional matters raised in submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document as included in the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (1852948764-1105); and

Rates affordability

32. Endorses Council’s overall approach of medium service cuts and medium rates increases as outlined in the Consultation Document and Draft Financial Strategy, subject to specific deliberations decisions; and

Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal/upgrade and Washington Valley upgrade

33. Allocates (uninflated) budget of $3 million capital expenditure in 2024/25, $6.5 million capital expenditure in 2025/26 and $500,000 capital expenditure in 2026/27 for the Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal and upgrade project; and

34. Approves budget changes to Washington Valley project Stage 4 outlined sections 7.4 to 7.6 of this Report R28349; and

Millers Acre regional bus hub

35. Allocates budget provision for Millers Acre regional bus hub project $2.7 million capital expenditure in 2024/25 and $900,000 capital expenditure in 2025/26, subject to receiving a 51% NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi Financial Assistance Rate subsidy; and

Public transport

Recommendation from Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee 13 May 2024

36. Approves a five percent (5%) fare increase on Bee Card fares effective 1 July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and

37. Delegates authority for the Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee to propose and determine fare increases up to inflation changes as reflected in Public Transport Contract Indices (allowing for rounding) in the future, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and

38. Approves the updated forecasted Public Transport Costs for the ten (10)-year period from July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and.

Saxton Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade

39. Allocates budget of $200,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for Saxton Creek Stage 4; and

Regulatory Services vehicles and equipment

40. Allocates additional budget of $220,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for regulatory services vehicles and equipment; and

Opera in the park

41. Approves a temporary overdraft of up to $175,000, if needed, in the Nelson Events Fund in order to adjust the timing of Opera in the Park across the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, noting that the overdraft will be repaid within the next financial year and will have no impact on the number of events the Fund can support; and

Carry forwards from 2023/24

42. Approves the 2023/24 capital budget carry forwards to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 capital expenditure budgets, as set out in Attachment 3 (332184083-5473) of Report R28349; and

43. Approves the August 2022 severe weather event recovery expenditure carry forwards, as set out in Attachment 4 (332184083-5474) of Report R28349; and

44. Approves the operating expenditure budgets carry forwards, totalling $4,225,000, to Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034; and

Other changes since the Long Term Plan consultation

45. Approves changes to the draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 budgets resulting from Council decisions, corrections and timing changes as outlined at sections 7.24 to 7.27 of this Report R28349; and

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

46. Agrees that no changes are needed the Draft Significance and Engagement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 5 (1852948764‐1007) of Report R28349 as the final Significance and Engagement Policy; and

Draft Revenue and Financing Policy

47. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 6 (1852948764‐1006) of Report R28349 as the final Revenue and Financing Policy; and

Rates Remission Policy

48. Amends the Draft Rates Remission Policy to add a 50% remission for Community Housing Providers and Kaumātua Housing to the Storm Recovery Rate as outlined in paragraph 8.33 of this Report R28349; and

49. Amends the Draft Rates Remission Policy wording in the ‘Procedure’ section of the ‘Remission of charges for excess water arising from leaks’ as outlined in paragraph 8.35 of this Report R28349; and

Rates Postponement Policy

50. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Rates Postponement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 7 (1852948764‐1004) of Report R28349 as the final Rates Postponement Policy; and

Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land

51. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 8 (1852948764‐1125) of Report R28349 as the final Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land.

8. Deliberations on the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 225 - 314

Document number R28505

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (R28505) and its attachment (Draft Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (336940202-11303); and

2. Approves one change be made to the proposed Nelson City Council Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (336940202-11303) in response to the submissions received during the submission period as follows:

Delayed payment

a. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Policy on Development Contributions 2024 to provide for delayed payment.

Developers share of growth costs

b. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Policy on Development Contributions 2024 with respect to the portion of costs attributed to growth.

Exemption for social housing developments

c. Approves a change to the provisions of the Draft Policy on Development Contributions 2024 with respect to the removal of the Crown in section 7.1.

Treatment of Retirement Villages

d. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Policy on Development Contributions 2024 with respect to the assessment of retirement villages.

3. Notes that as a consequence of decisions on the Long Term Plan, amendments may be required to the projects listed in the Policy on Development Contributions and the overall quantum of the contributions sought; and

4. Approves that the proposed Nelson City Council Policy on Development Contributions 2024 be taken to the Council meeting of 27 June 2024 for final adoption by Council.

9. Deliberations on the schedule of fees and charges 2024/25 315 - 336

Document number R28441

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on the schedule of fees and charges 2024/25 (R28441) and its attachment (1598046314-141, 1598046314-151); and

2. Confirms the approach to adopting changes to the schedule of fees and charges 2024/25 (1598046314-151), as outlined in paragraph 7.1 of this report.

Karakia Whakamutanga

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Wednesday 8 May 2024, commencing at 9.00a.m. to hear submissions to draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034

Present: His Worship the Mayor N Smith (Chairperson), Councillors M Anderson, M Benge, T Brand, M Courtney, J Hodgson, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Mayor), P Rainey, C Rollo, R Sanson, T Skinner and A Stallard

In Attendance: Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Acting Group Manager Infrastructure (D Light), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Senior Governance Adviser (A Andrews), Governance Adviser (A Bryce) and Assistant Governance Adviser (M Taylor)

Apologies : Councillor Kahu Paki Paki

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

An apology was received from Councillor Paki Paki.

Resolved CL/2024/093

That the Council

2. Receives and accepts the apology from Councillor Paki Paki.

Sanson/Courtney Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

An updated hearing schedule was tabled.

3. Interests

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

4. Hearing of submissions on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and related consultations

Document number R28392, agenda pages 3 - 899 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/094
	*That the Council* 1. Receives the report Hearing of submissions on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and related consultations (R28392) and its attachments (1852948764-1057; 282346696-24641 and 282346696-24642); and *2. Accepts the late submissions and additional information (tabled at the meeting) on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and parallel consultations.*
Sanson/Courtney Carried
Attachments 1 1982984479-7501 Council - Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Hearing - Additional Speakers Submissions 2 1982984479-7502 Council - Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Hearing - Additional Information

4.2 Lucinda Blackley-Jimson - Tasman Bays Heritage Trust | Nelson Provincial Museum - 1078

Lucinda Blackley-Jimson, provided a presentation (282346696-24666) and spoke to her submission noting the cost of inflation and council contributions. She answered questions on the percentage of contingency fund and funding from Nelson and Tasman Councils.

4.3 Tim Bayley - 1251

Tim Bayley, spoke to his submission.

4.4 Karen Wilson and Rodger Curry - Blind Citizens NZ Nelson Branch - 1509

Karen Wilson and Rodger Curry, spoke to their submission and highlighted the need for an accessibility strategy and an accessible communication policy.

4.5 Ben Bushell - Community Compost Nelson - 1363

Ben Bushell, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on alternatives to collection of food waste.

4.6 Oliver Boyd - Summerset Group Holdings Ltd - 979

Oliver Boyd, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on rates disparity of retirement villages.

The meeting was adjourned from 9.58a.m. until 10.04a.m.

4.7 Jud Hadfield - The Sandpit Incorporated - 979

Jud Hadfield, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on lease of land from Nelson City Council.

4.8 Noah Hosie - Nelson Surf Life Saving Club - 82 & 1026

Noah Hosie, spoke to his submission and noted the importance of surf education. He answered questions on funding, volunteering, facilities and training.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.35a.m. until 10.45a.m.

4.9 Adam Burwell - 773

Adam Burwell, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on alternative funding models.

4.10 Bruno Lemke - Nelson Tasman Community Transport Trust - 1046

Bruno Lemke, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on service and frequency of service.

4.11 Alastair Cotterill - 1415

Alastair Cotterill, spoke to his submission.

4.12 Fiona Wilson & Sarah- Jane Weir - Nelson Regional Development Agency - 1476

Fiona Wilson & Sarah- Jane Weir, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on tourism within the region, impact of reduced funding, communication strategy and long term vision.

4.13 Jace Hobbs – 1266

Jace Hobbs, spoke to his submission and noted energy density of various renewable energy sources. He answered questions on the future of electric batteries and challenges of hydrogen aircrafts.

4.14 Carrie Mozena - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust - 1502

Carrie Mozena, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on rates payment on titles and housing reserve fund.

The meeting was adjourned from 12.11p.m. until 1.00p.m.

4.15 Julie Catchpole - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatu Trust – 1056

Suter Art Gallery Director, Julie Catchpole, provided a presentation (282346696-24671) and spoke to her submission. She answered questions on improving rising electricity costs, funding depreciation from council and operation hours.

4.16 Kevin Rooke - Tasman Hang Gliding & Paragliding Club Inc - 1062

Kevin Rooke, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on council contact connections for the club, the ideal size of the landing pad and how important the emergency landing pad was to the sport in Nelson.

4.17 John Fitchett - 1225

John Fitchett, spoke to his submission.

4.18 Roger Gibbons - 1373

Roger Gibbons, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on debt and tendering options.

4.19 Jane du Feu - Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka Māori Cultural Council - 1066

Jane du Feu, provided a presentation (282346696-24672) and spoke to her submission. She answered questions on the hosting locations and possible venues, Te Matatini 2027, teams that would be attending and funding.

4.20 Matthew Ball - Nelson Mountain Bike Club - 1071

Matthew Ball provided a presentation (282346696-24664) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on current land owner arrangements, MOUs, the current lease and aspirations on future development.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.27p.m. until 2.30p.m.

4.21 Katrina Hollingworth & Tina Rouhoff - Nelson Lawn Tennis Club - 1126

Katrina Hollingworth & Tina Rouhoff, provided a presentation (282346696-24668) and spoke to their submission. They answered questions on extensions of the Tennis Club lease and Nelson City Council’s potential financial assistance.

4.22 Iain Sheves - Wakatu Incorporation - 1445

Iain Sheves, spoke to the submission. He answered questions on the expectation of Nelson City Council contributing to the capital costs of the climatorium and the potential civic/community hub collaboration with the climatorium.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2024/095
	*That the Council* 1. Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.
Hodgson/Rollo Carried

4.23 Bruce Gilkison & Marta Klarlik-Neale - Businesses for Climate Action Trust - 1477

Bruce Gilkison & Marta Klarlik-Neale, provided a presentation ( 282346696-24668) and spoke to their submission. They answered questions on committed funding and funding grant submissions.

4.24 Karen Driver - 1324

Karen Driver, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on home composting, emissions reduction through kitchen waste schemes.

4.25 John-Paul Pochin & Amy Kennedy - Climate Liberation Aotearoa Whakatu - 1109

John-Paul Pochin & Amy Kennedy, spoke to their submission and tabled speaking notes.

The meeting was adjourned from 3.29p.m. until 3.38p.m.

4.26 Belinda Crisp - 1405

Belinda Crisp, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on lost revenue to the city.

4.27 Felicity Palmer, Marie Lindaya, Mary Bronsteter & Ramiesha Perera - Multicultural Nelson Tasman – 1478

Felicity Palmer, Marie Lindaya, Mary Bronsteter & Ramiesha Perera, tabled additional information, provided a presentation (282346696-24661) and spoke to their submission. They answered questions on the central government changes and the multi-cultural hub project.

4.28 Peter Olorenshaw - The Nelson Transport Strategy Group (NELSUST) Inc - 1229

Peter Olorenshaw, spoke to his submission.

4.29 Gaire Thompson - 1072

Gaire Thompson, spoke to his submission.

4.30 Ayla Turner, Finn Kerby-Pinguet, Bailey Main & Malachi Ng - Nelson Youth Council - 1147

Finn Kerby-Pinguet and Ayla Turner spoke to their submission. They answered questions on the proposed Youth Hub, their vision for a combined venue for the library, community hub and civic offices and their vision for an Arts Hub venue.

4.31 Philip Thompson & Kent Inglis - Nelson Rugby Football Working Party and FC Nelson – 1486 and 1487

Philip Thompson & Kent Inglis, provided a presentation (282346696-24663) and spoke to their submission. They answered questions on their proposed artificial turf, the clubroom gateway facility and club hub facilities.

4.32 Sky Davies - Tasman Environmental Trust - 1105

Sky Davies, provided a presentation (282346696-24682) and spoke to her submission. She answered questions on council grants and opportunities for reforestation.

Tabled Documents Day 1 Long Term Plan Hearings (8 May 2024)

The following documents were provided in support on Day 1 of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 LTP Hearing Schedule 08May2024

2 1056 - Julie Catchpole - The Suter Art Gallery

3 1066 - Jane du Feu - Te Matatini 2027 PP final

4 1071 - Matthew Ball - presentation

5 1078 - Lucinda Jimson - Tasman Bays Heritage Trust - Presentation 8 May 2024

6 1099-John-Paul Pochin and Ami Kennedy - Speaking Notes

7 1105 - Sky Davies - presentation

8 1126 - Katrina Hollingworth - presentation

9 1477 - Bruce Gilkison - B4CA Mission Zero presentation

10 1478 - Felicity Palmer - Multicultural Nelson Tasman - Community Support MNT NCC LTP 2024

11 1478 - Felicity Palmer - Multicultural Nelson Tasman - PRESENTATION - NCC Long Term Plan

12 1487 - Philip Thompson - FC Nelson

13 1513-Seb Head - Submission

The meeting was adjourned at 5.18p.m. and reconvened at 9.00a.m. on Thursday 09 May 2024.

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Reconvened in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 9 May 2024, commencing at 9.00a.m. to hear submissions to draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034

Present: His Worship the Mayor N Smith (Chairperson), Councillors M Anderson, T Brand, M Courtney, J Hodgson, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Mayor), P Rainey, C Rollo, R Sanson, T Skinner and A Stallard

In Attendance: Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Senior Governance Adviser (A Andrews), Governance Adviser (A Bryce) and Assistant Governance Adviser (M Taylor)

Apologies : Councillors Matthew Benge and Kahu Paki Paki

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

5. Apologies

Apologies were received from Councillors Benge and Paki Paki.

Resolved CL/2024/096
	*That the Council* 1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillors Paki Paki and Benge. 2. Accepts additional information (tabled at the meeting) on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and parallel consultations.
Courtney/Hodgson Carried
Attachments 1 Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Additional Speakers Submissions Part 2 2 Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Additional Information Part 2

6. Confirmation of Order of Business

An updated hearing schedule was tabled.

7. Interests

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

Councillor Brand declared an interest in submission #626 and left the meeting at the time it was being heard.

Councillor Sanson declared an interest in submission #1495 and left the meeting at the time it was being heard.

Councillor Rollo declared an interest in submission #1505 and left the meeting at the time it was being heard.

Councillor Anderson declared an interest in submission #864 and left the meeting at the time it was being heard.

4. Hearing of submissions on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and related consultations (Agenda Item 4 continued)

Document number R28392, agenda pages 3 - 899 refer.

4.33 Dan McGuire – 28

Dan McGuire, spoke to his submission.

4.34 Ed Shuttleworth - Sport Tasman - 1027

Ed Shuttleworth, provided a presentation (282346696-24681) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on Sports Tasman’s surveys that could aid Council in understanding community sporting needs, community accessibility assistance and development of facilities.

4.35 Bryce Easton – 141 - Did not arrive.

4.36 Andrew Paul Kenton - 22

Andrew Paul Kenton, tabled his submission with corrections and spoke to the submission.

4.37 Geoff Moffett - 13

Geoff Moffett, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on EQCs.

4.38 Katherine Malcolm - 878

Katherine Malcolm, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on commuting cycle ways.

4.39 Sue Thomas - 1315

Sue Thomas, spoke to her submission.

4.40 Frank Freeman – 876

Frank Freeman, spoke to his submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 9.56a.m.

The meeting adjourned from 9.57a.m. until 10.02a.m.

4.41 Nic Van Hattum – 137 - Did not arrive.

4.42 Unit Commander Captain Webber and Derek Nees - Nelson Cadet Unit - 942

Unit Commander, Captain Sophie Webber, and Derek Nees, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on community connections and assisting, and financial hardship cadet fees.

4.43 Les Edwards and Nic Smith (President) - Marist Rugby Football Club (Nelson) Inc - 150

President, Nic Smith, and Club Capability Manager, Les Edwards, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on surf lifesaving communications, their current lease agreement ending in 2030 and a potential move to Tahunanui.

Attendance: His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith left the meeting at 10.25a.m. at which point Deputy Mayor, Rohan O’Neill-Stevens assumed.

4.44 Bill Dahlberg - 1422

Bill Dahlberg, provided a presentation (282346696-24676) and spoke to his submission. He answered a question on the removal of sawdust at Tahunanui beach.

4.45 Victoria Sharp and Trevor Marshall - Santa Parade Trust – 3 & 4

Chairman, Trevor Marshall, and Treasurer and Secretary of the Santa Parade Trust, Victoria Sharp, spoke to their submission and provided a video link (https://youtu.be/agIhI7NecQQ?si=FE_rBYaEzbyYKqSs ). They answered questions on the importance of receiving funding for the Santa Parade, event barriers and grant requests.

4.46 Ali Jamieson - The NZ MTB Rally – 252

Ali Jamieson, tabled a presentation (282346696-24685) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on mountainbike trails surrounding Nelson, commercial value of events in Nelson and events that had been lost due to lease/consent issues.

The meeting adjourned from 11.17a.m. until 11.22a.m. at which time Councillor Skinner joined the meeting.

4.47 Sally Mottram-Dubieniec - 6

Sally Mottram-Dubieniec, spoke to her submission and tabled speaking notes. She answered questions on northwest Nelson cycle way and north Nelson bus stops.

4.48 Bianca Farmer - 950

Bianca Farmer, provided a presentation (282346696-24674) and tabled speaking notes. She spoke to her submission and answered questions on accessibility.

4.49 Stephen Foster - 626

Councillor Brand had previously declared an interest and stood back from the table for this speaker.

Stephen Foster, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes. He answered questions on in-house management advantages and the benefits of combined entry fees and lane charges.

4.50 Richard Ussher - Cable Bay Adventure Park Ltd - 331

Richard Ussher, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes.

4.51 Jill Ford - 353

Jill Ford, provided a presentation (282346696-24675) and spoke to her submission. She answered questions on composting practices.

4.52 Daniel Jackson - 933

Daniel Jackson, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on uniform and land-based charges.

The meeting adjourned from 12.20p.m. until 1.00p.m. at which time Councillor Skinner was not in attendance.

4.53 Gordon Shaw - Nelson Netball Centre Inc – 895

Gordon Shaw, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on funding requirements, feasibility study and roofing.

4.54 Hemi Toia - Koata Ltd & Ngati Koata Group - 571

Chief Executive, Koata Ltd and Board Director, Ngati Koata - Hemi Toia, spoke to his submission.

4.55 Elizabeth Bean on behalf of Gillian Wratt - 956

Trust Administrator, Nelson Cycle Trust - Elizabeth Bean, spoke to Gillian Wratt’s submission. She answered questions on sources of funding and transportation.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 1.23p.m.

4.56 Emily Osborne - Parents for Active Transport – Atawhai - 1490

Emily Osborne provided a presentation (282346696-24683) and spoke to the submission. She answered questions on previous work on cycle ways and cycle network.

4.57 Douglas Jackson - Skate Nelson Bays - 642

Douglas Jackson, provided a presentation (282346696-24670) and spoke to his submission. She answered questions on upgrades to the current facilities and accessibility of the sport.

4.58 Ian Williams and Zinnia Foster - Hospitality NZ - 952

President, Hospitality NZ - Ian Williams and General Manager, Hospitality NZ - Zinnia Foster, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on liquor licenses, application processes and parking.

Attendance: Councillor Anderson joined the meeting at 1.59p.m.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.06p.m. until 2.14p.m.

4.59 Zola Rose - Common Ground – 675 – Did not arrive.

4.60 Lynn Cadenhead - 977

Lynn Cadenhead, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on rates remission.

4.61 Ali Kahwaji, Pauline Agache and Allize Mangar - Cultural Conversations – 864

Councillor Anderson had previously declared an interest and stood back from the table to support the speakers.

Ali Kahwaji, Pauline Agache and Allize Mangar, provided a presentation (282346696-24684) and tabled speaking notes . They spoke to their submission and answered questions on funding, facility, membership and challenges faced by the organisation.

4.62 Tony Haddon - 1500

Tony Haddon, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes.

4.63 William Samuels - 1491

William Samuels, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on youth hub facility and funding.

4.64 Mel Barker - 801

Mel Barker, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on membership fees.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2024/097
	*That the Council* 1. Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.
O'Neill-Stevens/Hodgson Carried

4.65 Harry Pearson – 559

Harry Pearson, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on the consultation process and commercial food waste.

The meeting was adjourned from 3.04p.m. until 3.19p.m at which time His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Smith returned to the meeting and assumed Chair.

4.66 Barbara Markland - NZ China Friendship Society - 661

Barbara Markland, Gail Collingwood and Bill Findlater spoke to their submission. They answered questions on partnership with Iwi and funding.

Attendance: Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stevens left the meeting at 3.20p.m.

4.67 Leeson Baldey - 761

Leeson Baldey, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on challenges to the scheme, funding from central government and the average cost of insulation.

Attendance: Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stevens joined the meeting at 3.38p.m.

4.68 Peter Taylor - 1216

Peter Taylor, spoke to his submission.

4.69 Andrew Spittal - CCKV Maitai Dev Co - 691

Andrew Spittal, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on flood modelling, funding challenges and cost implications.

4.70 Jonas Asmussen - 827

Jonas Asmussen, spoke to the submission. He answered questions on housing.

4.71 Steven Gray and Tom Kennedy - Friends of the Maitai - 838

Steven Gray and Tom Kennedy, provided a presentation (282346696-24677) and spoke to their submission. They answered questions on forestry in the area.

The meeting was adjourned from 4.22p.m. until 4.29p.m

4.72 Rowan Hick – 560

Rowan Hick, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on membership fees.

4.73 Daniel Levy - 1246

Daniel Levy, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes. He answered questions on the need for significant investment in the Marina area.

4.74 Scott Burnett - Forest & Bird - 1495

Councillor Sanson had previously declared an interest and stood back from the table for this speaker.

Scott Burnett, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on weed and pest management, opportunities for Nelson City Council,

4.75 Jacinda Stevenson + TBCA Chair - Tahunanui Business and Community Assn – 1433

Councillor Rollo had previously declared an interest and stood back from the table for this speaker.

Chair, Tahunanui Business and Community Assn – Alec Woods and Jacinda Stevenson, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on buyout recommendations, affordable housing and community consultation.

Attendance: Councillor Courtney left the meeting at 5.17p.m.

4.76 Tahunanui Community Hub Chair, Jacinda Stevenson and Campbell Rollo - Tahunanui Community Hub – 1505

Councillor Rollo had previously declared an interest and stood back from the table to support the speaker.

Chair, Tahunanui Community Hub - Jacinda Stevenson and Campbell Rollo, spoke to their submission.

4.77 Chris Whitaker - 1033

Chris Whitaker, spoke to the submission. He answered questions on cycleway projects, speed limits, the impact of Nelson Regional Development Agency and recommendations to increase mode shift to bikes.

Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting at 5.44p.m.

Tabled Documents Day 2 Long Term Plan Hearings (9 May 2024)

The following documents were provided on Day 2 in support of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 LTP Hearing Schedule 09May2024

2 6 - Sally Mottram-Dubieniec - Speaking Notes

3 252 - Ali Jamieson - additional information

4 331 - Richard Ussher - Speaking Notes

5 353 - Jill Ford - presentation

6 559 - Harry Pearson speaking notes

7 624 - Douglas Jackson - Olympic Skatepark for Nelson

8 626 - Steve Foster - Speakers' Notes and presentation notes - Nelson Swimming Pools

9 838 - Friends Of the Maitai presentation

10 864 - Cultural Conversions

11 864 - Tanya Nock - Speaking Notes

12 950 - Bianca Farmer - Disability playgrounds

13 950 - Bianca Farmer - Speaking Notes

14 975 - Andrew Paul Kenton submission and notes

15 1027 - Ed Shuttleworth - LTP Nelson Sport Tasman

16 1246 - Daniel Levy - Speaking Notes

17 1422 - Bill Dahlberg - LTPlan 2024-34 -7 May 2024

18 1490 - Emily Osbourne - Parents for Active Transport, Atawhai

19 1500 Tony Haddon - Speaking Notes

The meeting was adjourned at 5.47p.m. and reconvened at 9.00a.m. on Friday 10 May 2024.

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Reconvened in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Friday 10 May 2024, commencing at 9.00a.m. to hear submissions to draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034

Present: His Worship the Mayor N Smith (Chairperson), Councillors M Anderson, T Brand, M Courtney, J Hodgson, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Mayor), P Rainey, C Rollo, R Sanson, T Skinner and A Stallard

In Attendance: Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Acting Group Manager Infrastructure (D Light), Senior Governance Adviser (A Andrews), Governance Adviser (A Bryce) and Assistant Governance Adviser (M Taylor)

Apologies : Councillors Kahu Paki Paki and Matthew Benge

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

8. Apologies

An apology was received from Councillors Benge and Paki Paki.

Resolved CL/2024/098

That the Council

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillors Benge and Paki Paki.

His Worship the Mayor Carried

9. Confirmation of Order of Business

An updated hearing schedule was tabled.

10. Interests

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

4. Hearing of submissions on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and related consultations (Agenda Item 4 continued)

Document number R28392, agenda pages 3 - 899 refer.

4.78 Rachel Boyack - MP for Nelson - 1091

MP for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, spoke to her submission (tabled). She answered questions on the proposed new Nelson Hospital.

4.79 Kevin Newton - RPC10 – Did not arrive.

4.80 Neville Male - 959

Neville Male, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on the city revitalisation project.

4.81 Derek Shaw - 1045

Derek Shaw, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on replantation, pest management and waterways management.

4.82 Joanna Plows - 1070

Joanna Plows, tabled additional information and tabled speaking notes. She spoke to her submission and answered questions on fluoridation.

4.83 Richard Quentin - 1177

Richard Quentin, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on the mountain bike culture outside of Nelson.

4.84 Graeme Ferrier - 945

Graeme Ferrier, tabled additional information and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on environmental risk, extreme whether events and community reduction targets.

4.85 Gail Collingwood - 679

Gail Collingwood, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on the Sister City relationships.

The meeting adjourned from 10.12a.m. until 10.18a.m. at which time Councillor Skinner left the meeting.

4.86 Sophie Kelly - Nelson Music Festival Trust - 602

Director, Adam Chamber Music Festival, Sophie Kelly, spoke to the submission. She answered questions on event funding and future reporting requirements.

4.87 Nicki Berkett - 24

Nicki Berkett, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on an accessibility playground location and the proposed playground development in Nelson.

4.88 Benjamin Plows-Kolff – 841

Benjamin Plows-Kolff, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on composting.

4.89 Alistair Matthew - 733

Alistair Matthew, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes. He answered questions on financials, mountain bike trail access and lease arrangements.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 11.00a.m.

4.90 Nick Kingstone - Whenua Iti Outdoors - 865

Nick Kingstone, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on funding requests to alternative sources.

4.91 Lindsay Wood - Resilienz Ltd - 1482

Lindsay Wood, tabled additional information and provided a presentation (282346696-24687) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on appropriate climate change responses, noting practical steps needed to be taken to deliver on the climate change response and informed community awareness.

The meeting adjourned from 11.27a.m. until 11.37a.m.

4.92 Jenny Wraight - 591

Jenny Wraight, spoke to her submission and tabled speaking notes.

4.93 Chris Wraight - 592

Chris Wraight, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes. He answered questions on his red zoned home.

4.94 Jesse Dickson-Paterson - 867

Jesse Dickson-Paterson, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on his preferred location for the proposed artificial turf, how many he would like to see and his experience with existing artificial turfs.

Attendance: Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stevens left the meeting at 11.55a.m.

4.95 Vicki Smith - 1040

Vicki Smith, spoke to her submission and tabled speaking notes. She answered questions on the refinery building, Halifax building and community artworks.

4.96 Richard Popenhagen - 1432

Richard Popenhagen, spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes. He answered questions on the eco design services that Nelson City Council previously offered and how important this service was for the community.

4.97 Steve Cross - 941

Steve Cross, provided a presentation (282346696-24686) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on the Long Term Plan additional infrastructure budget, debt and interest.

4.98 Murray Hewson & Jo Chamberlain - 569 & 570

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 12:15p.m.

Murray Hewson & Jo Chamberlain, provided a presentation (282346696-24688) and tabled speaking notes.

The meeting adjourned from 12.30p.m. until 1.14p.m. at which time Councillors O’Neill-Stevens, Rainey and Skinner were not present.

4.99 Ben Clark - 639

Ben Clark, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on the Nelson Surf Lifesaving facility and location.

4.100 Aaron Adcock and Garry Adcock - Toi Toi Grove Limited - 537 &
DCC6

Aaron Adcock and Garry Adcock, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on housing on the Toi Toi Grove subdivision and roading.

Attendance: Councillor Rainey joined the meeting at 1.22p.m.

4.101 Aaron Adcock and Garry Adcock - Kohatu Park - 604 & 862

Aaron Adcock and Garry Adcock, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on funding and public perception of projects.

4.102 Gael Gordon - 20

Gael Gordon, spoke to her submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 1.49p.m.

4.103 Anne Rush and Tracy Allan - Make/Shift Spaces - 872

Anne Rush and Tracy Allan, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on funding and sport facilities.

4.104 Emily Jones - Nelson South Swim Club - 1175

Emily Jones, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on pricing at pools.

The meeting adjourned from 2.13p.m. until 2.17p.m.

4.105 Henry Jones & Phoebe Diamond - 1189 & 1469

Henry Jones & Phoebe Diamond, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on Nelson South Swim Club membership fees, their routine and the importance of sport.

4.106 Rob Steel & Jesse Peterson - Kāinga Ora - 944

Senior Development Manager, Rob Steel & Acting Director, Jesse Peterson, spoke to their submission. They answered questions on payment of development contributions, housing intensification and subsidising rubbish collection.

4.107 Harmaan Madon (for Matthew Jackson) - Alimentary Systems – 1475

Harmaan Madon, provided a presentation (282346696-24680) and spoke to his submission. He answered questions on work with mana whenua.

4.108 Glenys MacLellan - 1001

Glenys MacLellan, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on renewable electricity generation.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2024/099
	*That the Council* 1. Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.
Sanson/Rollo Carried

4.109 Peta Spooner - The Wakatu Dance Theatre Trust - 896

Peta Spooner, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on funding, communication with council staff, safety and their facility.

4.110 Debs Martin - The Nature Conservancy/Kotahitanga mo te Taiao Alliance – 899

Programme Manager, Kotahitanga mo te Taiao Alliance, Debs Martin, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on funding.

4.111 Zola Rose - Common Ground - 675

Zola Rose, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on opportunities for affordable housing.

The meeting adjourned from 3.31p.m. until 3.36p.m.

4.112 Faye Wulff - Community Art Works - 1269

Faye Wulff, spoke to her submission and tabled speaking notes. She answered questions on facility, funding, safety and building options.

4.113 Leigh Manson and Shane Graham - Te Tau Ihu Community Development Agency - 1448

Project Lead, Te Tau Ihu Community Development Agency - Leigh Manson and Penny Molnar, spoke to their submission.

Attendance: Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stevens returned to the meeting at 4.03p.m.

4.114 Richard Brudvik-Lindner – 982

Richard Brudvik-Lindner, spoke to his submission. He answered questions on rates increases and civic investment.

4.115 Joanna Santa-Barbara - Nelson Tasman Climate Forum - 1494

Joanna Santa-Barbara, spoke to her submission. She answered questions on emissions management.

Tabled Documents Day 3 Long Term Plan Hearings (10 May 2024)

The following documents were provided on Day 3 in support of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 LTP Hearing Schedule 10May2024

2 569 - Jo Chamberlain - NCC Presentation

3 569&570 - Murray Hewson and Jo Chamberlain - Speaking Notes

4 591 - Jenny Wraight - Speaking Notes

5 592 - Chris Wraight - Speaking Notes

6 733 - Alistair Matthew.- Speaking Notes

7 941 - Steve Cross - 2024 LTP

8 945 - Graeme Ferrer - Speaking Notes

9 1040 - Vicki Smith - Speaking Notes

10 1070 - Joanna Plows – Additional information

11 1070 - Joanna Plows - Speaking Notes

12 1091 - Rachel Boyack - Speaking Notes

13 1269 - Faye Wolff - Speaking Notes

14 1432 - Richard Popenhagen - Speaking Notes

15 1475 - Harmaan Madin - Alimentary Systems

16 1482 - Lindsay Wood - Notes

17 1482 - Lindsay Wood - Presentation

Karakia Whakamutanga

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.43p.m

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

Resolved

Item 7: Deliberations on the submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation and related matters

Council

23 May 2024

Report Title: Deliberations on the submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation and related matters

Report Author: Louis Dalzell - Senior Policy Adviser

Report Authorisers: Nicky McDonald - Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Nikki Harrison – Group Manager Corporate Services

Report Number: R28349

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To deliberate on the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and various related consultations.

2. Summary

2.1 Council consulted on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document, and related consultations, from 27 March to 28 April 2024. At the time of writing this report, Council has received 1537 submissions and 137 submitters requested to speak at the hearings on 8, 9 and 10 May 2024.

2.2 Council, having heard submissions, must now consider the matters raised by the community and any new issues which have arisen that may impact on the Long Term Plan or other related consultations.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Buy-out of private properties affected by slips

2. Approves the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles (Attachment 2: 2010958706-11426); and

3. Agrees to accept the Central Government buy-out support offer, noting the change of up to 17 properties, and apply the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles; and

Council’s forestry approach

4. Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species; and

Marina CCO proposal

Housing Reserve Fund changes

All-weather sports turf

9. Allocates additional funding of up to $20,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for the assessment of the all-weather turf proposal; and

11. Requests that staff bring to Council for approval in early 2024/25 the draft scope and terms of reference for engaging Sport Tasman to undertake this work; and

Tāhunanui Beach facilities

Arts Hub

Paru Paru Road car park

16. Notes that the finalised design, budgets and programme will be reported back to Council via the City Revitalisation Taskforce; and

Montreal/Princes Drive Intersection

City Centre revitalisation feedback

18. Approves budget of $100,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for city revitalisation initiatives including some funding for the proposed community-led taskforce; and

Tasman Environment Trust

19. Approves budget for the Tasman Environment Trust towards its operating costs, subject to appropriate projects being identified in the Nelson area, as follows:

a. 2024/25 - $10,000 operating expenditure

b. 2025/26 – $20,000 operating expenditure

c. 2026/27 – $30,000 operating expenditure

d. 2027/28 to 2033/34 – $40,000 operating expenditure per annum; and

Multicultural Nelson Tasman

20. Approves dedicated operational funding in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 for Multicultural Nelson Tasman of $5,000 in Year 1 and $25,000 in Years 2 to 10; and

Nelson Provincial Museum’s new ARC (Archives, Research and Collections) Facility

Recommendations from Saxton Field Committee 17 May 2024

Note: Staff do not support Clause 22a

a. Netball Surface Renewal – bring forward $27,500 of the total surface renewal budget ($211,356) from 2027/28 to 2024/25 to fund 50% of the feasibility study for the proposed netball court roof

b. Play Facilities – bring forward $15,000 budget from 2028/29 to 2024/25

c. Play Facilities – bring forward $250,000 budget from 2029/30 to 2026/27

d. Harakeke Green Irrigation and Subsurface Drainage – defer the full budget from 2025/26 to year 2027/28

e. Harakeke Green Cricket Wicket Blocks – defer the full budget from 2026/27 to 2028/29

f. Saxton Entrance Development – defer the full budget from 2024/25 to 2026/27

g. Baseball Diamond – move $100,000 from the baseball diamond budget from 2024/25 to the play facilities budget in 2025/26

h. Noting that this does not increase the budget for capital works at Saxton Field but merely reallocates and rephases proposed budgets

i. Noting that the recommendations are also subject to approval by Tasman District Council; and

Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp

23. Allocates budget of $15,000 operating expenditure in 2025/26 for the Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp investigation; and

Adam Chamber Music Festival

Funding for Sister City country relationships

26. Approves a total funding provision of $8,000 operating expenditure in Year 1 and $12,000 thereafter to support Nelson’s existing sister city relationships; and

27. Approves $8,000 annual operating expenditure to support Sister City Coordinating Group activity and any future sister city relationships in the United States of America; and

28. Approves funding of $5,000 operating expenditure to be added to years 2, 5, and 8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 as a provision for future Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits; and

Financial Strategy

Additional matters raised in submissions

31. Approves the approach to additional matters raised in submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document as included in the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (1852948764-1105); and

Rates affordability

Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal/upgrade and Washington Valley upgrade

33. Allocates (uninflated) budget of $3million capital expenditure in 2024/25, $6.5 million capital expenditure in 2025/26 and $500,000 capital expenditure in 2026/27 for the Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal and upgrade project; and

34. Approves budget changes to Washington Valley project Stage 4 outlined sections 7.4 to 7.6 of this Report R28349; and

Millers Acre regional bus hub

Public transport

Recommendation from Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee 13 May 2024

36. Approves a five percent (5%) fare increase on Bee Card fares effective 1 July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and

38. Approves the updated forecasted Public Transport Costs for the ten (10)-year period from July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and.

Saxton Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade

39. Allocates budget of $200,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for Saxton Creek Stage 4; and

Regulatory Services vehicles and equipment

40. Allocates additional budget of $220,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for regulatory services vehicles and equipment; and

Opera in the park

Carry forwards from 2023/24

42. Approves the 2023/24 capital budget carry forwards to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 capital expenditure budgets, as set out in Attachment 3 (332184083-5473) of Report R28349; and

43. Approves the August 2022 severe weather event recovery expenditure carry forwards, as set out in Attachment 4 (332184083-5474) of Report R28349; and

44. Approves the operating expenditure budgets carry forwards, totalling $4,225,000, to Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034; and

Other changes since the Long Term Plan consultation

45. Approves changes to the draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 budgets resulting from Council decisions, corrections and timing changes as outlined at sections 7.24 to 7.27 of this Report R28349; and

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

46. Agrees that no changes are needed the Draft Significance and Engagement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 5 (1852948764‐1007) of Report R28349 as the final Significance and Engagement Policy; and

Draft Revenue and Financing Policy

47. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 6 (1852948764‐1006) of Report R28349 as the final Revenue and Financing Policy; and

Rates Remission Policy

Rates Postponement Policy

50. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Rates Postponement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 7 (1852948764‐1004) of Report R28349 as the final Rates Postponement Policy; and

Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land

51. Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 8 (1852948764‐1125) of Report R28349 as the final Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land.

4. Background

4.1 The consultation on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) Consultation Document and related consultations was run for one month, between 27 March and 28 April 2024. 1505 LTP submissions (including any late submissions) and 32 submissions on related consultations were received. 137 submitters requested to speak to their submissions at hearings on 8, 9 and 10 May 2024.

4.2 Approximately 93% of submissions were made online. A large majority of submissions included address details – around 80% of these were made by residents of Nelson, approximately 10% from residents of Tasman and the rest were from people residing outside the Nelson/Tasman region.

4.3 Along with the LTP Consultation Document, Council invited submissions on the following related consultations:

4.3.1 Draft Significance and Engagement Policy (information for deliberations included in this report) – 1 submission

4.3.2 Draft Revenue and Financing Policy (information for deliberations included in this report) – 3 submissions

4.3.3 three draft rating policies – Draft Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land, Draft Rates Remission Policy, and Draft Rates Postponement Policy – (information for deliberations included in this report) – 20 submissions

4.3.4 Draft Policy on Development Contributions (separate deliberations report R28505 included in the same agenda as this report) – 9 submissions.

4.3.5 proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges 2024/25 (separate deliberations report R28441 included in the same agenda as this report) – 1 submission.

4.4 Any decisions made via Council’s separate deliberations to amend development contributions or fees and charges from those proposed could impact projected LTP revenue and therefore rates and debt.

5. Discussion

5.1 The main topics raised in submissions and the recommended actions for Council’s consideration are outlined below. A range of matters raised by a smaller number of submitters (where no change is recommended) are contained in the attached spreadsheet (Attachment 1).

5.2 To assist navigation and decision-making, the report is divided into three main sections:

5.2.1 matters raised in submissions on LTP Consultation Document

5.2.2 other LTP-related changes

5.2.3 matters raised in submissions on select related consultations.

6. Matters raised in submissions on LTP Consultation Document

6.1 This section is the most extensive and is ordered as follows:

6.1.1 key issues (with the exception of rates affordability which concludes this section)

6.1.2 matters raised in submissions by Council activity area

6.1.3 feedback on supporting information documents and topics outlined in the LTP Consultation Document not related to activity areas.

6.2 The submission form was developed to assist the public to easily provide feedback on the matters they were interested in. The form included instructions on how to complete it and questions on each of the key issues. Notably, there was a reoccurring pattern where some submitters selected a preference for ‘none of the above’ for some (or all) of the key issues, while providing a comment on only one matter.

Buy-out of private properties affected by slips

6.3 Over 850 submissions commented on the buy-out key issue. The majority of submissions supported Council’s proposal (option 2) to accept the buy-out support offer and apply the draft eligibility buy-out principles. Common reasons included: view that the Central Government offer is a fair and necessary response; accepting the offer provides additional financial support and would be consistent with the approach taken by other councils in the North Island; belief that Council has a moral responsibility to assist affected property owners; and that support is appropriate because of the emotional and financial distress on property owners caused by the long period of uncertainty. A few submissions also suggested purchased land might be able to be used for community benefits.

6.4 Some submissions preferred option 1, to not accept the buy-out support offer – common reasons included: that responsibility sits with property owners and insurance; that it would avoid future financial burdens, liabilities and the risk of precedent-setting; and that Council funding should focus on broader community benefits, infrastructure and climate change action.

6.5 Common themes in submissions in support of option 3 and 4 (to apply amended Eligibility buy-out principles or seek to renegotiate with Central Government) included: that the buy-out should focus only on properties affected by Council land; or wanting to seek a more financially sustainable approach by adjusting the Eligibility Buy-out Principles (see more at paragraph 6.6. below). For those who did not support any of the options, many of the concerns raised were similar to those raised by supporters of option 1 or suggested changes to the Eligibility Buy-out Principles (see paragraph 6.6 below).

6.6 Some submitters suggested changes to the draft principles including: that eligibility should be broadened to non-primary residence and commercial properties; that buy-out offers be based on Nelson median house price or more recent (and likely lower) market valuations; that the buy-out offer percentage should be lower for properties impacted by slips from private land, uninsured properties, or properties where property owner was aware of risks when purchased (e.g. since a prior severe weather event); or that uninsured properties receive the lower 80% of property’s market value if it can be proven that their lack of insurance is due to negligence rather than poverty.

Staff comments

Buy-out support offer

6.7 The support package from Central Government comprises three separate parts (as outlined in the Consultation Document). The buy-out part, as consulted on, is based on the Central Government offer to pay up to $6 million to support purchase of up to 14 properties impacted by the August 2022 severe weather event (which is intended to be 50% of the total cost less any payouts from other sources such as home insurance). The number of properties that may potentially be eligible for any buyout was determined in a very short timeframe on the information staff had available. Since the original Council resolution of CL/2023/239 (19 October 2024) to accept the support package – subject to consultation as part of the LTP – staff have been working with central government to finalise details of an agreement.

6.8 Two key points are drawn to the attention of elected members – the first is that Central Government has agreed in principle that funding may be applied to the purchase of Brook Street properties that have already taken place. Second, that the maximum number of properties that the Central Government funding may be applied to can be revised to up to 17, provided the overall Central Government funding cap of $6 million remains the same. This change was requested following reconsideration by staff as to the overall number of properties which may potentially be deemed eligible, including the relevant Brook Street properties. Likely use of some of the Central Government funding to offset already completed property purchases is referred to in the Consultation Document. Change to the maximum number of properties that may be purchased is not considered significant in terms of the LTP consultation. The allocated funding remains the same and is considered sufficient for the revised maximum number of properties.

6.9 Following a review of the submissions, staff recommend Council accept the buy-out support offer. The buy-out support package from Central Government is offered as a package, i.e. Council needs to accept all three parts of the package to be able to access the funding. Council and the Nelson community would benefit as follows:

6.9.1 Reducing by $6million the estimated $17.2 million to remediate the 18 slips originating on Council land.

6.9.2 Not having to allocate $300,000 over the ten years of the LTP for monitoring of the Tahunanui slump.

6.9.3 Reducing the costs already incurred by Council ($6.7 million) in purchasing Brook Street properties. These were purchased ahead of the LTP consultation because the properties faced an unacceptable risk from upslope Council-owned land in the event of a future weather event.

6.9.4 Enabling purchase of further private properties severely impacted by the August 2022 weather event.

6.10 The trade-off of this approach is Council will take on full responsibility for the ongoing land management of properties purchased and the associated costs. Also (as noted above), concerns have been raised about the risk of setting a precedent for future events. Subject to the final decision made, it is important that Council continues to make clear that this is a one-off response to a specific situation and the community should not expect Central Government or Council to take the same approach if private properties become unliveable following future weather events.

Eligibility Buy-out Principles

6.11 Alongside Council accepting the support package sits the Eligibility Buy-out Principles relating to the methodology for determining the eligibility and purchase of private property. How Council makes use of the $6 million portion of the support package dealing with the purchase of private property will depend on what Council ultimately agrees with respect to the Eligibility Buy-out Principles.

6.12 Following review of the submissions, staff recommend some amendments to the draft Eligibility Buy-out Principles (outlined below). For residential properties that are the primary place of residence of an owner, staff recommend the principles remain substantively unchanged (i.e. offers based on a maximum of 95% for insured and 80% for uninsured properties and pre-August 2022 valuations).

6.13 Staff propose that residential properties that are not the primary place of residence of an owner become eligible with an adjusted maximum purchase price of 50% for insured properties and 40% for uninsured properties based on pre-August 2022 valuations. This change recognises the hardship on owners of residential investment properties, balanced against the capped pool of funding available. The change would enable some support for residential investment property owners, while providing an equitable approach of allocating a lower proportion of funding to them than to property owners who will have lost their primary place of residence.

6.14 As proposed in the draft Eligibility Buy-out Principles as consulted on, all offers will be subject to the total funding cap of $12 million, so offers may be reduced proportionately depending on how many properties are assessed as eligible and how many owners elect to pursue buy-out .

6.15 Staff also propose adding wording to clarify that the residential dwelling on the property that has triggered the CAT 3 classification must be legally established. Staff consider this was implicit in the draft Eligibility Buy-out Principles as consulted on but should be made explicit to avoid any risk of misunderstanding.

6.16 Staff are unaware of any potential properties that are uninsured, nonetheless, there are several factors that will need to be considered. First, the number of properties that may be deemed eligible and second any final Toka Tū Ake Earthquake Commission (EQC)/insurance payouts to those deemed to be eligible. At this stage staff can only provide elected members with likely costs as there remains a buy-out process to be followed that cannot be pre-empted.

6.17 However, staff can advise (based on a range of assumptions) that considering nine of the purchased Brook Street properties (one of the 10 properties purchased is vacant and does not fit within the draft Eligibility Buy-out Principles as consulted on) and up to an additional eight private properties that may be deemed eligible under the draft Eligibility buy-out principles, the total value is likely to fall within the $12 million cap (to be funded 50/50 by Central Government and Council). That, as noted, will be tested as staff work through the buy-out process following any Council decisions.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles (Attachment 2: 2010958706-11426); and

Agrees to accept the Central Government buy-out support offer, noting the change of up to 17 properties, and apply the amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles.

Council’s forestry approach

6.18 Over a 1000 submissions commented on the forestry key issue. Council received a variety of responses to the issue – reflecting the complexity of the topics investigated by the Right Tree Right Place Taskforce. The vast majority of these submissions supported Council’s proposal (option 2) to exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species. Common reasons included: likely sustainability and environmental benefits (such as enhanced biodiversity, better soil and water conservation); improved recreational opportunities and aesthetic/amenity values that could contribute to community wellbeing and tourism; and improving resilience by helping mitigate erosion, flood and fire risks. Submitters also highlighted opportunities for community involvement, cultural and heritage recognition, and employment. These submitters believe that despite the higher initial costs, the long-term benefits for the community and the environment justify the investment.

6.19 A minority of submissions preferred option 1 to retain our current commercial forestry approach – common reasons included: concerns about the economic implications of moving away from commercial forestry (such as potential loss of income and jobs), the cost of transitioning and maintaining a continuous canopy of mixed species, and the potential loss of access to existing recreation areas.

6.20 Submissions that did not support either option often wanted Council to only re-plant in native species or raised concerns around maintaining access to existing recreational activities (e.g. paragliding and mountain biking). Also, a theme in submissions that did not support Council’s proposal was suggesting a combination of retaining commercial forestry in suitable areas and transitioning unsuitable areas to balance potential economic and environmental benefits.

Staff comments

6.21 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to the proposal as set out in the Consultation Document, to exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.

6.22 The transition will enable Council to take a holistic approach to management of its native and exotic forests and develop a long-term asset for the community with improved environmental, recreational and social outcomes, particularly on the city fringe. The approach will maximise community amenity and recreational values and offer environmental and climate benefits (such as permanent carbon sequestration and flood mitigation).

6.23 If the transition is approved, it will be an intergenerational project and Council will undertake further work on longer-term implementation, potential funding sources to minimise rates impact, and collaboration opportunities.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.

Marina Council Controlled Organisation proposal

6.24 Over 750 submissions commented on the Marina key issue. The majority of submissions supported transitioning to either an asset-owning Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) (option 2) or an asset-owning Council-Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) (option 3), with most preferring option 2. Common reasons included: highlighting the options potential to improve management efficiency and reinvest revenue in the Marina; seeing it as opportunity to make the Marina more accessible and integrated with the community; that it could support business/tourism opportunities and the Blue Economy; and supporting the importance of balancing commercial returns with community values and delivering social outcomes.

6.25 Of those submissions that preferred an Asset-owning CCTO, comments included; that a commercial model could drive quicker development and enhance the Marina’s profitability and financial sustainability; and that any dividends to Council could reduce help the burden on ratepayers for other Council activities.

6.26 The remainder of submissions were reasonably evenly spread between support for no change (option 1) and ‘none of the above’. Supporters of maintaining the current structure value its transparency and community involvement in decision-making. They expressed concerns about potential increases in Marina charges and the risk of prioritising profit over community interests under a new model. There were also concerns about potential reduced public access, decreased environmental sustainability, and asset sales.

6.27 Those who did not support any of the options sometimes made similar comments to supporters of option 1, were sceptical of any model’s ability to effectively manage the Marina or suggested selling the Marina to a private operator.

Staff comments

6.28 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to the proposal as set out in the Consultation Document. Establishing an Asset-Owning CCO will continue the Marina’s transformation and set it up in a way to best deliver the Nelson Marina Masterplan. Council will maintain 100% ownership of the Asset-Owning CCO. This approach will strike a good balance between more efficient decision-making processes and providing assets and services for the public.

6.29 The Marina’s debt will be removed from Council’s balance sheet debt levels and any increased commercial returns from Marina activities will be reinvested in improvements to the Marina. A trade-off will be the loss of tax-exempt status, where Marina fees will need to factor in this cost as well as the costs of implementing the masterplan. However, the Marina’s operations will continue to be self-funded and will not draw on rates.

6.30 Concerns have been raised by submitters regarding the potential for the Marina to set its prices too high, prioritising profit over community interests. The cost of development will be funded through Marina activities, including commercial leases, fees for improved land based marine services and through increases to berth fees to bring them into line with comparable Marina facilities around the country. It is important moving forward that the Marina clearly defines its future pricing strategy and communicates this effectively to all users.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to establish an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation for the Nelson Marina by 1 July 2025.

Housing Reserve Fund changes

6.31 Approximately 800 submissions commented on the Housing Reserve Fund key issue. The majority of submissions supported Council’s proposal (option 2) to broaden the purpose of the Fund. However, the bulk of those who submitted on this issue did not provide an accompanying comment and those who did were split in supporting option 1 and option 2. Comments in support for option 2 saw this as a good mechanism to support our most vulnerable residents and ensure they all have a safe place to sleep. Some submitters also noted the importance of Council working with key partners and organisations across the community on this initiative.

6.32 Those who supported option 1 acknowledged the importance of addressing homelessness in the Nelson community but didn’t see this as the solution. The reasons provided were that broadening the scope of the Fund would dilute its primary purpose to support the delivery of social and affordability housing solutions for the community. Submitters also noted the role and intention of central government to fund solutions for temporary and transitional housing and saw Council’s role as supporting existing community and iwi housing providers to deliver an enduring supply of social and affordable housing.

Staff comments

6.33 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to the proposal as set out in the Consultation Document to broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund (option 2).

6.34 Council is aware that housing is a pressing issue for the community and is committed to working to make progress on addressing Nelson’s housing pressures. Council also wants to ensure support is being provided to our vulnerable and high needs residents to find safe and secure housing. Expanding the purpose of the Reserve will enable Council to support and work with partners to provide solutions for our vulnerable and highest need residents, in addition to continuing to support the delivery of social and affordable housing.

6.35 Housing provision is not a core Council activity, therefore Council’s role is focused on supporting or facilitating rather than leading the development of housing solutions (i.e. Council is not intending to build housing facilities). Also, the complex situations our most vulnerable in the community are often facing require specialist expertise. Broadening the reserve’s purpose enables Council to provide financial support to organisations – with the necessary expertise – that are best placed to lead this work.

6.36 It is envisaged that financial support for this purpose would not be a significant portion of the remaining reserve ($3.75 million unallocated), which could alleviate some of the concerns around the dilution of the reserve. Also, if Council progresses with the proposal, clear criteria will be developed on how the broadened scope would be incorporated, including identified outcomes Council is looking to achieve. For instance, the criteria would clarify Council’s expectation that funding is for projects that are enduring (in keeping with the Fund’s original intent) and not used for operational expenditure.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund to enable it to be used to provide vulnerable housing support; and

Requests the Housing Acceleration Taskforce to develop criteria to allow the Housing Reserve to consider applications relating to vulnerable housing support and for these criteria to be brought to Council for approval.

All-weather sports turf

6.37 Close to 900 submissions commented on the all-weather sports turf key issue. Of those almost half supported the Council proposal to construct an all-weather turf and reduce the current upgrade proposal (option 2). However, just over half the submitters either opposed it and wanted Council to retain its current approach of continuing an upgrade programme of improvements on existing sports fields (option 1) or selected neither option.

6.38 Submitters who supported Council’s proposal consider an all-weather sports turf to be a necessity for Nelson with significant economic and social benefits. Some suggested it had the potential to attract families, youth and tournaments to the city and to foster community engagement and support physical and social wellbeing. Further connecting migrant communities through sport was also identified as a potential positive outcome.

6.39 The ability to use the turf in all weathers is a key driver for supporters of the proposal as they consider that rain renders grass fields as unusable frequently enough to disrupt training and competition schedules. Supporters expect the turf to make Nelson a more attractive venue for sports tournaments, which can bring significant economic activity to the region.

6.40 There are a range of views as to its location with suggestions ranging from Saxton Field due to its location and existing infrastructure through to the site supported by the Nelson Rugby Football Working Group of northwest Nelson City (Guppy and Neale Park).

6.41 Those who do not support the proposal, which included a number of sports clubs, raised concerns about accessibility and equity, the environmental impact and cost as well as signalling strong support for Council’s previous approach to improving sportsfields – upgrading turf and lighting.

6.42 Submitters commented that the turf would primarily benefit specific clubs located near the proposed sites potentially marginalising other clubs and community members. The Nelson Rugby Football Working Group suggested that other groups would be reassured on this point if Council indicated a Guppy/Neale Park turf would be the first of a series of all-weather turfs to be installed around Nelson. This would require additional funding to be allocated in later years of the LTP.

6.43 The impact on the environment was also raised as a significant concern with many submitters highlighting the negative impacts of installing synthetic turf including increased microplastic pollution, higher carbon emissions and the eventual disposal issues. However, the Nelson Rugby Football Working Group advised that it was planning for a turf to be made from sugar cane fibres, rather than petroleum derivatives and microplastics, and it would be compostable at end of life.

6.44 Submitters who do not support the proposal also raised concerns about the cost and consider it to be high for a facility that benefits a limited sector of the community. Many feel the funds could be spent on more inclusive projects which would be used by a larger portion of the community and there is strong support to reinstate funding for the upgrade of existing lighting facilities.

6.45 Sport Tasman, which has a broad perspective as the region’s independent sports trust, submitted that it saw the value a turf could bring in the longer term but felt there needed to be more consideration of the benefits, reach and costs as well as evidence of the challenges the turf is intended to address and how it might overcome those challenges. For now, Sport Tasman considered the greatest uplift in value for the community was to continue with Council’s programme of improving current sports facilities through upgrading fields and lighting.

Staff comments

6.46 The level of opposition to this project and the reasonable concerns that have been raised suggests that further consideration is needed. Staff recommend Council asks Sport Tasman to facilitate an analysis of the issues raised in submissions, through a process involving the interested sports clubs, with a view to developing a way forward for the existing sportsfields development and the possible all-weather turf. Tasman District Council involvement in this work is also suggested to enable wider regional input.

6.47 Staff recommend that the funding in the draft LTP budget for the all-weather turf is retained while the assessment is undertaken, with a revised name and purpose of ‘sports ground improvements’. This would enable funding to be used for an all-weather turf or other improvements once the independent assessment is complete. Also, it is recommended that additional budget of $20,000 be allocated for Sports Tasman to facilitate the analysis.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approaches Sport Tasman requesting that it undertakes an assessment of the case for investing in an all-weather turf, including but not limited to consideration of affordability, impact on wider sports facilities, timing, environmental impact and location, and reports back to Council with a recommendation on whether and how an all-weather sports turf should be established in Nelson; and

Allocates additional funding of up to $20,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for the assessment of the all-weather turf proposal; and

Agrees that while the further assessment of the all-weather turf proposal is undertaken that budgets relating to this matter in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 remain as proposed in the Consultation Document, noting the change in name for this funding allocation from ‘All-weather turf’ to ‘Sports ground improvements’; and

Requests that staff bring to Council for approval in early 2024/25 the draft scope and terms of reference for engaging Sport Tasman to undertake this work.

Tāhunanui Beach facilities

6.48 Almost 1000 submissions were received on the Tāhunanui Beach facilities proposal. The majority of the submissions supported Council’s proposed approach (option 2 – construct a new facility for surf life saving and upgrade the changing rooms) while a quarter of submitters preferred to retain the current facilities at Tāhunanui Beach.

6.49 Submitters largely support the proposed upgrades due to the anticipated improvements in safety, functionality, and the overall enhancement of the beach's recreational and social value. The poor condition of existing facilities and the need for a more strategic, long-term vision that enhances the beach's role as a key recreational and tourist destination were also highlighted. There is a strong desire for modern, multifunctional facilities that can serve various community and sporting needs.

6.50 Conversely submitters who prefer the status quo to be maintained raised concerns about the financial impact and expressed a preference for financial constraint especially in the current economic climate. Some submissions consider that the existing facilities, though not perfect, are adequate for the current needs. The beach was also described as not being a typical surf beach, with minimal surf and low risk for swimmers, therefore questioning the necessity of an extensive lifesaving facility and whether there is enough demand to justify the proposed expenditure. Other reasons for opposing the proposal included the environmental sustainability and long term viability of the project due to rising sea levels and potential climate impacts and requests for Council to prioritise other areas of need over the construction of this proposed facility.

6.51 Some submitters that supported neither option considered that the funds could be better used on other infrastructure priorities or community needs while others saw the cost as excessive especially given the perceived safety of the beach. There were also suggestions to repurpose the project to accommodate multiple community groups and/or activities and increase the utility and value of the investment.

Staff comments

6.52 Following a review of submissions and given the overall level of community support for the proposal, staff recommend proceeding with the development of the business case/feasibility study for the new Tāhunanui beach facilities as outlined in the Consultation Document.

6.53 However, given the financial impact of undertaking the development and the current cost of living pressures, it is further recommended that Council’s capital funding contribution for the new Tāhunanui Beach Facility is capped at either $1.65 million or 50% of the total capital costs, whichever is the lesser amount.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to construct a new facility for the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club and to upgrade the changing facilities at Tāhunanui Beach Reserve; and

Agrees that Council’s funding contribution to the construction of a new facility for the Nelson Surf Lifesaving Club is capped at either 50% of the total capital cost or $1.65 million, whichever is the lesser amount.

Arts Hub

6.54 Approximately 900 submissions commented on the Arts Hub key issue. The majority of submissions supported Council’s proposal (option 2). Common reasons included: the value of arts in Nelson both for community wellbeing and its economic contribution and how a permanent arts hub can boost this sector. Submitters also noted the importance of having accessible, affordable and varied arts and creative spaces, which the arts hub could provide. There was also strong support for adapting an existing building to establish an arts hub. Many submitters commented that this made more sense economically and in terms of Council and Nelson’s carbon footprint than constructing a new building.

6.55 Some submissions opposed the proposal – reasons included: focusing on essential services given the current economic climate rather than establishing something new. Other submitters noted the existing arts facilities and organisations in Nelson and wanted to see more investment in these rather than a new arts hub.

6.56 A small number of submitters supported a new build to be state-of-the-art purpose built hub that would have economic as well as arts and cultural benefits for the community.

Staff comments

6.57 Following a review of the submissions, staff consider the Council’s proposal is most appropriate, and aligns with many submitters’ views. It is a lower cost option than a new build, would provide greater certainty for long term operational costs and adapting a building is a lower carbon footprint option, as pointed out by several submitters.

6.58 Option 2 also aligns with the initial findings from a business case being undertaken on options for an arts hub in the city. Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the proposal as set out in the Consultation Document.

Recommendation

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to purchase an existing building and establish an arts hub with fit out to be funded by the community.

Infrastructure (overall)

Bridge to Better project

Some submissions commented on the Bridge to Better project. The large majority of these submissions were in support of the project. Comments included support for improving infrastructure capacity, flood mitigation, people-focused spaces and urban revitalisation. Other comments highlighted the importance of continued communication with businesses and design ideas. A few submissions suggested Council proceeds only with the three waters infrastructure improvements, prioritises funding to other areas of the central city, and advocated for maintaining car parking supply.

Staff comments

Bridge to Better

6.59 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend allocating increased funding as outlined in the Consultation Document to successfully deliver the Bridge to Better project. The additional funding is necessary to account for greater increases in materials, resourcing, construction costs and risk mitigation around delivery within one of the oldest street corridors in Nelson. The project will benefit Nelson by providing three water infrastructure capacity and resilience that will cater for hundreds of homes in the city centre and revitalising Bridge Street.

6.60 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets related to the Bridge to Better project.

Paru Paru Road Carpark

6.61 Council requested staff look at where parking could be provided in close proximity to the city centre to mitigate carparks that will be lost as part of the Bridge Street upgrade. Council at its meeting on 11 April 2024 approved a two-way street layout to allow detailed design to progress. The report to the 11 April meeting also identified car parking could be provided off Paru Paru Road in Rutherford Park, and it was noted that the additional cost of parking to offset parking lost would be reported to Council as part of the deliberations report.

6.62 The proposed carpark off Paru Paru Road would be adjoining the existing formed carparks and opposite the site of the proposed city centre play space. This carpark would provide parking for the new play space and further parking capacity for recreational and other events at Rutherford Park or Trafalgar Centre. Also, additional parking close to the city centre will assist in providing both commuters and visitors somewhere to park during disruptive construction works.

6.63 Nelson Lawn Tennis Club made a submission on its proposed development of a clubhouse and additional courts in the same vicinity. Staff will continue to work with the tennis club on provision for a clubhouse and potentially additional courts within Rutherford Park.

6.64 Subject to resource consent and necessary approvals, this carpark would need to commence in advance of Bridge Street works and be completed by early 2026. Capital expenditure for this carpark is separate to the increased Bridge to Better project budgets in the proposed LTP.

As part of the carpark investigation, a variety of reinstatement options for this carpark have been considered, including asphalt, chip seal, gobi blocks (semi grass finish), gravel and grass (with geotextile reinforcement). The costs associated with each reinstatement option is summarised below:

Options	Approx 37 Carparks	Approx 52 Carparks	Approx 80 Carparks
Gobi Blocks	$ 820,000	$ 1,350,000	$ 2,000,000
Asphalt	$ 600,000	$ 1,000,000	$ 1,400,000
Chip Seal	$ 530,000	$ 900,000	$ 1,250,000
Gravel	$ 460,000	$ 670,000	$ 800,000
Grass	$ 420,000	$ 620,000	$ 720,000

6.65 A chip seal car park is the preferred option as it is the most cost effective all weather carpark. On this basis, staff recommend that the funding is phased in the LTP as follows:

6.65.1 2024/25 – $150,000

6.65.2 2025/26 - $1,100,000

6.66 Following engagement with relevant stakeholders (including the tennis club), the finalised design, budgets and programme will be reported back to Council via the City Revitalisation Task Force.

6.67 The proposed carpark aligns with aspects of Council’s Parking Strategy. The strategy highlighted key drivers for developing the Central City Centre and Fringe Parking Management Plan (PMP). This included the need to reduce carbon emissions and support mode shift, manage parking pressure in residential fringe areas and respond to changes to parking requirements for new developments.

6.68 Parking data highlighted strong demand for longer term parking on the City fringe. This was due to fringe parking being unrestricted and free. Residential intensification in the Central City and fringe areas, combined with removal of minimum parking requirement for developments, will continue to increase pressure for on-street parking.

6.69 Based on the objectives within the Parking Strategy and the data on current level of parking activity in the Central City and fringe areas, it was recommended that there is no net gain in parking. Instead, the strategy proposed changes to optimise how we manage existing parking resources being introduced, noting data shows there is sufficient supply within Central City to manage short and medium-term parking demands in the commercial area.

6.70 While optimising the supply is preferred, mitigating some parking losses to alleviate objections from local businesses or the community is recommended. Between the Millers Acre Bus Interchange redevelopment and Bridge to Better, an estimated 78 carparks will be lost in the central city.

6.71 The proposed carpark which will complement the Rutherford play space and overflow event parking, may also alleviate pressure associated with the loss of parking on Bridge Street and at Millers Acre.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves budget of up to $1.25 million (uninflated) across years 2024/25 and 2025/26 for the construction of a carpark off Paru Paru Road at Rutherford Park, subject to resource consent and necessary approvals; and

Notes that the finalised design, budgets and programme will be reported back to Council via the City Revitalisation Taskforce.

Mahitahi Bayview subdivision (Maitai Valley) utilities and transport connections

6.72 Many submissions commented on the Mahitahi Bayview subdivision (Maitai Valley) utilities and transport connections topic. The vast majority do not support the development going ahead or Council allocating funding for infrastructure works. Common reasons related to concerns around negative environmental impacts, financial implications for ratepayers, the suitability of the location for housing, flooding concerns for the Maitai River catchment and opposition to greenfields subdivisions. Some submissions were of the view that the developer should pay 100% of any infrastructure costs or Council should prioritise infrastructure upgrades elsewhere in the city.

6.73 A few submissions were in support of the proposed funding to improve three waters infrastructure and transport. They also noted the development’s potential contribution to the city’s economic sustainability.

Staff comments

6.74 Staff recommend no changes to the proposed funding as set out in the Consultation Document. Many of the submissions relate to opposition to the subdivision proposal – these matters are outside of the scope of the proposed LTP, were dealt with under the plan change, and are subject to the outcome of an appeal to the Environment Court.

6.75 The matter for consideration through the LTP process relates to whether Council should provide funding for the infrastructure work. The developer will be responsible for servicing their proposed development. However, there are some services (external to the development) which Council will need to ensure are upgraded. Providing this new infrastructure benefits both the proposed development and the existing population. Including budget provision in the LTP enables Council to recover development contributions on growth-related infrastructure.

6.76 Including funding now will help avoid unreasonable delay and enable housing to proceed in the event the appeal is not successful. However, it is likely that the full funding will only be spent if the development receives a favourable decision from the Environment Court.

6.77 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets.

Transport

Extend East-West Cycleway link

6.78 Some submissions commented on the East-West Cycleway link project, and the feedback in submissions is very positive towards this project proceeding. Residents appreciate the existing cycle network and express strong support for the extension and improvement of the East-West link. The primary reasons for support are increased safety for cyclists, reduced traffic congestion, and the promotion of a healthier, more environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

6.79 Many residents emphasised the need for a safer cycling environment, particularly for children commuting to school and for daily commuters. The current lack of safe cycling infrastructure on certain routes, such as the area near the hospital and Waimea Road, was highlighted as a significant concern. Several submissions note an increase in cycle network usage due to improvements already made, suggesting that further enhancements could continue to boost cycling as a preferred mode of transport. Feedback shows a strong community desire to shift away from car dependency towards more sustainable and active forms of transport. Residents recognised the benefits of cycling and walking, not only for health and environmental reasons but also for reducing traffic congestion.

6.80 A minority viewpoint suggests that the East-West Cycleway Link is a "nice to have" rather than a necessity, questioning the cost relative to the public health benefits.

Staff comments

6.81 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to the proposed funding as set out in the Consultation Document. Staff are still working through the implications of the new Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024 (GPS) in relation to walking and cycling initiatives. It is uncertain whether the proposed east-west link project (currently in years 2025/26 to 2027/28 of the LTP - totalling $4.9 million) will meet the threshold for NZTA - Waka Kotahi funding through the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) and National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). These decisions will only be known in August/September this year.

6.82 Currently the LTP budgets reflect a 51% Financial Assistance Rate (FAR) and staff will advise Council if this changes in order to determine the appetite to continue with this project if the funding is not forthcoming. Any changes to funding requirements or timing of projects will need to be addressed through future reports to Council or annual plan processes.

6.83 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets.

Montreal/Princes Drive Intersection

6.84 A submitter advocates for the Montreal/Princes Drive Intersection Upgrade (which will be a connection from Princes Drive to the Golden Elm Rise Subdivision) to be included in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, with investigation, design and construction taking place over the 2024-2030 timeframe. The submitter comments that by including this project in the LTP, there is potential for significant cost savings over the medium-long term, and that the proposal aligns with the Council's objectives of managing urban growth, enhancing community connectivity, improving resilience in an emergency and promoting environmental sustainability through modal choice. The submitter notes that the Toi Toi and Britannia Heights suburbs are set to experience significant residential expansion and the proposal supports the ‘Draft Nelson City Housing and Business Capacity Assessment: February 2024’ which states the expected yields from Greenfield areas over the next 30 years in the Toi Toi and Britannia areas will equate to 832 new dwellings. The submitter notes that the ongoing development in this area requires enhanced transport infrastructure to support this increasing demand.

6.85 The submitter notes that the intersection was previously included in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, but was not included in final Long Term Plan 2021-2031. However, it is included in the ‘Summary table of key growth projects’ in the ‘Draft Infrastructure Strategy 2024-2054’, with scheduling between 2036-2041. The submitter considers that this timeline is excessively protracted and does not align with the community growth or the Golden Elm Rise subdivision timing. The submitter notes that previously, a total of $1,173,209 was allocated for this project in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, to occur over the 2023/24-2026/27 financial years.

Staff comments

6.86 Following consideration of the submission, staff recommend bringing forward capital expenditure budgets from years 13-17 to years 4-8 of the LTP 2024-3034. This provides greater alignment with the Golden Elm Rise subdivision timing, resulting in acceleration of an additional 35 lots or 47 homes if the intersection work is bought forward. In addition, pending design and consent, the Princes Drive intersection unlocks additional opportunities for hillside development along the ridge and hillside above Emano Street, potentially providing at least 30 lots (in addition to those consented for the Golden Elm Rise development) becoming readily available once the connection is complete. The intersection also provides opportunity for improved public transport efficiency and resilient access routes for residents and emergency services in the area.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves bringing funding of $226,000 (uninflated) capital expenditure per annum forward from years 13-17 of the Draft Infrastructure Strategy to years 4-8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 to accelerate the Montreal/Princes Drive intersection.

Solid waste

Kitchenwaste service

6.87 Some submissions commented on the kerbside kitchenwaste collection service. The vast majority of these were in support of some form of collection and processing of kitchenwaste in Nelson. There was a strong preference towards composting over other processing methods, with most support coming from Community Compost volunteers/supporters.

6.88 The main reasons for the support included reducing waste to landfill (including plastic rubbish bags), extending of the lifespan of the landfill, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating a useful soil conditioning product from waste, and reducing the need for fertiliser use.

6.89 Several submitters did not support the service. The majority of those raised concerns about the cost to rates, the need for the service (noting many people already compost their kitchenwaste and more could be encouraged to do so), potential implications of the service (e.g. more bins, more truck pick ups).

6.90 Additional comments were received on supporting diversion from landfill, widening the recycling services it provides (e.g. plastics and construction waste), subsidising worm farms, Bokashi or other composting initiatives.

Staff comments

6.91 The most suitable methods for kitchenwaste processing are proposed to be assessed in a business case, co-funded by the Ministry for the Environment, Tasman District Council and this Council, expected to start July 2024. The submissions received provide useful information to input into the business case. Following completion of the business case, Council will consider the options and recommendations prior to deciding whether to proceed.

6.92 The proposed kitchenwaste service, if approved, will not require rates funding and be funded through waste disposal levies. These levies can only be used for funding waste minimisation activities. It is estimated the service will divert at least 2500 tonnes per year from landfill.

6.93 Council already supports a variety of waste minimisation and diversion from landfill activities. Council collects all recyclable materials permitted under central government directives. In partnership with the Nelson Environment Centre, Council has established a building waste reuse project to reduce useful or reusable building and demolition materials going to landfill. Council already subsidises new compost bins and funds regular workshops on how to best compost. Council also supports community based compost processors through subsidies and grants.

6.94 Staff do not recommend any changes to funding in the LTP.

Environment activity

City Centre revitalisation feedback

6.95 Some submissions commented on city centre revitalisation. Comments reflected community interest in transforming the city centre into a more vibrant, accessible, and economically sustainable area – and balancing modern development with cultural heritage and environmental sustainability. Key themes and ideas include improving infrastructure, enhancing green spaces, promoting arts and culture, more events and initiatives to support local businesses and bring people into the city, encouraging more mixed-use developments and adaptive reuse of existing buildings in the city centre, the importance of parking, and increasing pedestrian-friendly zones.

6.96 Some submissions suggested further funding for city centre revitalisation projects, including from Make/Shift Spaces requesting $80,000 to take a lead role in facilitating the proposed new ‘What If Whakatū Nelson…?’ community-led taskforce.

Staff comments

6.97 Council on 2 May 2024 approved the establishment of the City Revitalisation and Waterfront Redevelopment Taskforces. The City Revitalisation Taskforce will review feedback from the City Revitalisation Summit, held earlier in the year, to guide future Council work programmes and can incorporate submission feedback into this work.

6.98 Council is also supportive of the proposed new ‘What If Whakatū Nelson…?’ community-led taskforce and wants to work together to co-ordinate initiatives.

6.99 However, as the City Revitalisation Summit and establishment of the Council taskforces took place after the LTP consultation commenced budget was not included to support next steps. Due to budget constraints, including City Development budget reductions, funding for the taskforces and associated projects would need to come from additional rates revenue.

6.100 Staff recommend budget provision of an additional $100,000 in 2024/25 for new city and waterfront revitalisation initiatives including for the work of the proposed community-led taskforce.

6.101 If the proposed community-led taskforce proceeds, staff would develop a grant agreement for the taskforce which would include guidance on budget allocation to projects and the cost of managing the taskforce. Proposals for projects to be funded from this grant would be brought to Council for approval before Make/Shift Spaces makes those allocations. Grant agreements/contracts for the approved projects would be entered into by Council and staff would monitor implementation.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves budget of $100,000 operating expenditure in 2024/25 for city revitalisation initiatives including some funding for the proposed community-led taskforce.

Tasman Environment Trust

6.102 The Tasman Environment Trust has requested that Council match the funding Tasman District Council provides towards its operating costs, which was $40,000 in 2023/24. The Trust noted in its verbal submission on 8 May 2024, that it had changed its Deed to include Nelson and it intended to create a position on its Board for a Nelson City Council representative. It also noted that the Jobs for Nature funding it receives from Central Government is coming to an end and so it requires additional income streams to continue supporting those communities and projects.

Staff comments

6.103 Following a review of the Trust’s submission, staff recommend Council include incremental funding increases to the Tasman Environment Trust over the next three years, towards its operating costs. This is to recognise the Trust broadening its Deed to include Nelson and to acknowledge the regional projects it is already supporting the community groups to implement. This funding would be dependent on appropriate projects being identified in the Nelson area.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves budget for the Tasman Environment Trust towards its operating costs, subject to appropriate projects being identified in the Nelson area, as follows:

a. 2024/25 - $10,000 operating expenditure

b. 2025/26 – $20,000 operating expenditure

c. 2026/27 – $30,000 operating expenditure

d. 2027/28 to 2033/34 – $40,000 operating expenditure per annum.

Rocks Road marine restoration

6.104 A small number of submitters commented on this proposal, in a generally very positive way. However, staff have since been advised that partners are not able to prioritise supporting the project at this time and therefore the funding will be removed from the LTP and this work can be revisited when collaboration is possible. This will mean a saving of $30,000 in total across Years 1 and 2 of the LTP.

Social activity

Multicultural Nelson Tasman (MNT)

6.105 MNT’s submission has asked for increased Council assistance in a number of areas:

6.105.1 establishing a dedicated Multicultural Community Hub

6.105.2 converting and increasing its current regular funding from Council contestable grants to dedicated funding within the LTP

6.105.3 doubling the annual funding from Council’s Events Fund for the Multicultural Festival to $40,000

6.105.4 dedicated multi-year funding for the Migrant and Refugee Community Navigator position (shared with Victory Community Centre and English Language Partners) which supports newcomers to Nelson which supports newcomers to Nelson

6.105.5 funding to make Council’s Welcoming Communities Coordinator position permanent (currently supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment until May 2025)

6.105.6 future funding for the one-year pilot Community Cultural Expression programme which promotes participation by migrants and former refugees in the arts

6.105.7 permanent office space for MNT in the new Civic Hub when that is developed.

6.106 MNT is a valuable and trusted partner for Council, which has been active in Nelson for 30 years and reliably delivers results that support Nelson to be a safe, caring and inclusive community that welcomes newcomers to our city. However, the request for more support amounts to a significant increase in funding which staff do not consider affordable in the current cost of living crisis.

6.107 Some aspects of the request, such as exploring a Multicultural Community Hub at the Halifax Refinery Building, in partnership with other groups, will take time to investigate and progress. Should this hub eventuate it would presumably replace the request for permanent office space in a new Civic Hub. The funding process for the Multicultural Festival is something staff consider should stay unchanged because of the value in a contestable funding process which ensures that ratepayer funding goes to the highest priority events.

6.108 However, given the long period of reliable delivery by MNT, there is a case to be made for sustainable, predictable LTP funding through a line item rather than the three yearly Community Investment Fund (CIF) process. One option is to transfer funding from CIF to an LTP line item dedicated to MNT. However, staff do not recommend this as the need for CIF support has only increased alongside the growing number of Nelson households affected by financial hardship. Reducing funds in the already over-subscribed CIF during a period of intense hardship and significant inflation is likely to have negative impacts on the community.

6.109 Recognising the extremely tight budget for Year 1 of the LTP, staff suggest continuing the current situation of MNT participating in the contestable CIF round but staff also creating a dedicated line item for MNT with $5,000 from additional rate funding. If MNT receives similar grant funding to the current year that would bring the total allocation to at least $25,000 in year 1. From years 2 to 10 it is proposed to include a total of $25,000 in additional rate funding for MNT with no reduction in the CIF. This would provide increased support and certainty of funding for MNT while recognising the need to carefully manage operational funding, particularly in year 1.

6.110 Three yearly evaluations of MNT’s performance against objectives would be built into the agreement for the funding developed by staff.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves dedicated operational funding in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 for Multicultural Nelson Tasman of $5,000 in Year 1 and $25,000 in Years 2 to 10.

Nelson Provincial Museum’s new ARC (Archives, Research and Collections) Facility

6.111 A few submissions were received all supporting the provision of Council funding towards the Tasman Bays Heritage Trust’s development of the new Archives, Research and Collections Facility (ARC). The funding for the project is currently in this year’s budget.

6.112 The Tasman Bay Heritage Trust (TBHT) has made several specific requests in its submission. These are outlined below along with a staff comment and/or recommendations.

6.112.1 Request: Carry forward committed funds from 2023/24 to 2024/25;

6.112.2 Staff recommendation: That the funds are carried forward to 2024/25 and 2025/26 recognising that the project spend would be over a couple of years.

6.112.3 Request: Allow a partial drawdown of funds in 2023/24 to enable completion of developed design and progression to a natural pause point while the remaining funding is secured;

6.112.4 Staff comment: This request falls outside of the development of the LTP and needs to be considered separately.

6.112.5 Request: Additional funding of $1.5 million in 2026/27.

6.112.6 Staff recommendation: Adding $1.5 million to Council’s contribution would take the total to $4.665 million. Similarly, Tasman District Council’s contribution would grow to $4.7 million. Adding both together would equate to approximately 65% of the $14.9 million total cost. This request is not supported because it would be a change to Council’s agreed contribution and a significant increase to Council’s budget for the project, which needs to be considered within the overall LTP budget constraints. Rather, cost overruns are the project’s responsibility and should be made up from other sources.

6.112.7 Request: Align with TDC CPI adjustments

6.112.8 Staff comment: This request is not supported as Council needs to be consistent across all its grants.

6.112.9 Request: Increase the 2024/25 operational grant by 5.6%.

6.112.10 Staff recommendation: In line with other organisations receiving grants, staff recommend TBHT receives a 4.5% CPI increase.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the carry forward of $3.04 million funding for the Nelson Provincial Museum’s new Archives, Research and Collections facility from 2023/24 to 2024/25 and 2025/26 with the funds divided equally between the two years.

Suter Depreciation Funding

6.113 A few submissions were received on this matter. Some wanted to see Council funding the Suter’s depreciation while one was in support of Council’s proposal not to fund depreciation.

6.114 There was also a request to make a 5.6% inflation increase to the operational grant Council provides to the Suter and that asset renewal and infrastructure be funded.

6.115 After consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no change to what is proposed in the Consultation Document, and recommend that Council continues with the current practice of providing financial assistance to the Suter Trust’s asset renewals from its Suter Depreciation Reserve until the Reserve is exhausted. In line with other organisations receiving grants, staff recommend the Suter receive a 4.5% CPI increase.

6.116 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets.

Accessibility Strategy/Audit

6.117 Council has allowed $103,000 from 2025/26 to 2027/28 to develop a Council-wide approach to improving accessibility and an audit of Council facilities. Both submissions on this matter support the development of an accessibility strategy and audit and offer to be involved in the process.

6.118 Staff note the support of the submitters and the comments in their submissions. Staff recommend retaining the funding in the LTP budget for this work.

Crematorium

6.119 A small number of submissions were received on Council’s proposal to divest its crematorium service at Wakapuaka Cemetery with the majority supporting the proposal. Reducing carbon emissions was also seen as desirable by those who commented on this aspect.

6.120 Staff recommend no change to what was set out in the Consultation Document and draft LTP budgets.

Stoke Memorial Hall

6.121 A small number submitted on the Stoke Memorial Hall. One submitter emphasised the need for future consultation, which is in the proposal. Another submitter would like the Hall to be remediated when the economic environment permits.

6.122 Staff recommend no change to what is proposed in the Consultation Document and that Council consults with the community on the options to remediate or deconstruct. A budget of $2.2 million is included in 2027/28 to undertake the work after the decision is made, however additional funding will be required if Council decides to proceed with remediation.

Founders Park

6.123 A small number of submissions were received on funding for Founders Park requesting that the funding, including the Reorganisation Project, be reinstated.

6.124 Staff recommend no change to the decision to discontinue the Founders Heritage Park collection reorganisation project. It was one of the many difficult decisions made on what services to stop providing, reduce in frequency, or provide to a different standard in order to achieve an acceptable level of rates rise.

Taonga Tuku Ihu Strategy

6.125 Through the submission process, concern was raised that there is no budget allocation for three years to implement the strategy’s actions. Although no new activities are being proposed to deliver Taonga Tuku Iho, the principles of the Strategy are being incorporated into the existing work programme. Staff do not recommend any changes to funding in the LTP.

Parks and Active Recreation activity

Saxton Field Committee recommendations

6.126 The Joint Saxton Field Committee considered Saxton Field-related submissions to Council’s and Tasman District Council’s LTP consultations on 17 May.

6.127 The resolutions of the joint committee recommend to both councils changes to the Saxton Field Capital Works Programme that was consulted. The recommendations are included below, that outline reallocations and rephasing of budgets that result in a net neutral impact to the capital works budget. An additional recommendation is suggested to highlight this point.

6.128 Notwithstanding the committee’s recommendations, staff do not recommend bringing forward $27,500 operating expenditure for a feasibility study for the proposed netball court roof in 2024/25 due to budget constraints (part a. of the resolution below). If the roofing project is something Council would be prepared to consider supporting, Council could instead bring forward to year 2 (2025/26) Council’s 50% portion of this funding (which is $13,750).

Recommendation from the Saxton Field Committee 17 May 2024

That the Council

Approves the amendments to the Saxton Field Capital Works Programme, as consulted through Nelson City and Tasman District Council’s Draft Long Term Plans 2024-2034, following consideration of submissions, as follows:

a. Netball Surface Renewal – bring forward $27,500 of the total surface renewal budget ($211,356) from 2027/28 to 2024/25 to fund 50% of the feasibility study for the proposed netball court roof

b. Play Facilities – bring forward $15,000 budget from 2028/29 to 2024/25

c. Play Facilities – bring forward $250,000 budget from 2029/30 to 2026/27

d. Harakeke Green Irrigation and Subsurface Drainage – defer the full budget from 2025/26 to year 2027/28

e. Harakeke Green Cricket Wicket Blocks – defer the full budget from 2026/27 to 2028/29

f. Saxton Entrance Development – defer the full budget from 2024/25 to 2026/27

g. Baseball Diamond – move $100,000 from the baseball diamond budget from 2024/25 to the play facilities budget in 2025/26; and

Additional recommendations from staff

h. Noting that this does not increase the budget for capital works at Saxton Field but merely reallocates and rephases proposed budgets; and

i. Noting that the recommendations are also subject to approval by Tasman District Council.

Recreational access to Ngāti Koata whenua

6.129 Council received a substantial number of written submissions focused on recreational access to Ngāti Koata whenua. These were primarily from members of the mounting biking community. The feedback overwhelmingly supported the proposal to negotiate a longer term recreational access agreement over Ngāti Koata whenua. The current interim access arrangement expires on 30 June 2024. A number of submitters also emphasised how crucial it was that Tasman Pine was involved in the agreement to ensure access can be maintained.

6.130 Submitters have highlighted the value of the trails with many mountain bikers commenting that they have chosen to live in Nelson because of the quality and accessibility of them. Access to Ngāti Koata whenua is fundamental to the mountain biking network offering in Nelson, and is also important to walkers and runners. Submitters frequently mentioned the social and health benefits of mountain biking and other recreational activities like walking and running with these activities been seen as integral to the community’s wellbeing, providing both physical and mental health benefits. The economic benefits were also highlighted with the trails attracting events and national and international mountain bikers to the city who contribute to the economy during their stay.

6.131 A few submissions also requested that the Gondola proposal for Fringe Hill be reinstated. Although supported by Council when it was under discussion several years ago, it was a proposed venture between two private parties and not a Council initiative.

6.132 Negotiations with Ngāti Koata are currently underway and staff recommend that the proposal and associated funding required to negotiate in good faith and maintain a longer term recreational access agreement over Ngāti Koata whenua remains in the draft LTP.

Weed control programme budget reduction

6.133 A small number of submissions were received regarding the proposed reduction in the budget for the weed control programme in the 2024/25 year. Submitters expressed their concerns about the potential negative impacts on local biodiversity and the longer-term financial implications of reducing weed control efforts. No new information has been provided through the submissions.

6.134 The proposed budget will enable Council to retain the gains it has previously made although not enhance them or broaden the scope of the areas controlled. As the budget reduction is only for one year, the weed control programme will be able to fully resume from 2025/26 year.

6.135 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets.

Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp

6.136 Two submissions were received requesting Council renew or replace the launching ramp at the Nelson Yacht Club. Comments included that the ramp is used by thousands of people a year who need safe access to the water and that the club provides opportunities for the community to access the marine environment for education, recreation, and sport.

Staff comments

6.137 Currently the ramp is only for use by Club members and those who pay an annual affiliate fee. The ramp is in poor repair and there has been an increase in user injuries. As yachting is a popular recreational activity particularly with youth, staff see merit in supporting the Club to undertake the ramp renewal/replacement project given its potential for wider use.

6.138 Staff recommend that they discuss with the Club the potential for the ramp to have increased public access and for it to become a community asset. It is also recommended that $15,000 is added to year two of the Long Term Plan to investigate future ownership, usage and access of the ramp and to review the cost to undertake the work necessary to bring it up to a safe standard. The outcome of the investigation would inform potential funding for inclusion in the LTP 2027 - 2037.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates budget of $15,000 operating expenditure in 2025/26 for the Nelson Yacht Club launching ramp investigation.

Economic activity

Adam Chamber Music Festival

6.139 The Adam Chamber Music Festival has requested that its funding become a line item in the LTP, replacing the current process where it applies every two years to the Events Fund. This is not a change that staff would support for most events, as a contestable fund process provides reassurance that ratepayer funding is being allocated to the highest priority events. Removing events from the contestable process also reduces the discretionary funding for when new opportunities present. However, the Adam Chamber Music Festival is an internationally recognised event that brings significant economic benefit and its importance to Nelson has been recognised by the consistent support provided by Council over many years. It does seem appropriate that its funding sits within the LTP as a separate line item as is the case for other special events such as the Nelson Arts Festival and Te Ramaroa.

6.140 It is recommended that as part of the new agreement that would need to be drawn up for such an arrangement, that there be a requirement for a biennial accountability report and a more in-depth performance review report after every third cycle of the event.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves that the Adam Chamber Music Festival current level of biennial events funding be included as a line item in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 across the ten years, noting that biennial accountability reports would be provided to Council staff and a more in-depth performance review would be undertaken after every third festival event and brought to a Council meeting for consideration; and

Approves reduction of the allocation for the Nelson Events Fund economic component by the same amount as proposed to be allocated to the Adam Chamber Music Festival line item in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

Funding for Sister City country relationships

6.141 Submissions were received on the proposed reduction in funding for the sister city related budgets to maintain Nelson’s sister city relationships with Miyazu, Huangshi and Yangjiang.

6.142 The submitters raised concerns about the organisations’ ability to maintain the sister city relationships on behalf of Council effectively. This was of particular concern to them as COVID-19 has already put strain on the relationships, given this stopped any in-person visits between the cities. The organisations have started planning activities between the cities, such as student exchanges and visits to the sister cities, but the reduced funding would limit the activities they could deliver.

Staff comments

6.143 After consideration of the comments, it is recommended that in 2024/25 a total funding allocation of $8,000 is provided towards Nelson’s existing sister city relationships, with an increase in the allocation to $12,000 from 2025/26 onwards. It is also recommended that a further provision of $4,000 is provided to support any future sister city relationships in the USA. For the general sister city budget, staff recommend $4,000 is allocated to enable Council and Sister City Association representation at the Global Cities New Zealand conference.

6.144 With the borders now open again after COVID-19 restrictions and to assist with maintaining Council’s sister cities relationships, staff also recommend that an allowance is included every three years from 2025/26 to support reciprocal Council/Mayoral sister cities visits.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a total funding provision of $8,000 operating expenditure in Year 1 and $12,000 thereafter to support Nelson’s existing sister city relationships; and

Approves $8,000 annual operating expenditure to support Sister City Coordinating Group activity and any future sister city relationships in the United States of America; and

Approves funding of $5,000 operating expenditure to be added to years 2, 5, and 8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 as a provision for future Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits

Corporate activity

Civic investment

6.145 Some submissions were received on the topic of Civic Investment. There was a mixture of support and opposition regarding the future of the Civic House and the Elma Turner Library facilities.

6.146 The majority of the submissions supported further civic investment, many in the form of a combined civic hub that incorporates both facilities. Within this group several were disappointed that urgent action will not be taken, or that the previously proposed redevelopment of the Elma Turner Library had not gone ahead. A significant number of submitters noted that the development of a new civic centre and library would serve as cultural and economic catalysts, revitalising the city centre and providing long term benefits. Many submissions stressed the important role of libraries as crucial community hubs that offered more than traditional services, and that they are considered vital sites for cultural engagement and cohesion. Several looked forward to further community consultation on these projects.

6.147 Submitters concerned about the financial implications of any new projects involving these facilities suggested that the current facilities are adequate and fit for purpose, and that there should be a focus on essential work only. Others suggested that the proposals should be pushed out into later years of the Long Term Plan, or that any future potential amalgamation between Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council would require the establishment of a civic building in an area suitable to both. There was also comment that smaller urgent actions in the central business district were required, and that parking was a consideration.

Staff comments

6.148 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend retaining the existing total budget of $68.4 million in the LTP to allow for further investigation into the future of Civic House and the Elma Turner Library by Council. This will include examination of the shortlisted options presented in the Indicative Business Case regarding these facilities, weighing up the benefits of these proposals and the accompanying financial implications. Any progression of these proposals will include robust processes for transparency and community engagement.

6.149 Therefore, staff recommend no changes to the draft LTP budgets.

3 Halifax Street (the old Refinery building)

6.150 A small number submitted on 3 Halifax Street (the old Refinery building). There was a split of support for the deconstruction if the land was able to be used for other community purposes, with others opposing this proposal and wanting to see the building remediated. Reasons for opposing the deconstruction were that it had great potential for adaptive reuse and that the estimated amount for deconstruction was too high. Another submitter noted their understanding that the land is not fit to be built on in the future so it would lie vacant if the building was deconstructed.

6.151 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to what was included in the Consultation Document and draft LTP budgets.

Climate change

6.152 Some submissions commented directly on climate change, while many others referenced it in relation to key issues and other projects. The majority of these comments outlined concern for climate issues, that climate change is the greatest threat and risk to communities, the need for urgency, and the importance of integrating climate considerations into Council planning and actions. Comments note that Council should focus on both mitigation and adaptation actions. Examples of mitigation actions suggested included provision of green infrastructure (e.g. trees), sustainable transport and waste management practices, and changing how Council calculates Nelson’s emissions (e.g. including cruise ship emissions). Examples of adaptation actions suggested included improving planning (including consideration of nature-based solutions and managed retreat), improved stormwater infrastructure, and locating Council buildings and infrastructure away from inundation risk. Submitters also supported development of a climate change strategy for Nelson (currently underway). A few submitters commented that Council’s response to climate change is inadequate and that Council is not taking climate change seriously. On the other hand, a few submitters were critical of Council spending money on climate actions.

6.153 Some submissions included funding requests. The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum (NTCF) sought an increase in Council’s funding to $151,000 in 2024/25 (compared to $110,000 in the LTP budget) and for the remaining 10 years (inflation adjusted). This request was supported by some other submitters. The Businesses for Climate Action Trust requested funding of $50,000 in 2024/25, $40,000 in 2025/26 and $30,000 per year from 2026/27 onwards. The Trust works to support businesses and not‐ for‐profit organisations to measure and lower their carbon footprint, on their journey to ‘net zero’. A few other submitters sought an increase in Council’s funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives, including a contestable fund to implement the actions identified in the Climate Strategy.

6.154 Wakatū Incorporation has requested support for development of a Climatorium in Te Tauihu. The request includes diverting budgets for Council’s climate mitigation and adaptation projects through the Climatorium in order to access a greater breadth of knowledge and sources of co-funding, and to make delivery of those workstreams more cost effective.

Staff comments

6.155 Council’s Long Term Budgets currently contain $110,000 to assist the work of the NTCF. Council’s budgets contain four contestable funds for climate change work each of $50,000 in year 1 of the LTP ($200,000 total). These funds are: a business contestable fund, a community contestable fund, a community adaptation contestable fund and a partnership contestable fund. The partnership contestable fund would be operated jointly with NTCF, requiring it to leverage additional funding and encouraging building broader partnerships in the community. If this is approved it would be equivalent to the increase requested by the submitter.

6.156 Businesses for Climate Action is doing important work to support the community in climate action but given the difficult financial situation it is hard to see how the increase requested could be accommodated. The Businesses for Climate Action Trust would be eligible to apply to the business contestable fund so that is a potential funding source for its work.

6.157 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to funding in the LTP.

6.158 Staff will consider specific suggestions and, where appropriate, incorporate ideas into Council’s updated Climate Action Plan provided they can be accommodated within existing budgets. Council has an adaptation work programme that is proceeding in line with central government guidance and the legislation currently in place.

6.159 Council has developed the community emissions footprint based on the Global Protocol for Cities. Transport greenhouse gas emissions includes emissions from marine diesel. In order to address submitter comments on cruise ship emissions, Council would need to move away from using the Global Protocol for Cities as a basis for calculating Nelson’s emissions profile which is not recommended.

6.160 Council has a level of service and performance measure on Climate Change which will be incorporated in the final LTP. It states that Council will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its own activities in line with the national emissions targets and budgets. Timing of the Climate Change Strategy development does not allow for its outcomes to be included in the LTP.

6.161 With respect to the Wakatū Incorporation request relating to the Climatorium, this project needs more development before it would be clear how Council’s climate change programme could most usefully interact with it. Staff recommend that Council remains open to closer collaboration with the climatorium project as it develops.

Statement on fostering Māori participation in Council decision-making

6.162 Several submissions commented on the draft Statement on fostering Māori participation in Council decision-making and Council’s partnership with iwi and Māori. Comments emphasised the importance of: supporting and measuring better engagement with iwi; building relationships at both governance and management level; early iwi involvement in Council processes and projects; and iwi representation on committees and other relevant bodies.

6.163 Submissions also requested that Council: work with Te Tauihu iwi to encourage their people to get involved in Council processes and decision-making; identify and define mana whenua entities in the LTP and related documents; give greater recognition of te Tiriti o Waitangi in the LTP; and consider a regular social wellbeing-focused hui between staff and iwi.

Staff comments

6.164 Following consideration of the submissions, staff recommend no changes to the draft Statement on fostering Māori participation in Council decision-making circulated as supporting information to the LTP consultation.

6.165 Council is committed to working in partnership with iwi and will progress the initiatives outlined in the draft statement to foster participation and strengthen partnerships with iwi and Māori of Te Tauihu. In particular, following Council signing Kia Kotahi Te Tauihu, Together Te Tauihu Partnership Agreement in December 2023, an action plan is being developed to set out partnership priorities and actions over the next three years.

6.166 Staff will consider the submission feedback, and where relevant, incorporate suggestions into work programmes and LTP documentation. For instance, Council is currently in discussions with iwi leaders to agree a process for iwi appointments to various groups and committees. Local government is distinct from Crown, however the Treaty of Waitangi is an important framework of understanding partnership with iwi. In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Council has duties under the Local Government Act 2002 to facilitate participation by Māori in its decision making processes (e.g. including the statement in each LTP). Council also has statutory obligations in relation to Treaty principles under other statutes such as the Resource Management Act 1991. Council will continue to work with our iwi partners and bring to life the partnership agreement.

Financial Strategy

6.167 Council received several submissions making comments relevant to the Draft Financial Strategy, including:

6.167.1 requesting expenditure be kept to a minimum and removing unnecessary projects which could be cut to keep debt and rates down (e.g. reserve land purchases, basketball hoop renewals, kitchenwaste service, sand shed at Saxton Field, events budgets)

6.167.2 the need for a greater allocation of funding towards the social activity and developing robust communities

6.167.3 possible amendments to the Long Term Plan and Regional Land Transport Plan due to removal of Government funding and to potential three waters changes

6.167.4 the need to replenish the General Emergency Fund was commented on by a few submitters, particularly with increasing weather events and the potential for an Alpine Fault 8 earthquake

6.167.5 extensive comments by a few submitters on the proposed increase in Council’s debt from $208 million to $526 million by year 10; debt being understated as it doesn’t include CCO debt; noting the problem of the long term sustainability of high debt and lack of resiliency; implications for future generations having to pay it off; risks of servicing the debt if interest rates increase; the need for a buffer between the actual debt and debt limit; the implications of high debt on Council’s credit rating which may impact borrowing costs; and need to sell assets to reduce debt

6.167.6 the reference to the rates cap is unclear, as the growth component was not defined and information on the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) is hard to find

6.167.7 rates increases in later years of the Plan are too low and are not realistic

6.167.8 concern about additional costs to current projects and new projects that have already been signed off by Council since adoption of the Consultation Document, and budgets being underfunded and debt increasing more due to the scope adjustment Council has applied to capital projects

6.167.9 risks of dividends not being delivered

6.167.10 concern about Council not funding depreciation and not operating a balanced budget

6.167.11 a tax is needed on vacant lots and encouragement should be provided to landowners to add apartments (e.g. via subsidies for planning and consents).

Staff comments

6.168 Staff note the comments on Council’s funding priorities, including projects submitters considered were unnecessary and on the request for a greater proportion of funding going towards the social activity and developing robust communities. Council must balance competing priorities and the varying needs and preferences within the community. Staff recommend no change to the Financial Strategy on these matters.

6.169 With respect to the potential loss of Government funding, staff are aware of this matter, but will not know the outcome until after the LTP is adopted. Staff will need to report on the implications of any funding changes to Council in the future.

6.170 There is an opportunity to replenish the General Emergency Fund in later years. This would have the consequence of increasing rates in outer years where they are low and lowering overall debt at year 10 (provided it is not drawn down by an event). Staff recommend replenishing the Fund by an average additional 1% rates increase over each of the last four years of the LTP, which would generate a $17 million debt reduction.

6.171 Replenishing the Fund would also help keep a buffer between net debt and the debt limit, potentially make increases in future years more realistic, and reduce the financial risk to Council if a future emergency event were to occur. Council could increase the rates in later years through this Plan or address this through a future Long Term Plan.

6.172 Council is aware of the large increase in debt over the period of the Plan. This increase enables Council to continue to provide infrastructure to meet growth projections and renewal of important infrastructure. Also, the costs of capital projects have increased significantly since the last Long Term Plan, leading to high projected debt levels.

6.173 Regarding the comment that the rates cap is unclear, staff can add an explanatory footnote to the first reference to the rates cap in the Financial Strategy and the Long Term Plan to help clarify the matter. The footnote would refer to the assumptions on growth in rating units and inflation contained in the Significant Forecasting Assumptions.

6.174 The comments about selling Council property are noted. Staff intend identifying any surplus property in the near future for Council to consider what could be sold. Staff have updated the LTP asset sales budgets and Financial Strategy accordingly.

6.175 The draft LTP budgets contain a scope adjustment for capital projects to reflect that all contingencies are unlikely to be spent and all projects in the work plan may not be delivered on time. Staff consider that the assumptions on dividends and on funding depreciation are reasonable. Staff also note that Council is running a balanced budget in each of the 10 years of the LTP. Staff recommend no changes to the Financial Strategy on these matters.

6.176 Staff consider that introducing a tax on vacant lots is not necessary. Because Council bases many of its rates on land value, vacant lots are paying most rates on an equivalent basis to a developed site. Council also encourages multi-unit developments through its Policy on Development Contributions.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves replenishing the General Emergency Fund by $17 million over the last four years of the Long Term Plan 2024 -2034, resulting in an average additional 1% rates increase in 2030/31, 2031/32, 2032/33 and 2033/34; and

Requests that staff add footnotes to the first reference to the rates cap in the Long Term Plan document and the Financial Strategy referring readers to the growth and inflation assumptions in the Significant Forecasting Assumptions.

Infrastructure Strategy

6.177 Some submitters made comments relating to the Infrastructure Strategy. Comments included: the need for Council to adequately maintain and renew infrastructure assets; to ensure that when replacing infrastructure Council has reviewed all appropriate options; that infrastructure solutions improve both health and environmental outcomes; that Council allocates 0.5 – 1% of the total budgets for infrastructure to arts and creative activities; that the impacts of development and infrastructure projects on the environment be mitigated; and that Council provides a fuller description of capital projects in its LTP.

6.178 A few submitters commented on the issue of stormwater and wastewater release into the Haven and seeking a safe and unpolluted marine environment. They requested Council prioritises the management and investment in our stormwater and wastewater infrastructure to ensure the Haven is protected.

Staff comments

6.179 Staff acknowledge the submissions received on the Infrastructure Strategy, noting that many of these were regarding wastewater discharge into the Nelson Haven. Council has long term plans for investment in the stormwater and wastewater networks to accommodate population growth, additionally there is a separate budget for reduction of stormwater infiltration into the wastewater network. Following consideration of the submissions, staff do not recommend any changes to the Infrastructure Strategy except for incorporating other deliberations decisions.

Additional matters raised in submissions

6.180 A range of other matters were raised by a smaller numbers of submitters. Staff have provided advice on each of these matters in Attachment 1 and nothing advised would increase LTP budgets beyond what was consulted on.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the approach to additional matters raised in submissions to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document included in the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (1852948764-1105); and

Rates affordability

6.181 Approximately 1000 submissions commented on the rates affordability key issue. The majority of submissions supported Council’s proposal (option 2) medium service cuts and medium rates increases. Common reasons included: that it is seen as a balanced approach and a practical compromise under current financial pressures; that it spreads the financial burden reasonably evenly across the community; and support for combination of maintaining core services and projects with long-term benefit. Submitters appreciated the more moderate/mid-range rate increases, though they expressed concerns about potential service responsiveness and asset failure risks.

6.182 Some submissions preferred fewer service cuts and higher rates increases (option 1) – common reasons included: that services should be maintained or enhanced to support community wellbeing, environmental sustainability, economic growth and the city's liveability. Comments also highlighted the importance of investing in infrastructure and services now to address past underinvestment, to avoid higher future costs and to maintain future generations’ quality of life.

6.183 Some submissions preferred big service cuts and lower rates increases (option 3) – common reasons included: that Council should alleviate the financial burden on ratepayers, particularly given current cost of living increases, and to avoid future debt. Comments suggested taking a more stringent financial approach to find additional efficiencies/reductions and prioritising essential services/infrastructure and reducing expenditure on other areas.

6.184 Some submissions did not support any of the options – common reasons included: that Council should explore alternative funding sources; desire to maintain current services and standards without increasing rates; that Council may be overextending itself into non-essential areas (which could be contributing to financial strain); desire for greater community involvement in decision-making processes; and concern about the long-term implications of the proposed options, arguing that they do not adequately balance the needs of current and future generations.

Staff comments

6.185 Following a review of the submissions, staff consider Council’s overall proposal to balance rates rises and service cuts is most appropriate. The proposed LTP budgets were developed – in light of both the financial pressures on Council and the community – to keep rates rises as low as possible while maintaining core services, paying for the storm recovery, and continuing to invest in projects that will make the most difference to Nelson’s future.

6.186 This approach has entailed difficult trade-offs, and submitters have been able to raise their concerns in their submissions. Feedback on specific matters, and accompanying staff advice, is outlined in the preceding sections. Specific feedback on the Storm Recovery Charge is covered in the feedback on the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy (see section 8 below).

6.187 The eventual rates increases will be determined by the cumulative impact of Council’s deliberations decisions. Further decisions to increase or decrease rates required will need to balance the cost pressures on households and the positive or negative community impact of further changes to projects or services. An increase or decrease in operating expenditure of approximately $950,000 would have a 1% impact on rates. Likewise, an increase or decrease in capital expenditure of approximately $15 million, would impact the level of debt and have a 1% impact on rates.

Recommendation

That the Council

Endorses Council’s overall approach of medium service cuts and medium rates increases as outlined in the Consultation Document and Draft Financial Strategy, subject to specific deliberations decisions.

7. Other LTP-related changes

Infrastructure (overall)

Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal/upgrade and Washington Valley upgrade

7.1 Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal/upgrade is a major stormwater project in St Vincent Street that is planned to be carried out over three years from 2024/25 to 2026/27, with approximately $6 million (uninflated) included in the draft LTP budgets. This culvert carries stormwater flows from Washington Valley and a short section of St Vincent Street to discharge into Saltwater Creek.

7.2 Following a review of the most recent estimate, the anticipated cost to complete the works is now $10 million (uninflated). The reasons for the increase in cost is due in part to rising construction costs, increases in material costs such as steel, increases in temporary traffic management costs and disposal costs for coal tar (the extent of which was not known when the original budget was set). Due to the culvert approaching the end of its design life, it is important this project proceeds as per the proposed programme timeframes in the draft LTP budgets.

7.3 The proposed new funding for the LTP is as follows:

7.3.1 2024/25 – $3,000,000 (increase of $1 million)

7.3.2 2025/26 – $6,500,000 (increase of $3 million)

7.3.3 2026/27 – $500,000 (No change from LTP)

7.4 In order to address this $4 million shortfall in funding, it is proposed that Stage 4 of the Washington Valley stormwater upgrade is re-phased and a total of $4 million of funding allocated in years 2029/30 and 2030/31 for that project is moved to years 2024/25 and 2025/26 for the Haven/St Vincent Culvert project. The main construction of the Washington Valley Stormwater project above Hasting Street (Stage 4) would now take place in 2031/32 - 2034/35. Funding of $4 million would also be added to year 2034/35 in the Infrastructure Strategy to signal the construction programme’s change in timing.

7.5 The Washington Valley project is a multi-staged project, and Stage 1 of the project (Hastings Street) was completed in 2022. Stage 2, which involved connecting Stage 1 to the Haven/St Vincent Culvert project, was completed in 2023. Stage 3 which will connect Hastings Street to Washington Valley is programmed to continue as per the draft LTP budgets (2027/28). Stage 4 which involves upgrading the network on Washington Valley Road above Hastings Street to Mt Vernon Place is proposed to be rephased as detailed in the paragraphs above.

7.6 Due to the proposed rephase of Stage 4, the associated water, wastewater and transport renewals and upgrades need to be rephased as follows, noting that the net effect on the LTP balances out due to rephasing $4 million of funding beyond year 10:

7.6.1 Wastewater - Washington Valley Sewer Upgrade - $100,000 is rephased from 2028/29 to 2030/31, $2m is rephased from 2029/30 to 2031/32 and $2m is rephased from 2030/31 to 2032/33.

7.6.2 Water - Washington Valley Water renewal and Upgrade - $100,000 is rephased from 2028/29 to 2030/31, $2.5m is rephased from 2029/30 to 2031/32 and $2.5m is rephased from 2030/31 to 2032/33.

7.6.3 Transport – Washington Valley Streetlight renewal - $200,000 is rephased from 2026/27 to 2031/32 and $200,000 is rephased from 2027/28 to 2032/33.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates (uninflated) budget of $3 million capital expenditure in 2024/25, $6.5 million capital expenditure in 2025/26 and $500,000 capital expenditure in 2026/27 for the Haven/St Vincent Culvert renewal and upgrade project; and

Approves budget changes to Washington Valley project Stage 4 outlined sections 7.4 to 7.6 of this Report R28349.

Transport

Millers Acre regional bus hub

7.7 Council has signalled its support to proceed with the regional bus hub at Millers Acre. There were some transport-related submissions that commented on the Millers Acre project - the majority of them were in support of it (see Attachment 1 for more details). The current LTP has physical works (totalling $3.60 million uninflated) spread across two financial years 2024/25 ($1.8 million) and 2025/26 ($1.80 million). The Council wishes this to be done with greater urgency and consequently the budget needs to be brought forward to reflect elected members’ direction as follows:

7.7.1 2024/25 (year 1) - $2.7 million.

7.7.2 2025/26 (year 2) - $900,000.

7.8 In addition, the LTP budgets still reflect income towards this project from NZTA Waka Kotahi at 51% - normal financial assistance rate (FAR). As with all transport related projects, any subsidy is subject to the final National Land Transport Programme and final National Land Transport Fund (both of which have not been finalised). Staff have been advised by NZTA that the Millers Acre bus hub pre-implementation (detailed design, consenting etc) and construction funding decision will be deferred until September/October this year. Staff will advise Council before any construction work commences to ascertain appetite to continue if this funding is not forthcoming. Due to the timing of the NZTA funding decision, it is anticipated that a large proportion of construction will be completed in 2024/25 with the remainder being completed in 2025/26.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates budget provision for Millers Acre regional bus hub project $2.7 million capital expenditure in 2024/25 and $900,000 capital expenditure in 2025/26, subject to receiving a 51% NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi Financial Assistance Rate subsidy.

Public transport

7.9 The new eBus Public Transport contract has been running for close on a year and whilst it has not been without its challenges it has been very successful. Patronage continues to grow and feedback is largely positive.

7.10 A detailed review of all matters relating to the new service will commence in August 2024 and could take up to 12 months to work through. That will include all feedback received from residents to date, Shape Nelson surveys and input from both NCC and TDC councillors. The review will also take into account any decisions from Central Government and NZTA with respect to future funding of public transport. Minor service changes may result but primarily the review will inform the 2027 RPTP.

7.11 The review aside, there remain several challenges that will potentially impact public transport and its funding over the duration of the LTP.

7.12 The first set of challenges is around the increased cost of operating the eBus contract. Budgets in the LTP are adjusted by Local Government Cost Indices (LGCI), however Public Transport cost indices increases are typically higher. Since 2022 (base price) indexation increases have been especially large for driver’s wages and fuel costs and additional funding is required to operate the eBus to maintain its current service. Nine months of operation on the new contract has highlighted the effect these adjustments have on the overall Public Transport budgets due to the size and scale of the contract. Cost indexation effects were underestimated when the LTP budgets were set. Other ongoing costs contributing to escalation of budgets were outlined to the Council on 3 May and include overflow buses, lease costs, national ticketing, bus facility security and cleaning, and real time information provision. These costs are not all for Nelson and will be apportioned between NCC, TDC and NZTA (albeit at an assumed rate of 51% FAR)

7.13 The second set of challenges relate to a change in central government policy. These changes include:

7.13.1 Introduction of Road User Charges (RUCS) for electric buses from December 2025 (currently they are exempt). RUCs for the regions new eBus service were not included in the contract because at time of tender these were not anticipated to be introduced by Central Government and the onus could not be placed on tenderers to fund something that had not yet been defined. Decarbonisation of the public transport fleet throughout New Zealand had been strongly encouraged by the past government and consequently, costs for RUCs were not included in the LTP. Based on advice from the new Government, the quantum of RUC’s to be paid on electric buses for our eBus service could be around $924,000/year (excludes GST) and will come into effect in December 2025, the second half of Y2 of the LTP. These costs are not all for Nelson and will be apportioned through cost indexation between NCC, TDC and NZTA (albeit at an assumed rate of 51% FAR) - with NCC’s portion set to be around $344,000 a year.

7.13.2 The draft Ministry of Transport Government Policy Statement on Transport (GPS) signals a reduction of available funding for Public Transport. A key assumption that underpinned Public Transport LTP budget was that NCC’s Funding Assistance Rate would remain at 51% and that NZTA would continue to fund Public Transport at that rate. There is also uncertainty around NZTA’s commitment to long term public transport contracts already in place. NZTA has signalled already that funding levels in years 2 and 3 will be contingent on the outcomes of the one year Public Transport review. Staff will need to wait for the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) and National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) to be finalised in August 2024 before the partner funding from NZTA is known and this is outside the timeframe for approval of this Council’s LTP. All Public Transport Authorities (usually regional councils) are in the same predicament. Once the outcome is better understood staff will brief elected members.

7.13.3 A draft Pricing and Fares policy from NZTA has also signalled an expectation of increased farebox recovery. The flat fare introduced when the service commenced has proven popular. Research indicates a 10% increase in fares (in real terms) will drop patronage by approximately 4% but this estimated “elasticity of demand” is yet to be tested in our region.

7.14 Resolving the predicted shortfall of funding presents significant challenges and this matter was workshopped by the Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee (RTC) and options reported to it on 13 May 2024.

7.15 On 13 May the RTC recommended approval for submission to the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council, a five percent (5%) fare increase on Bee Card fares effective 1 July 2024, and that the councils account for the identified shortfall and risk mitigations and fare increases for running the public transport services in their Long Term Plans 2024-2034. NCC’s portion set to be around $342,000 in year 1, $503,000 in year 2 and $568,000 in year 3.

7.16 In addition to above, the RTC does not currently have delegation to make a permanent change to fares and this must be a recommendation to the partner councils. NZTA has an expectation that fares will be reviewed annually and officers suggest a change of delegation to allow the RTC to increase fares in line with, or less than, the Public Transport cost index going forward.

Recommendation from Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee 13 May 2024

That the Council:

Approves a five percent (5%) fare increase on Bee Card fares effective 1 July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council;

Delegates authority for the Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee to propose and determine fare increases up to inflation changes as reflected in Public Transport Contract Indices (allowing for rounding) in the future, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council; and

Approves the updated forecasted Public Transport Costs for the ten (10)-year period from July 2024, subject to the same agreement by Tasman District Council.

Stormwater

Saxton Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade

7.17 Saxton Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade (between Main Road Stoke and State Highway 6) is complete and is the last stage of a multi-year project that commenced in 2011 starting in Champion Road. As reported to Council in March 2024 as part of the Infrastructure six monthly updates, planting in the new channel is all that remains to be undertaken. That work will take place in 2024/25 at an estimated cost of $200,000. Provision of $50,000 has been provided in the proposed LTP – an additional $150,000 is required.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates budget of $200,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for Saxton Creek Stage 4.

Environment activity

Regulatory services vehicles and equipment

7.18 On 4 April 2024, Council agreed to bring regulatory services, currently delivered by Environmental Inspections Limited (EIL), in-house. In order for delivery of regulatory services to continue, it will be necessary to purchase vehicles and equipment.

Existing Council vehicles will be used for delivery of most of the regulatory services. However, the vehicles currently used by EIL for animal control are nearing the end of their useful life and new vehicles will need to be purchased by Council. As there are specific vehicle requirements for animal control services (e.g. dog cages), none of the vehicles in Council’s current fleet can be used for animal control services. The estimated (unbudgeted) cost for purchase of equipment and vehicles is $220,000.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates additional budget of $220,000 capital expenditure in 2024/25 for regulatory services vehicles and equipment.

Opera in the Park

7.19 At its meeting of 2 May 2024 Council resolved to bring forward Opera in the Park from February 2026 to February 2025. This was to avoid having both Opera in the Park and the Adam Chamber Music Festival occur in the same year, and rather to allow them to alternate across the ten years of the LTP.

7.20 This change does impact the timing of funding allocations in the LTP but Opera in the Park will still only occur five times, so the overall impact of this change is not significant. To get the timing of Opera in the Park on the right cycle, staff propose to use the Nelson Events Fund to absorb the extra costs in 2025 and then be repaid in the next financial year. This minimises the impact of moving operational funding to bring the cycle forward.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a temporary overdraft of up to $175,000, if needed, in the Nelson Events Fund in order to adjust the timing of Opera in the Park across the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, noting that the overdraft will be repaid within the next financial year and will have no impact on the number of events the Fund can support.

Carry forwards from 2023/24

7.21 Staff have reforecast the current year capital spend to 30 June 2024. The projected capital forecast is $66.2 million excluding staff time, joint business units, vested assets, August 2022 severe weather event recovery budgets and scope adjustment, with savings of $0.7 million. Capital carry forwards requested of $16.8 million are spread across years 1 to 6 of the LTP 2024-2034; $15.2 million to year 1, $0.8 million to year 2, $0.5 million to year 3 and $0.3 million to year 6. Details are included in Attachment 3 for approval. $1.2 million of these carry forwards were incorporated in the budgets contained in the Consultation Document and supporting information.

7.22 In addition to the capital carry forward requests in the above point, staff have reforecast the current year August 2022 severe weather event recovery spend to 30 June 2024. The projected forecast for operating and capital expenditure including slip remediation is $23.4 million. Carry forwards requested of $6.7 million are spread across years 1 and 2 of the LTP 2024-2034; $5.9 million to year 1, $0.8 million to year 2. Details are included in Attachment 4 for approval. The full forecast cost of the Recovery is still $87.2 million.

7.23 In addition to the capital carry forward requests, there are operating expenditure budgets, totalling $4,225,000, that have been requested by staff to carry forward to 2024/25 as detailed below:

7.23.1 Resource Management Reform $320,000 (Suspension of reform work, budget to finance the freshwater project which has been postponed for a year)

7.23.2 Central Nelson Stormwater Strategy $105,000 (Project delayed due to stormwater network calibration)

7.23.3 Housing reserve grants $3,800,000 (approved grants where payment milestones likely to occur after 30 June 2024).

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the 2023/24 capital budget carry forwards to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 capital expenditure budgets, as set out in Attachment 3 (332184083-5473) of Report R28349; and

Approves the August 2022 severe weather event recovery expenditure carry forwards, as set out in Attachment 4 (332184083-5474) of Report R28349; and

Approves the operating expenditure budgets carry forwards, totalling $4,225,000, to Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

Other changes since the Long Term Plan consultation

7.24 Staff have identified some other changes required to the final LTP relating to previous Council decisions, corrections and phasing/timing changes from what was included in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document and supporting information.

7.25 Aside from any new changes that might be agreed on through these deliberations, the changes noted in paragraph 7.24, the carry forward of capital expenditure and operating expenditure budgets referenced above and the Nelson Provincial Museum’s new ARC Facility carry forwards referenced earlier in this report have already caused some changes to the net debt and rates requirement. There are numerous small adjustments that mostly nett off, for example, the capital expenditure carry forwards do not increase overall debt level, just the timing of when debt is incurred. The major changes are summarised below.

7.25.1 Removal of the Brook Camp LED lighting and roading capital budgets $205,000 from years one to ten of the plan.

7.25.2 Removal of the brook camp management fee $400,000 from years three to ten of the plan.

7.25.3 Property sales $6.52 million years one to two of the plan.

7.25.4 Other increases to 2023/24 budget through Council decisions:

· Public Transport - $582,000

· Vulnerable Housing Support - $20,000

· Saxtons Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade capex - $400,000.

· Remedial works to key bus routes and bus stops - $400,000.

7.25.5 Tāhunanui Beach Sawdust risk mitigation:

· $360,000 operating expenditure added to year zero by Council decision. Taking the total year zero spend to $810,000 offset by $134,000 Ministry for the Environment (MFE) income.

· $2.44 million added to year one of the plan taking the total year one spend to $5.44 million offset by estimated 50% contribution from MFE ($2.72 million).

7.25.6 For ease of reference for elected members, the carry forwards that are still part of the deliberations report for approval have been provisionally included in the baseline figures. This includes capital expenditure, August 2022 severe weather event recovery, operating expenditure and Nelson Provincial Museum’s new ARC Facility carry forward. The changes are provisionally included because they are just rephasing of existing budgets and the complexity of the interest and depreciation changes are best run through Council’s financial model to give an accurate impact on the baseline rates requirement.

7.26 No changes have been made to three waters better off funding or transitional funding budget lines as we are still in discussions with the Department of Internal Affairs.

7.27 The net result of changes since the LTP consultation, including the carry forwards, is that net debt is projected to decrease by $1.5 million in year 10 of the plan from $526.3 million to $524.8 million. The rates required for year 1 has decreased by $465,000, Year 2 has increased by 211,000, year 3 has decreased by $34,000 and years 4-10 have on average decreased by $398,000.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves changes to the draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 budgets resulting from Council decisions, corrections and timing changes as outlined at sections 7.24 to 7.27 of this Report R28349.

Impacts on rates and debt of all LTP budget-related recommendations in this report

7.28 The following table shows the impacts on rates and debt if all recommendations in this report are adopted.

Proposed approach to Annual Plan 2025/26 consultation

7.29 Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002) in 2014 changed consultation requirements in a number of areas, including in relation to annual plans. In particular, a special consultative procedure was no longer required for each annual plan. Councils, while still needing to adopt an annual plan in years 2 and 3 of the cycle, can choose not to undertake community consultation if there are if there are no significant or material differences from the content of the LTP for the financial year to which the annual plan relates, including:

7.29.1 no significant or material departures from the financial statements or funding impact statement in the LTP

7.29.2 no significant new spending proposals

7.29.3 no decisions to delay or cancel significant projects.

7.30 Following the change, 21 councils did not consult on the first eligible annual plans (staff are not aware of any official counts since then).

7.31 Staff propose that Council make use of this provision unless material or significant changes are required to year 2 of the LTP. It would be a good reflection on Council’s planning processes if the work programme in the LTP was robust enough to not require re-consultation every year. Considerable resources would be saved (within Council and the community) – it would help manage community consultation fatigue and focus efforts on ‘getting good stuff done’ (implementing the agreed Plan).

8. Matters raised in submissions on select related consultations

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 Council received one submission on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy, requesting the Policy be amended to reflect the following matters:

8.1.1 Change reference to the Treaty principles to instead refer to the Articles of the Māori text.

8.1.2 Consultation periods are extended beyond four weeks when they relate to matters of greater public interest.

8.1.3 Early engagement is undertaken prior to formal feedback.

8.1.4 Communications changes including more use of social media, providing consultation documents in different forms and languages, improving font size and colour for people with low vision, and offering alternative ways to give feedback (e.g. video, audio).

Staff comments

8.2 The draft Policy reference about the Treaty principles is “Council’s engagement with Māori and iwi aligns with the Treaty principles of partnership, protection and participation”. This part of the Policy is specifically dealing with Council’s engagement with Māori and iwi, not about the wider Treaty context. The various other consultation and engagement methods suggested in the submission are all currently undertaken by Council, as appropriate. Therefore, staff recommend no change to the Policy.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that no changes are needed the Draft Significance and Engagement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 5 (1852948764‐1007) of Report R28349 as the final Significance and Engagement Policy.

Draft Revenue and Financing Policy

8.3 There were about 13 submissions on the draft Revenue and Financing Policy.

Extending coverage of the Flood Protection Rate into rural areas and charging it on land value

8.4 One submitter did not support Council’s proposal, instead seeking to retain the current coverage of the Flood Protection Rate. A few submitters supported using land value as the basis for the rate.

8.5 One submitter would like the stormwater rate to also be based on land value.

Staff comments

8.6 Staff consider that it is appropriate to extend the coverage of the flood protection rate into rural areas benefiting from the extended programme of flood protection works, and recommend retaining the rate coverage as consulted on. Staff also recommend keeping the rate based on land value. Staff consider that the stormwater rate should be retained as a flat charge, at this time.

Storm Recovery charge for August 2022 severe weather event

8.7 A few submitters requested that this storm recovery charge be changed to being based on land value, as they considered it was more equitable and regressive taxes impact more on poorer residents. However, a submitter considered that it would be better in the general rate, due to the likelihood of further events requiring the rate to be retained after 10 years to cover these events.

8.8 A few submitters supported the new storm recovery charge and spreading the costs over everyone via each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP).

8.9 Another submitter requested that the new storm recovery charge be based on rateable units, rather than on each SUIP. They considered that using SUIPs would disproportionately affect lower income households and subsidise more expensive housing.

8.10 Another submitter considered adding the additional $300 charge on top of the rates increase was unfair and that the costs should be paid for by central government. A further submitter incorrectly assumed that the charge was to cover house buy-outs due to slips, rather than Council’s costs of repairing damage to its assets and property, and didn’t support the charge as they considered the costs should be paid for by insurance and EQC.

Staff comment

8.11 Staff consider that keeping the storm recovery charge separate increases transparency to the community about the event’s cost. Council can make decisions on what happens with any other events in the future, if necessary. Council has set the storm recovery charge to cover the costs of the storm event. Staff considered it appropriate to recover the costs via a fixed charge over the 10 year period, rather than basing it on land value which will change at each revaluation date.

8.12 Staff consider that basing the storm recovery charge on SUIPs is fairer and is unlikely to disproportionately affect lower income households, therefore, no change is needed to the Policy.

Differentials

8.13 A few submitters objected to Council continuing with the Commercial Differential noting that businesses are carrying an unfair proportion of the rates bill, residents and ratepayers also get benefit from the services it pays for and that businesses are currently struggling financially, particularly small businesses in retail and hospitality.

8.14 One submitter supported Council’s proposal to remove the Forestry Differential, noting that these businesses should pay their way.

Staff comment

8.15 Staff recommend that Council continues to reassess the commercial differential annually, as proposed in the Revenue and Financing Policy. The support for removing the forestry differential is noted.

Short-term Rental Accommodation (STRA)

8.16 One submitter commented the unregulated nature of STRA presents an uneven playing field compared with commercial accommodation providers. The submitter noted that STRA operate in residential areas paying residential rates, whereas commercial accommodation operators pay commercial rates. While Council has made moves to define STRA in its District Plans, the submitter has commented that more emphasis is needed on enforcement.

Staff comment

8.17 Council is encouraging STRA owners to apply for resource consent where needed and is working with organisations who manage multiple properties on clarifying which require consents. Any consent may affect the property value which may in turn impact the rates payable. Staff consider that no further action is currently required on this matter.

Matai Development Levy

8.18 One submitter requested Council “investigate the possibility of a Matai Development Levy over and above standard rates to cover additional infrastructure costs downstream from the actual site”. Staff assume the submitter is referring to the Maitahi Bayview subdivision in the Maitai Valley and to the costs of future utility infrastructure and road widening and maintenance closer to town.

Staff comment

8.19 Council takes development contributions for the growth related component of projects like the Maitahi Bayview development. However, when these projects occur, Council may undertake associated upgrades of receiving infrastructure in the form of renewals and level of service improvements, which are appropriately ratepayer funded. Staff recommend no change is needed to the Policy.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Act wording in the Policy

8.20 One submitter would like the wording changed to “give full effect to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act”.

Staff comments

8.21 Section 102(3A) states that the policy must support the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. This policy supports the principles and many of the matters covered by the Act are outside the scope of Council’s responsibilities. Staff consider that no change is needed to the Policy wording.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 6 (1852948764‐1006) of Report R28349 as the final Revenue and Financing Policy.

Three draft rating policies - Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land, Rates Remission Policy, and Rates Postponement Policy.

8.22 28 submissions commented on the draft rating policies.

Rates Remission Policy

8.23 Approximately twenty three of the submissions on the rates remission policy objected to Council’s proposal to remove the heritage rates remission from the Rates Remission Policy. The key reasons submitters did not support the removal of the heritage remission included:

8.23.1 Heritage buildings are unique and owners need to preserve them for future generations

8.23.2 Heritage buildings are more costly to maintain than more modern buildings and have additional requirements they need to meet. The remission helps towards this additional cost. Some heritage buildings have also faced earthquake strengthening costs. The funding enables building work to be undertaken to meet heritage guidelines

8.23.3 Retaining heritage features can constrain use of buildings and viability of businesses

8.23.4 Costs will be passed on to tenants. Business tenants are already struggling to survive

8.23.5 Removal of the remission will affect ongoing maintenance costs. There is a risk that heritage buildings will not be well maintained and fall into disrepair

8.23.6 Heritage buildings benefit the city’s attractiveness and historical appeal, the historical wellbeing of Nelson, and the future conservation of its elegant and well known historical architecture and beauty The rates remission acknowledges the public benefits of maintaining heritage buildings. Removing it means owners of historic buildings are now expected to pay all the costs.

8.24 One submission requested that Council consider other options if it decided to proceed with removing the heritage building remission. The alternative options they provided for Council’s consideration are:

8.24.1 Amend the rates remission of heritage buildings policy limiting eligibility to not-for-profit organisations/ charities; or

8.24.2 Amend the remission policy for ‘community, sporting, and other organisations’ (with the purpose of supporting community wellbeing) to add arts and/or heritage.

8.25 One submitter requested replacing the heritage rates remission with a less administratively heavy process. They requested Council designs and manufactures plaques to visibly acknowledge heritage listed properties.

8.26 One submitter supported the rates remission for provision of social and Kaumātua housing.

8.27 Another submitter asked Council not to remove the ability to provide remissions for land damaged by weather events.

8.28 Another submitter requested a remission of at least 50% for community housing providers from the Storm Recovery Rate.

Staff comments

8.29 Council acknowledges comments made by submitters on removal of the remission for heritage buildings but considers that costs of maintaining privately owned buildings should not fall on the general ratepayer. Removing the remission means Council will receive approximately $90,000 - $100,000 of additional rates revenue.

8.30 Comment on the alternative options put forward by one submitter for Council’s consideration:

8.30.1 Retain the remission for not-for-profit organisations only - A few such organisations have received a heritage building remission in the past costing approximately $6,600 per annum (at a rate of 18%). It would create an inconsistency with other heritage building owners and over time more not-for-profit organisations could own heritage buildings which would increase the amount of the remission paid.

8.30.2 Add arts and/or heritage to the remission policy for ‘community, sporting and other organisations’ to receive a 50% remission - This is not an option as groups like the submitter suggesting the option already receive an automatic remission of 50% of the general rates being a requirement under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The 18% heritage building remission they have had in the past has applied to the remaining 50% of their general rates.

8.31 Staff recommend continuing with the removal of the heritage rates remission, as proposed.

8.32 Staff note the support for Council retaining in the Policy the remissions for social and Kaumātua housing, and for land affected by natural calamity.

8.33 Staff recommend adding into the Rates Remission Policy a rates remission for the community housing providers (CHPs) and Kaumātua housing category on the Storm Recovery Charge. The remission would be a 50% remission of the Storm Recovery Charge per SUIP, therefore increasing the total remission for this rates remission to about $9,500 (GST exclusive). This would halve the annual cost of the charge on CHPs and Kaumātua housing.

8.34 Elected members have expressed an interest in whether this remission should be extended to other groups who receive remissions on their general rates. If elected members wish to extend the remission, staff consider that the appropriate other categories could include: separately used or inhabited parts of commercial rating units less than 20m2; community, sporting and other organisations; households with dependant relatives housed in an additional unit; golf practice greens; land protected for natural, historical or cultural conservation purposes; and low value properties. The total cost of providing the remission to these categories and the CHP and Kaumātua Housing category is about $17,500 (excluding GST). Staff are concerned that extending the remission to these categories will mean that they will seek remissions on other fixed charges and it would also be more costly to administer.

8.35 Staff seek an amendment to the draft Rates Remission Policy to clarify the ‘Procedure’ section of the ‘Remission of charges for excess water arising from leaks’. The proposed new wording in the second and third paragraphs (as outlined below) will clarify the policy to reflect the current Council process for granting rates remissions for water leaks.

Procedure

The ratepayer must apply to the Council for a remission within a year of the first reading which is the subject of the application.

Residential water leak credits will be based on Council’s assessment of the property owner’s usual usage for the period. Council may grant a water leak credit remission of up to 100% of the extra water used above Council’s assessment of the usual water usage.

Commercial/industrial water leak credits will be based on Council’s assessment of the property owner’s usual usage for the period. Council may grant a water leak credit remission of up to 50% of the extra water used above Council’s assessment of the usual water usage. If the water has not entered the wastewater network, Trade Waste will also be credited.

In extraordinary circumstances which fall outside the criteria above, a remission may be granted at the sole discretion of the Council’s Group Manager Corporate Services. This may apply where a water credit remission application has been declined, and where this could lead to cases of genuine financial hardship for the ratepayer (owner/occupier), or where timely detection of a leak could not have reasonably occurred.

Recommendation

That the Council

Amends the Draft Rates Remission Policy to add a 50% remission for Community Housing Providers and Kaumātua Housing to the Storm Recovery Rate as outlined in paragraph 8.33 of this report R28349; and

Amends the Draft Rates Remission Policy wording in the ‘Procedure’ section of the ‘Remission of charges for excess water arising from leaks’ as outlined in paragraph 8.35 of this report R28349; and

Rates Postponement Policy

8.36 One submitter requested that Council moves away from an annual application, makes it easier for applicants to apply, keeps costs down, and recovers the management fees when the rates are recovered and reflect the actual cost recovery at that time.

Staff comments

8.37 There is currently only one application necessary for the rates postponement for the duration of the postponement. However, there is an annual declaration they need to make proving that they are complying with the Policy requirements. Staff recommend no change to the Policy.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Rates Postponement Policy and adopts the Policy contained in
Attachment 7 (1852948764‐1004) of Report R28349 as the final Rates Postponement Policy.

Policy on remission and postponement of rates on Māori Freehold Land

8.38 One submitter supported the content of the Policy. Another submitter requested the wording about Te Ture Whenua Māori Act be changed to give full effect to the Act. A further submitter commented “It is racist to ask ratepayers to subsidise other properties because of the owners ethnicity.”

Staff comments

8.39 The Local Government Act 2002 (section 102(1)) requires Council to adopt a policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Māori freehold land. Māori freehold land has a specific definition under the Act.

8.40 Section 102(3A) states that the policy must also support the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. The wording in Council’s proposed Policy supports the principles and staff consider that no change is needed.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that no changes are needed to the Draft Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land and adopts the Policy contained in Attachment 8 (1852948764‐1125) of Report R28349 as the final Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land.

9. Options

9.1 Council has options for each decision it makes in relation to submissions, including making no changes from what was proposed in the Consultation Document, increasing or decreasing funding, or approving new funding. Each decision will have rating or debt implications that will feed into the final LTP. Council is required to adopt the LTP by 30 June 2024 so that it can strike the rates for the 2024/25 financial year and have in place a ten year work programme ready to be implemented from 1 July 2024.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Staff will incorporate the Council’s deliberations decisions into the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 and relevant policies, prior to a concluding audit by Audit New Zealand. Staff will present the final LTP to Council on 27 June 2024 for adoption and setting the 2024/25 rates. Designed versions of the LTP, including the adopted policies, will subsequently be published on Council’s website and made available to the public.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1852948764-1105 - Approach to other submission comments ⇩

Attachment 2: 2010958706-11426 - Amended Eligibility Buy-out Principles ⇩

Attachment 3: 332184083-5473 - Capital Expenditure Carry Forward Report ⇩

Attachment 4: 332184083-5474 - August 2022 severe weather event recovery expenditure Carry Forward Report ⇩

Attachment 5: 1852948764‐1007 - Significance and Engagement Policy ⇩

Attachment 6: 1852948764‐1006 - Revenue and Financing Policy ⇩

Attachment 7: 1852948764‐1004 - Rates Postponement Policy ⇩

Attachment 8: 1852948764‐1125 - Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The submissions on the Consultation Document are an input into Council’s decision making processes. They enable elected members to have an understanding of community views on the matters prior to Council deliberating and making decisions on what is included in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

The consultation processes enable Council to democratically make decisions on behalf of its communities, and to consider its services, work programme and budgets in terms of the wellbeing of its community in the present and for the future.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposals recommended through this deliberations report have been made following consideration of community feedback and will help work towards Council’s community outcomes.

Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the community’s views on the services, projects, funding and policies contained within the Long Term Plan. Deliberating on the matters raised in submissions is considered low risk, as Council is following the correct process.

There is a risk that Council will make decisions as part of the deliberations that are not supported by some stakeholders, however, Council can communicate the reasons for the decisions through messaging to the community, which will help mitigate this risk.

Financial impact

The decisions Council makes on the submissions will determine the financial impact for the LTP.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decisions on the content of the LTP are of high significance to residents and ratepayers of Nelson because of the financial consequences and impact on services. A special consultative procedure has been undertaken to seek community views.

Climate Impact

The decisions in this report will impact on Council’s ability to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now and in the future. The impact of climate change has been considered as part of development of the LTP. While some climate change budgets have had to be phased over a longer period for affordability, every effort has been made to provide the expenditure needed to support Nelson to adapt to climate impacts and for Council to meet its emissions targets.

A total of approximately $15 million is allocated across the ten years of the Long Term Plan for climate specific projects. There are also many other projects that include actions that will contribute to reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change but that are not included in the total as climate change action is not their primary purpose.

The consultation process has allowed the community to provide feedback on Council’s climate response budgets and activities (see paragraphs 6.152-6.161 for more details).

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement has occurred with iwi during the Long Term Plan preparation process, particularly during development of the Activity Management Plans and through the Long Term Planning Summit with Iwi Leaders. Prior to community consultation, an update was provided to Te Ohu Whakahaere on 6 March 2024 and several submissions were received from Māori organisations, iwi trusts or iwi-affiliated commercial entities. See paragraphs 6.162-6.166 and Attachment 1 for more details.

Legal context

Council’s decisions must be made in accordance with Part 6 of LGA2002. This required use of the Special Consultative Procedure for the Consultation Document and a section 82 process using the principles of consultation as a guide for the related consultations that occurred at the same time.

Council has the power to make these deliberation decisions under the LGA2002 (including sections 76AA, 82, 83, 93, 93A, 101A, 101B and 102 for the Long Term Plan and the adoption of other related policies and strategies).

Delegations

The decisions contained in this report are within Council’s area of responsibility.

Development Type	Activity	Units of demand
Retirement unit	Transport	0.2 HUD per unit
	Community infrastructure	0.1 HUD per unit
	Parks and Open Spaces	0.1 HUD per unit
Aged care room	Transport	0.1 HUD per unit
	Community infrastructure	0.05 HUD per unit
	Parks and Open Spaces	0.05 HUD per unit

Option 1: Resolve to finalise the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 in line with the recommendations in this report for adoption on 27 June 2024.
Advantages	· Addresses concerns of some submitters while maintaining consistency with the objectives of the policy. · Allows Council to fund infrastructure required to provide for growth in accordance with s.197AB that development contributions are “…determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who create the need for those asset.” · Ensures compliance with the requirements of the LGA. · Provides a fairer and less complex system, for reserve contributions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not address the concerns of all submitters.
Option 2: Alter the recommended resolutions before making them or make additional resolutions, including requesting further changes to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 to be brought back for adoption on 27 June 2024.
Advantages	· Will allow elected members to make further amendments to the Development Contributions Policy 2024 in response to submitters.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May be inconsistent with the objectives of the policy and the requirements of the LGA in respect of Development Contributions. · May push growth costs onto the developers or ratepayer

(i)

1.

2.