Agenda of Council - Thursday, 7 November 2024

Nelson City Council Minutes - 10 October 2024

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 Thursday 10 October 2024, commencing at 9.02a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (N Philpott), Deputy Chief Executive/Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Acting Group Manager Community Services (M Croft), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Senior Governance Adviser (A Andrews)

Apologies : Councillor J Hodgson

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Resolved CL/2024/196

That the Council

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

His Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

His Worship the Mayor advised that the order of business would be adjusted to accommodate presentations from external organisations. Item 8: The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust Strategic Presentation to be taken before Item 7: Mayor’s Report.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 5 September 2024

Document number M20738, agenda pages 4 - 24 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/197

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 5 September 2024, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Rollo Carried

6. Recommendations from Committees

6.1 Audit, Risk and Finance Committee - 18 September 2024

6.1.1 Carry Forwards - 2023/24 for Approval

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis answered questions on the capacity and risks of delivering the infrastructure capital works programme with the anticipated budget carry forwards.

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/198

That the Council

1. Approves the net capital carry forward of $12 million –$12.3 million net to 2024/25 and $250,000 back from 2025/26; and

2. Notes that the net capital carry forward is in addition to the net capital carry forward of $24.2 million approved during the Long Term Plan 2024/34 process, taking the total carry forward to $36.3 million of which $34.1 million is for the 2024/25 year and $1.4 million is for the 2025/26 year; and $500,000 is for the 2026/27 year and $300,000 is for the 2029/30 year; and

3. Notes the savings and reallocations in 2023/24 capital expenditure of $3.4 million including staff time which is in addition to the $0.7 million savings and reallocations already recognised in the May 2024 Long Term Plan 2024/34 deliberations; and

4. Notes that the total 2024/25 capital budget (including staff costs and Aug 2022 severe weather event related budgets and excluding consolidations, vested assets and scope adjustment) will be adjusted by these resolutions from a total of $107.1 million to a total of $119.3 million; and

5. Approves net capital grants carried forward of $628,000 to align with the timing of capital expenditure budgets; and

6. Approves capital grant budget of $4.1 million of Crown funding for slip effected property purchases to be carried back to 2023/24 to align with the accrual of that income that has been made for our Annual Report 2023/24; and

7. Approves the carry forward of $612,000 unspent operating expenditure budget to 2024/25, accompanied by $567,000 of operating grant funding budget.

Sanson/Courtney Carried

6.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 16 August 2024

6.2.1 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2025/26

Resolved CL/2024/199

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2025/2026 (1399367370-10512) for review and provide feedback to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit, if required.

Courtney/Stallard Carried

6.3 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 20 September 2024

6.3.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2024/25

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/200

That the Nelson City and Tasman District Council

1. Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2024-25 for review and provide feedback to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit, if required.

Skinner/Paki Paki Carried

6.3.2 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report Summary 2023/24

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/201

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Annual Report 2023/24 and Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Financial Statements 2023/24.

Skinner/Paki Paki Carried

7. The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust Strategic Presentation (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R28715

Director, Julie Catchpole, and Chair of the Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Steve Green spoke to the presentation (tabled). They answered questions on their years of service, “learning outside of classroom” funding and its services and operational expenditure.

Attachments

1 Suter Art Gallery Strategic Presentation

8. Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 7)

Document number R28828, agenda pages 44 - 58 refer.

His Worship the Mayor took the report as read. He answered questions on his work with the Transport Revenue Stakeholder Group and its scope.

Resolved CL/2024/202

That the Council

1. Receives the Mayor’s Report (R28828) and its attachments; and

2. Requests officers engage with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, iwi, stakeholders and Tasman District Council about the establishment of a place-based housing partnership in the Nelson-Tasman region and report back to a future Council meeting detailing potential benefits, options and a recommended way forward; and

3. Approves bringing forward a portion of the funding for Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to support up to $2,500 or one third of the receipted costs, whichever is the lesser, of the Mayor’s visit in October 2024 to Nelson’s sister cities of Huangshi and Yangjiang.

Skinner/Rollo Carried

The meeting adjourned from 10.21am until 10.31am.

9. Receipt of the Nelson Regional Development Agency's Annual Report 2023/24

Document number R28765, agenda pages 59 - 121 refer.

Chief Executive, Fiona Wilson, Chair of the NRDA Board, Sarah-Jane Weir, and Finance & Commercial Manager, Toni Power spoke to their presentation (tabled). They answered questions about cruise ship bookings for the summer, the need for a facility at the port to receive and orient tourists disembarking off cruise ships and food and beverage promotional work.

Resolved CL/2024/203

That the Council

1. Receives the report Receipt of the Nelson Regional Development Agency's Annual Report 2023/24 (R28765) and its attachment; and

2. Receives the Nelson Regional Development Agency’s Annual Report 2023/24 (Attachment 1) as required under the Local Government Act 2002.

His Worship the Mayor/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

Attachments

1 NRDA Annual Report Presentation

10. Approval to bring forward budget - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Bridge to Better projects

Document number R28781, agenda pages 122 - 127 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis spoke to the report and highlighted the benefits of bringing budget forward into the current financial year to undertake some physical works ahead of the wider Bridge to Better project to limit disruption to the inner city and to get the benefit of a buoyant construction market.

Resolved CL/2024/204

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to bring forward budget - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Bridge to Better projects (R28781); and

2. Approves bringing forward budget (part of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund - Bridge to Better) of $1,226,500 from 2025-26 and $2,659,800 from 2026-27 to 2024-25 to allow the tender and award of the water ring main works to proceed ahead of schedule; and

3. Approves bringing forward budget (part of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund - Bridge to Better) of $335,500 from 2025-26 to 2024-25 to allow the Flood Gate Upgrade works to proceed ahead of schedule.

His Worship the Mayor/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

The meeting adjourned from 11.33am until 11.41am.

11. Local Water Done Well - Service Delivery Options

Document number R28752, agenda pages 128 - 136 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis and Manager Utilities Activity Management, Phil Ruffell took the report as read. They answered questions on the water treatment plant, activity management plans, legal requirements under the Act and consultation with the public.

Resolved CL/2024/205

That the Council

1. Receives the report Local Water Done Well - Service Delivery Options (R28752); and

2. Determines that models for delivery of water services for Nelson are:

a. Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services; or

b. Establishing or joining a water services council-controlled organisation – either (A) alone or (B) with other council(s); or

c. Establishing or joining a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the Local Government act 2002; and

3. Adopts Model a. (Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services) as the preferred model for the proposal for consultation with the community; and

4. Directs staff to prepare a consultation statement of proposal for this option - to be brought to Council in a future report with details of the proposed consultation.

Skinner/Brand Carried

12. Adoption of the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029

Document number R28743, agenda pages 137 - 313 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop, Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizzell and Team Leader – Biosecurity & Biodiversity, Tasman District Council, Guinny Coleman took the report as read. They answered questions on pest control timeline, pampas grass, wilding pines, and feral and stray cats.

Resolved CL/2024/206

That the Council, acknowledging Tasman District Council prior approval,

1. Receives the report Adoption of the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (R28743) and its attachments; and

2. Confirms that it is satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation on the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, in accordance with Section 72 of the Biosecurity Act 1993; and

3. Agrees that the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 specifies the matters listed in Section 73(3) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and complies with Section 73 of the Biosecurity Act 1993; and

4. Confirms that it is satisfied that the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 meets the requirements of Section 74 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (including not being inconsistent with the National Policy Direction); and

5. Adopts the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (NDOCS-596364813-11862); and

6. Agrees to notify submitters and the public of its decision on the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, in accordance with Section 75(4) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, via its website, following adoption of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 by both Councils; and

7. Delegates authority to the His Worship the Mayor of Tasman District Council and Chief Executive of Tasman District Council to make minor edits to the finalised Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 prior to it being made publicly available.

Sanson/Benge Carried

13. Approval to consult on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Document number R28696, agenda pages 314 - 371 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop, and Structural Engineer, Bruce Mutton took the report as read. They answered questions on the process of identifying such buildings, inclusion of residential buildings in the policy and implications for squatters.

Resolved CL/2024/207

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to consult on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy (R28696) and its attachments; and

2. Approves consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure on the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy; and

3. Approves the Statement of Proposal and its attachment the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy for consultation; and

4. Approves that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not necessary for the public to understand the proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy; and

5. Delegates to a Consultation Panel to hear and deliberate on submissions to the amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy, and recommend a decision to Council; and

6. Appoints the following Elected Members to the Consultation Panel - amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

a. Councillor Tim Skinner (Chair)

b. Councillor Trudie Brand; and

c. Councillor Campbell Rollo

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.5 to 5.10 of this report R28696) and agrees:

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

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

8. Authorises His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executve to approve minor editorial changes.

His Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried

14. Approval to consult on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy

Document number R28754, agenda pages 372 - 437 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop, and Structural Engineer, Bruce Mutton took the report as read. They answered questions on adjoining Council’s interest and capability in undertaking services on behalf of Nelson City Council for the regulation of Nelson Dams.

Resolved CL/2024/208

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to consult on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy (R28754) and its attachments; and

2. Approves consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure on the proposed replacement Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy; and

3. Approves the Statement of Proposal and its attachment the proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy for consultation; and

4. Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not necessary for the public to understand the Proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy; and

5. Delegates to a Consultation Panel to hear and deliberate on submissions to the Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy, and recommend a decision to Council; and

6. Appoints the following Elected Members to the Consultation Panel - Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy:

a. Councillor Tim Skinner (Chair)

b. Councillor Trudie Brand; and

c. Councillor Campbell Rollo

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.5 to 5.10 of this report R28754) and agrees:

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

His Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried

15. Residents' Survey 2023/24 results

Document number R28729, agenda pages 438 - 486 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald and Senior Policy Adviser, Louise Dalzell spoke to the report and highlighted the key aspects of the survey results. They answered questions on interpretation of data and key research.

Resolved CL/2024/209

That the Council

1. Receives the report Residents' Survey 2023/24 results (R28729) and its attachment; and

2. Notes that the results of the Residents’ Survey 2023/24 will be made available to the public on Council’s website.

His Worship the Mayor/Sanson Carried

16. Adoption of the Schedule of Meetings for 2025

Document number R28790, agenda pages 487 - 0 refer.

Team Leader Governance, Robyn Byrne took the report as read.

Resolved CL/2024/210

That the Council

1. Receives the report Adoption of the Schedule of Meetings for 2025 (R28790) and its attachment; and

2. Adopts the Schedule of Meetings for the 2025 calendar year as set out in Attachment 1.

His Worship the Mayor/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

17. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2024/211

That the Council

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

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

Paki Paki/Sanson Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 5 September 2024	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Recommendations from Committees
	Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 20 September 2024 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Land Purchase	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3	Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - appointment of Independent Member	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
4	The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust - Trustee Rotation	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
5	'Shaping our future' programme	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
6	City Centre Expressions of Interest development opportunities	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
7	Millers Acre regional bus interchange	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The meeting went into confidential session at 1.07pm and resumed in public session at 6.01pm.

Karakia Whakamutanga

18. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

Recommendation from Committee:

CONFIDENTIAL: Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Land Purchase

3. Agrees that the decision be made publicly available following settlement of the purchase.

CONFIDENTIAL: Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - appointment of Independent Member

5. Agrees that Report (R28671) remain confidential at this time; and

6. Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available once a letter of acceptance is received.

CONFIDENTIAL: The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust - Trustee Rotation

8. Agrees that the report The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust – Trustee Rotation (R28574) and its attachments remain confidential at this time; and

9. Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available once the 2024 The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust Annual General Meeting has taken place.

CONFIDENTIAL: 'Shaping our future' programme

9. Agrees that Report (R28771) and Attachment remain confidential at this time; and

10. Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available at the discretion of the Chief Executive.

6	CONFIDENTIAL: City Centre Expressions of Interest development opportunities
	9. Agrees that the report City Centre Expressions of Interest development opportunities (R28802) and its attachments will remain confidential until sale and purchase agreements become unconditional for 25 to 27 Bridge Street and 42 Rutherford Street and a lease is executed for 3 Halifax Street.

7	CONFIDENTIAL: Millers Acre regional bus interchange
	8. Agrees the decision, Report (R28780) and its attachment remain confidential at this time.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 6.02p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 8: Mayor's Report - Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest, Local Electoral Reform, Storm Recovery Taskforce Terms of Reference, Sister Cities visit, Mayoral Discretionary Fund

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Mayor's Report - Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest, Local Electoral Reform, Storm Recovery Taskforce Terms of Reference, Sister Cities visit, Mayoral Discretionary Fund

Report Author: Hon Dr Nick Smith - Mayor

Report Authoriser:

Report Number: R28870

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive a bequest for the Isel and Botanic Gardens and consider approaching the City of Nelson Civic Trust to administer the funds.

1.2 To provide an update on the work being undertaken by Local Government New Zealand’s Electoral Reform Group and note that councils across the country are being encouraged to submit on the matters raised in an issues paper. To consider preparing a submission.

1.3 To consider updated terms of reference for the Storm Recovery Taskforce to include monitoring and oversight of the Regional Infrastructure Fund flood resilience projects.

1.4 To provide an update on my recent visit to Nelson’s sister cities of Huangshi and Yangjiang.

1.5 To provide an update on spending from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report - Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest, Local Electoral Reform, Storm Recovery Taskforce Terms of Reference, Sister Cities visit, Mayoral Discretionary Fund (R28870) and its attachment;

2. Receives the generous Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest of approximately $300,000; and

a. Requests the City of Nelson Civic Trust administers the Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest on behalf of Nelson City Council; and

b. Following confirmation from the City of Nelson Civic Trust delegates to the Chief Executive the formalisation of an Agreement to administer the Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest.

3. Notes that Local Government New Zealand’s Electoral Reform Group has released a local electoral reform issues paper and councils across the country are being encouraged to submit on the matters raised within this paper; and

a. Requests that officers prepare a submission with input from elected members.

4. Approves the updated Storm Recovery Taskforce Terms of Reference.

5. Notes the recent expenditure from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund.

3. Discussion

Isel and Botanic Gardens Bequest

3.1 I’m delighted to advise that Council is the recipient of a generous bequest of approximately $300,000 for the maintenance and development of the Botanic Gardens in Nelson and Isel Park in Stoke. The benefactor has requested to remain anonymous and for this reason I have not shared the letter received.

3.2 I have accepted the bequest and passed on the Council’s thanks to the benefactor’s family for this wonderful contribution that will enable Council to enhance and maintain the gardens for the wider community to enjoy.

3.3 The City of Nelson Civic Trust has managed bequests for Council before and it is my recommendation that the Trust is asked to manage this bequest on behalf of Council, especially given its alignment with the Trust’s role to administer bequest funds for the beautification of Nelson City.

3.4 If the Trust agrees to the request, it would be on the understanding that the funds would be allocated in accordance with the terms of the bequest and only for the purpose of enhancements or improvements to Council-led or facilitated operations and activities. It would also be important to note that the funds are not to be used for business-as-usual operations or to offset ratepayer costs for normal Council business.

Local Government Reform

3.5 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) in June 2024 established the Electoral Reform Group and asked me to Chair it. Its goal is to strengthen local government’s democratic mandate, with a focus on increasing participation in local elections. Turnout at the 2022 local authority elections nationally was 41.5% compared with 57% in 1989 and 77.5% in the 2023 parliamentary elections. Nelson’s polling rate is about 10% higher but the issue is still relevant to us in that over the past 30 years it has dropped from 70% in 1992 to 51% in 2022.

3.6 On 24 October 2024 at the LGNZ Zone 5&6 meeting in Dunedin, the Group released the local electoral reform issues paper (refer attachment one), which sets out five key issues affecting voter participation:

3.6.1 Voting methods, including the declining feasibility of postal voting

3.6.2 Public awareness of local government and its importance;

3.6.3 Poor understanding of candidates and their policies;

3.6.4 How local elections are promoted and administered;

3.6.5 How local government could transition to a four-year term.

3.7 The paper canvasses issues that have been discussed for years. The most urgent challenge, with most councils conducting their elections by post, is the collapse of what New Zealanders now refer to as “snail mail”. Postal volumes have dropped 80% since 2000, with the number of street post boxes down by 40% since 2010. Under a 2024 review of the Deed of Understanding between the Government and NZ Post, it is proposed mail deliveries drop from a minimum of three days a week to two days a week in urban areas and from five days a week to three days a week in rural areas. The review reinforces the problem that post is not a sustainable voting method long term for local elections.

3.8 We need to move quickly to find a safe and reliable replacement to postal voting for local elections, while recognising that alternatives such as online voting come with considerable security and cost concerns that are not easy to overcome.

3.9 The Electoral Reform Group is committed to working with the Government on how we can strengthen the local electoral system. With the Government planning to introduce legislation and hold a referendum on extending the Parliamentary term to four years, the Group wants the implications for councils to be included in the Government’s work. We believe there are benefits in local government also moving to a four-year term to encourage a longer-term perspective on challenging issues such as infrastructure, housing and climate change. We would like the Government to include the option of councils moving to four-year terms in the proposed referendum.

3.10 The Group is now seeking feedback on its issues paper with submissions closing on 19 January 2025. The Group’s final position paper is expected to be released in July 2025.

3.11 This is the beginning of an informed conversation about the solutions. The Group is determined to drive meaningful change and it is important that councils participate in this process and share their views on the issues paper. I propose a workshop with Councillors later this month and that Council prepares a submission by the end of 2024.

Proposed update of the Storm Recovery Taskforce terms of reference

3.12 The Storm Recovery Taskforce had a discussion regarding the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) flood resilience projects that have been approved for grant funding support of $9 million of the expected total cost of $15 million. These projects are related to the $89 million of storm recovery works that include betterment. The funding from Government enables us to bring forward these works that need to be co-ordinated alongside the storm recovery works.

3.13 The funding received from RIF and the associated works programme is an outcome and follows on from the August 2022 severe weather event.

3.14 Staff are of the view that governance oversight would be best provided by the Storm Recovery Taskforce as least until the end of the recovery work. On this basis it is recommended that the updated terms of reference as attached to this report are approved (refer attachment two). It may be appropriate to expand the membership of the Storm Recovery Taskforce with this expanded terms of reference, and I am open to views and expressions of interest.

Sister cities visit to Huangshi and Yangjiang

3.15 Nelson's sister city relationships with the cities of Huangshi in the Hubei province and Yangjiang in the Guangdong province are important in that China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner, the third largest source of visitors and new migrants, and a leader in many areas of technological innovation. It is also critical to peace and security in the world and particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

3.16 These two cities are larger than Nelson with Huangshi having a population of 3.9 million and Yangjiang 2.6 million. At4,500 km² and 8,000 km² respectively, the two Chinese cities combined are a similar size to the Nelson-Tasman region’s 10,000km²area. The difference simply reflects the disparity in New Zealand’s population relative to China – Nelson has 1% of New Zealand’s population while both Huangshi and Yangjiang are about 0.3% of China’s population.

3.17 We are fortunate to have these relationships, established in 1995 with Huangshi and in 2014 with Yangjiang. The disruption of Covid-19 curtailed in-person contact over the past four years and the visit was critical to revitalising the sister city connections. The last visit by a Mayor from Nelson to these cities was in 2015.

3.18 The Huangshi section of the tour involved visits to a large solar energy farm built on top of land-based fish farms, its Yangtze River port facility, a high-tech manufacturing operation of mini compressors for the global refrigeration industry and paper-thin copper for electric car batteries. The scale and sophistication of these industries reinforces China’s global technological leadership. We also visited a museum outlining the thousands of years of history of the Hubei region’s mining industry and the early development of bronze foundries.

3.19 The engagement with the Huangshi Mayor and city officials was most interesting in respect of their recently completed urban development that had strong parallels to our Bridge to Better project. It was also good to see New Zealand products such as milk powder, honey and wine featuring strongly in the new high-end retail developments. We visited the Hubei Polytechnic University that has a partnership with NMIT. I advocated for a lift in the NMIT student cap number that limits the size of NMIT’s programmes in Huangshi. I believe this partnership, particularly if NMIT is reestablished as an independent institution, has potential for growth.

3.20 The visit to Yangjiang involved a formal reception with Mayor Yu Jinfu, a roundtable, a factory tour of MingYang, which is a leader in offshore wind energy, a brief on their fishing and aquaculture industry in Beting Wan, a guided tour of the stunning Maritime Silk Road Museum and a factory visit to Stellar Precision (a manufacturer of knives). We also visited a private art and museum collection that covered Chinese history and the technological development of audio over 200 years from the blowhorn to HiFi including the largest global collection of LPs and the Liangyang High School where Nelson students will visit in April 2025. Interesting parallels include their plans to build an airport to meet the demands of their buoyant domestic tourism industry, the opportunities to grow their industries connected to the ocean, meeting the demands of housing with strong population growth in Guangdong region and the threats for their export manufacturing industries from trade barriers and tariffs.

3.21 I wish to put on record that the hosting of our Nelson delegation by both of these sister cities was outstanding. There was a huge effort made to ensure our visit was well organised, relevant, friendly and informative and they are very outward-looking, wanting to engage, trade and be better connected with us and the wider world. It will be a challenge for us to host either city to the same standard and I think a return visit is likely given the 30th anniversary of the Huangshi sister city relationship next year.

3.22 I also wish to thank the Nelson branch of the New Zealand China Friendship Society for the huge effort that went into the visit, particularly its President Barbara Markland and Vice-President Bill Findlater. We should note that this year Council only provided a grant of $4,000 to the Society, and that the bulk of its work is contributed voluntarily. Future allocations in the Long Term Plan are for $8,000 per year to the Friendship Society, based on the two sister cities.

3.23 The fundamental purpose of sister cities is to help build greater global understanding to support a more peaceful and co-operative world. Although councils have a small role to play in international affairs, I think it serves our city well to have a few strategic sister city relationships. These Chinese relationships are a good investment given the significance of China to the Asia-Pacific region, the strength of trade and the need for our two countries to better understand each other’s systems of government, culture, language and people. I am particularly keen to expand the student exchange programme at both college and polytechnic level. I also believe that Council can play a role in opening doors for increased trade and tourism with these significant cities. I am of the view that we should be trying to maintain a formal exchange delegation at least once every five years to maintain these links.

Mayoral Discretionary Fund

3.24 A payment of $200 was made in August 2024 to Tia Nacagilevu as a contribution to her travels to compete at the Commonwealth Weightlifting Championships held in Fiji in September 2024. Prior to this event, Tia was placed third in the Snatch at the World Youth Weightlifting championship in Peru in May 2024 and she currently holds the Youth National records for the Snatch and Clean and Jerk.

3.25 A payment of $200 was made in August 2024 to Finn Kerby-Pinguet, a Nelson student, as a contribution to his travels to attend the United World Colleges programme in Shanghai, China that same month. Finn won the scholarship to the United World Colleges programme earlier this year and was fundraising to cover the remaining tuition and flight costs.

3.26 A payment of $350 was made in September 2024 to Alexei D’Ath to support the screening of her short film about love. Alexei has been creating short five and 10-minute films using up-and-coming local actors and local small businesses to build community and help promote them. The short film will be screened locally and has also been entered into film festivals around the world with the contribution going towards essentials, food for the cast and crew and equipment hire.

3.27 A payment of $1000 was made in September 2024 to the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band Incorporated to support its 100^th Anniversary celebrations. To mark the centenary, the Band performed on the Church Steps followed by a public ceilidh event in the evening. The funds went towards the morning tea function and advertising costs.

3.28 Payment of $5000 will be made in December to the Fifeshire Foundation Big Give Christmas appeal, which involves the compilation of gift packages for families in the region. This is the Fifeshire Foundation’s annual fundraiser and will help families that are facing hardship this Christmas.

Attachments

Attachment 1: The Local Electoral Reform Issues Paper 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: Updated Storm Recovery Taskforce Terms of Reference - draft ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Isel and Botanic Gardens bequest supports the social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of our community.

The Local Electoral Reform recommendation supports democratic decision-making by communities.

The amended terms of reference for the Storm Recovery Taskforce provides a mechanism for governance oversight of the Regional Infrastructure Fund flood resilience projects.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the following community outcomes:

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

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

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

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, including with iwi, fosters a regional perspective, and encourages community engagement.

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

Risk

The recommendations in this report are low risk.

Financial impact

The financial impact of the recommendations is low. Staff time will be required if it is decided to make a submission on the Local Electoral Reform Issues paper. The Mayoral discretionary fund expenditure is within budget allocation.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matters covered in this report are of low significance and no community engagement is planned.

Climate Impact

The decisions to be taken in this report will not affect the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

These are matters for Council.

Item 9: Nelson Arts Hub - Business Case

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Nelson Arts Hub - Business Case

Report Author: Mark Preston-Thomas - Manager Community Partnerships

Report Authoriser: Andrew White - Group Manager Community Services

Report Number: R28588

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve a preferred option for the acquisition and operations for the Nelson Arts Hub and form a project group to identify a suitable property.

1.2 To amend the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the He Tātai Whetū Arts and Creativity Taskforce.

2. Summary

2.1 $100,000 was allocated in the Annual Plan 2023/24 to investigate opportunities for a Nelson Arts Hub. Following deliberations a $1.63m capex allocation was moved to the 2025/26 year.

2.2 A Business Case for the work has been prepared by a Habilis New Zealand, with a preferred option to acquire and repurpose an existing CBD building.

2.3 Forming an officer led project group is the recommended next step to identify a suitable building. A recommendation to purchase, or repurpose an existing council building will then be made to Council.

The Terms of Reference for the He Tātai Whetū Taskforce have been revised to support the next phase of implementation work.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Arts Hub - Business Case (R28588) and its attachments; and

2. Approves for the Nelson Arts Hub building acquisition the option to proceed with identification of a suitable building for Council to purchase, or repurpose an existing Council owned building; and

3. Approves the Arts Development Agency to oversee governance of the Nelson Arts Hub; and

4. Approves the Arts Development Agency lead operations of the Nelson Arts Hub; and

5. Directs that a staff-led Nelson Arts Hub project group is formed to assess suitable buildings, within the allocated budget to house an Arts Hub, taking into account the requirements identified in the Arts Hub Business Case; and

6. Notes that the He Tātai Whetū Arts and Creativity Taskforce will provide oversight and guidance to the project group as it undertakes the assessment of buildings for acquisition; and

7. Directs that the Nelson Arts Hub Project Group report back to Council with a recommendation for the procurement or repurposing of a suitable building; and

8. Approves the revised Terms of Reference for the He Tātai Whetū Arts and Creativity Taskforce detailed in Attachment 4 (NDOCS-1974015928-1096).

4. Background

4.1 Council allocated $100,000 operating expenditure in the 2023/24 Annual Plan to investigate opportunities for the development of a Nelson Community Arts Hub.

4.2 Community consultation via the Long Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP) resulted in approximately 900 submissions commenting on the project to provide an Arts Hub with the majority supporting Council’s proposal to purchase an existing building.

4.3 Through the LTP deliberations Council decided to bring forward Capex funding of $1.63 million from 2027/28 to 2025/26 with the intent of allowing the Arts Hub project to maintain momentum. Funding of $40,000 Opex was moved to 2026/27 to assist with the establishment of the Hub following building purchase.

4.4 In March 2024 Boffa Miskel provided an Arts Hub scoping document (attachment one).

4.5 Habilis was selected via a competitive procurement to create the business case. Kent Duston and Sargam Shah from Habilis will be in attendance to answer questions relating to the Business Case.

4.6 Habilis engaged with elected members, the Arts Community, the Taskforce and staff when preparing the Business Case using Treasury’s ‘Better Business Case’ methodology.

4.7 Iwi engagement occurred utilising Johny O’Donnell (OD & Co) and the Te Ohu Toi Ahurea (Arts and Heritage) council/iwi forum. Iwi engagement continues.

4.8 The He Tātai Whetū Arts and Creativity Taskforce has provided input into the development of this Business Case for the Arts Hub.

4.9 The Business Case (attachment two) has now been received along with a detailed technical appendix (attachment three). With Council approval, a staff led Arts Hub Project Group will be formed to search for a suitable property to recommend to Council for acquisition. The Taskforce will provide input to this Group.

5. Discussion

Business Case preferred option:

5.1 The preferred option in the Business Case is:

5.1.1 To acquire an existing building in the CBD, with a Project Group to recommend purchase, or the repurpose of a suitable existing Council building, to Council.

5.1.2 For Council to retain ownership of the building.

5.1.3 For the Arts Development Agency to govern and manage the building alongside related activities.

Other options considered:

5.2 Location and building type: Repurposing an existing CBD building was consulted on via the LTP, with community submissions in favour of a CBD location and utilising an existing building rather than a new build or other locations. Repurposing an existing building will be lower cost and generate less waste than a new build.

5.3 Ownership: Building ownership could rest with iwi, the Arts Development Agency or a commercial entity. Council ownership is the preferred option as:

5.3.1 Iwi have not signalled an interest in ownership at this time.

5.3.2 The Art Development Agency’s mandate is around arts sector leadership and activities rather than building asset management.

5.3.3 A commercial owner creates risks around security of tenure and cost increases beyond the control of Council or the Arts Development Agency. A philanthropic landowner has not been identified at this time.

5.3.4 Council has in-house expertise with building asset management. This option was consulted on in the LTP and supported in community submissions. While capex requirements for the land and building purchase would reduce, the ongoing opex lease costs could be high if a private landlord owned the building.

5.4 Governance: Governance, being the strategic decisions about the way the Hub will operate and the services it will provide could be exercised by Council, a new entity or the Arts Development Agency.

5.4.1 Council governance would create additional resourcing needs and a more distant link between governance and operations.

5.4.2 A new entity would require resourcing to set up and manage, has uncertain benefits and also risks a disconnect between governance and operations.

5.4.3 Governance by the Arts Development Agency is a pragmatic approach that utilises the existing skills held by Arts Council / Arts Development Agency. It also provides for community-driven decision making and allows a greater sense of ownership by the arts and creativity sector.

5.5 Operations: There is alignment between the mandate of the Arts Development Agency and community hub operations, and no suitable alternate agency has been identified. Council leading operations would create resourcing, leadership and administrative challenges.

Arts Hub Project Group membership and purpose:

5.6 A staff led Project Group to identify a building to acquire is proposed comprising:

· Project lead (Manager Community Partnerships).

· Properties team staff (Strategic Properties Officer and Properties Asset Planner).

· City Centre Development Programme Lead.

· Team Leader Arts and Heritage.

· Arts Development Agency / Arts Council representative.

· Additional staff or external members as specific needs arise.

5.7 The Project Group will receive input from the Taskforce during the selection and procurement process. Once a suitable property has been identified, the Project Group will make a recommendation to purchase, or repurpose an existing council owned building to Council.

5.8 Key functions of the project group are:

· Direct activities to identify and procure a suitable building.

· Recommend the property acquisition to Council.

He Tātai Whetu (Arts and Creativity) Taskforce:

5.9 The Taskforce has provided input to the development of the Business Case and the preceding Arts Hub scoping project. With this work almost complete and the other tasks Council set for the Taskforce either complete or well advanced it would be useful to update the Terms of Reference.

5.10 The community members of the Taskforce have brought a diverse community perspective and invested significant personal time in the work of the Taskforce. With this phase of the Taskforce’s work complete it is proposed that membership now be composed of elected members and that the Taskforce meet on an as needed basis, rather than a regular schedule.

5.11 An updated track change version of the Terms of Reference is provided for Council’s approval (attachment four).

6. Options

6.1 Arts Hub Building Ownership:

Option 1: Proceed with identification of a suitable building for the Arts Hub for Council purchase or for Council to repurpose an existing council building (recommended option)
Advantages	· A building is identified for potential acquisition and use. · Council retains the opportunity to approve purchase, or to repurpose an existing council building. · Council has robust asset management processes if the building is council owned. · Repurposing an existing building is cheaper and less wasteful than a new build. · Existing council buildings may be considered for suitability.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Finding a suitable property may be difficult. · Council is responsible for ongoing maintenance and depreciation.
Option 2: Lease a building owned by another entity.
Advantages	· Capex requirements for building and land purchase are reduced. · Depreciation, structural building costs and risks are reduced.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Iwi or philanthropic owners have not been identified. · Unless gifted by Council, the Arts Development Agency would require funding for a building purchase. The Arts Development Agency would also need to acquire building asset management capability, which may detract from operations. · A commercial landlord will seek a commercial return at increased cost over the longer term with reduced security of tenure.
Option 3: Do not search for a building for an Arts Hub.
Advantages	· Budget savings.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Arts Development Agency activity and opportunities are constrained. · Community arts aspirations and expectations may not be realised.

6.2 Arts Hub Governance:

Option 1: The Arts Development Agency govern the Arts Hub (recommended option).
Advantages	· Utilises existing skills held by Arts Development Agency. · Supports a connected approach between governance and operations.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None identified.
Option 2: Council, or a new entity govern the Arts Hub.
Advantages	· Council has greater oversight of the Arts Hub.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional staff time and resources required with uncertain benefits. · Administratively complex resulting in less responsive decision making. · Reduced alignment between governance and operations. · A new entity would generate additional costs and complexity.

6.3 Arts Hub Operations.

Option 1: The Arts Development Agency lead Hub operations (recommended option)
Advantages	· Aligns with defined responsibilities held by the Arts Development Agency.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None identified.
Option 2: Council, or another entity lead Arts Hub operations.
Advantages	· None identified.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council leadership would create decision making and resourcing challenges. · Administratively inefficient. · No alternative agencies currently exist.

6.4 Taskforce Updates

Option 1: Update the Task Force membership and TOR (recommended option).
Advantages	· Provides continuing elected member input into the Arts Hub and related activities. · Does not require a further time commitment for community members into Hub procurement details.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Future discussions might be of interest to some community Task Force members.
Option 2: Retain existing membership and TOR.
Advantages	· Taskforce would retain a broad range of perspectives from community members.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Resignations from community members would need to be recruited. · Community members may lose interest in a Council led procurement process.

7. Conclusion

7.1 It is recommended that Council receives the Arts Hub Business Case and authorises a staff project group to lead a property search.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Establish the Project Group to identify potential buildings and make a recommendation to Council once a suitable building is identified.

Attachments

Attachment 1: NDOCS-1171345905-865 Arts Hub Scoping Document Boffa Miskel ⇩

Attachment 2: NDOCS-1171345905-1113 Arts Hub Business Case ⇩

Attachment 3: NDOCS-1171345905-1114 Arts Hub Technical Appendix ⇩

Attachment 4: NDOCS-1974015928-1096 He Tatai Whetu Revised Terms of Reference ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision to progress the project to deliver an Arts Hub for Nelson supports the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Arts Hub contributes to the outcome ‘Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity’, and ‘Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities’.

Risk

There is a medium risk that due to financial pressures it may be difficult to procure a building that meets Council and community expectations and is within budget. This can be mitigated by careful focus on the essential elements required for an Arts Hub as identified in the Business Case.

Financial impact

The operation of the Arts Hub by the Arts Development Agency is a budgeted activity for Council.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the Arts Hub was specifically consulted on during the development of the Long Term Plan (2024-34) and He Tātai Whetū (Arts and Creativity Strategy). No further engagement is proposed.

Climate Impact

The proposal in this report will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi engagement occurred via the Te Ohu Toi Ahurea forum and directly with Iwi.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 10: Approval to Bring Forward Budget - Regional Infrastructure Fund Flood Resilience Projects

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Approval to Bring Forward Budget - Regional Infrastructure Fund Flood Resilience Projects

Report Author: Toby Kay - Activity Engineer

Report Authoriser: Alec Louverdis - Deputy Chief Executive / Group Manager Infrastructure

Report Number: R28845

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve bringing forward funding set aside in the Long Term Plan between years 2027-28 and 2033-34 into financial years 2024-25 to 2026-27 as part of the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) – Flood Resilience Programme to progress two projects, Maitai Flood Management and Nelson Flood Repairs earlier.

1.2 To approve other budgetary adjustments across activities following implementation of the above transfers.

2. Summary

2.1 A number of significant flood resilience works are planned within catchments impacted by the August 2022 flood event and funding has been allocated for this within the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP). This includes Maitai Flood Management projects in the Maitai area and at Queens Gardens, and Nelson Flood Repair projects in the Oldham Creek, Little Todd Valley Stream and Hillwood Stream catchments.

2.2 Co-financing for these flood resilience works has recently been secured from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) which amounts to 60% of the total project cost of $15 Million. The maximum co-financing available from MBIE for the projects is $9 Million.

2.3 A requirement of this funding agreement is that all projects need to be completed by June 2027. To ensure timely delivery and to secure the funding, Council budgets set aside for flood resilience in the current LTP need to be brought forward to expedite project delivery.

2.4 Officers have proposed, due to the significance of the funding and implications thereof, that this stream of work be reported to the Storm Recovery Taskforce (Taskforce) which is operating well in dealing with all storm related recovery matters. This proposal has been presented to and is supported by the Taskforce and has been addressed in the Mayors Report (this agenda) to amend the Terms of Reference to allow for this. Should this not be approved an alternative mechanism of governance reporting will be required due to the significance of the matter at hand.

2.5 Finally a number of financial adjustments across the Stormwater and Flood Protection activities are required to align the RIF and Storm Recovery projects.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to Bring Forward Budget - Regional Infrastructure Fund Flood Resilience Projects (R28845); and

2. Approves bringing forward budget to ensure all conditions of the Regional Infrastructure Fund are met and to secure 60% co-funding from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, of:

a $6,500,000 set aside in the current Long Term Plan between 2028/29 and 2033/34 to 2024/25 - 2026/27 to allow the Maitai Flood Management projects to proceed ahead of schedule with the split across the relevant financial years as detailed in the report (R28845); and

b $3,000,000 set aside in the current Long Term Plan between 2027/28 and 2028/29 to 2024/25-2026/27 to allow Nelson Flood Repairs projects to proceed ahead of schedule with the split across the relevant financial years as detailed in the report (R28845);

3. Approves the re-allocation of $2,500,000 from the Flood Protection Activity to the Stormwater Activity as follows:

a. $1,700,000 from Maitai Flood Management to Queens Gardens Stormwater in years 2024/25-2026/27;

b. $500,000 from Flood Recovery to Cleveland Terrace Intake Upgrade in 2025/26; and

c. $300,000 from Flood Recovery to Devenish Place Intake in 2025/26.

4. Background

4.1 Central Government co-investment in flood management infrastructure has recently been secured following business cases developed and submitted by Te Uru Kahika – Regional and Unitary Councils Aotearoa, in December 2022 and November 2023. This new Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) co-financing support from the MBIE follows on from previous funding for shovel-ready infrastructure projects under the Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund, which included $7.5 million of funding from Kānoa - Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit for the implementation of the Saxton Creek Stage 4 upgrade.

4.2 The November 2023 Business Case – Before the Deluge 2.0 - included a list of 80 proposed flood protection projects across the country with a total budget of approximately $329 Million. Three projects were proposed for Nelson City Council (NCC) under the business case with a total value of $18 Million. Two of these projects estimated at $15 Million were approved under the first tranche of funding. MBIE co-financing for these two RIF funded projects is up to $9 Million, representing 60% of total project cost.

4.3 The two Nelson projects: Maitai Flood Management and Nelson Flood repairs target areas impacted by the August 2022 storm, including residential and commercial areas along the Maitai River, and smaller stream catchments north of the city at Dodson Valley, Little Todd Valley and the Glenduan Wakapuaka areas. The proposed works include a range of river and stream channel repairs, stopbank improvements, and drainage works to address capacity issues and mitigate the risk of culvert overflows and backflow through the stormwater network resulting from elevated river and stream flood levels.

The grant funding agreement for this co-investment will remain in place until June 2027, providing a three year window in which to implement these flood resilience projects. Whilst funding for this work has been approved by Council as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP), the fast tracking of these RIF projects will not be possible unless funding is brought forward into the first three years of the LTP.

5. Discussion

Funding

5.1 Funding for the projects envisioned and approved under the RIF are already in Council’s current approved LTP as part of the Maitai Flood management project and under the Flood Recovery Programme as shown below (uninflated prices). Total funding currently available for RIF projects in the first three years of the LTP is $5.8 Million.

Detail	Year1 2024/25	Year2 2025/26	Year3 2026/27	Year4 2027/28	Year5 2028/29	Year6 2029/30	Year7 2030/31	Year8 2031/32	Year9 2032/33	Year10 2033/34
Maitai Flood Management	300,000	500,000	500,000	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,500,000	2,000,000	2,000,000	2,000,000	2,000,000
Queens Gardens Stormwater	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Flood Recovery River Stream Improvements	500,000	1,250,000	1,600,000	1,550,000	1,550,000	0	0	0	0	0
Cleveland Terrace Intake Upgrade	750,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Devenish Place Intake resilience	200,000	200,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1,750,000	1,950,000	2,100,000	2,550,000	2,550,000	1,500,000	2,000,000	2,000,000	2,000,000	2,000,000

5.2 To allow for completion of the RIF funded projects by June 2027, funding needs to be brought forward from the current LTP timeframes. The uninflated budgets required to implement the RIF programme are shown below. The figures in red text show proposed budget adjustments to the funding allocated in the LTP.

Detail	Year1 2024/25	Year2 2025/26	Year3 2026/27	Year4 2027/28	Year5 2028/29	Year6 2029/30	Year7 2030/31	Year8 2031/32	Year9 2032/33	Year10 2033/34
Maitai Flood Management	600,000 +300,000	1,500,000 +1,000,000	4,000,000 +3,500,000	1,000,000	200,000 (800,000)	300,000 (1,200,000)	500,000 (1,500,000)	500,000 (1,500,000)	1,000,000 (1,000,000)	1,500,000 (500,000)
Queens Gardens (Stormwater)	200,000 +200,000	1,000,000 +1,000,000	500,000 +500,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Flood Recovery River Stream Improvements	900,000 +400,000	2,050,000 +800,000	2,600,000 +1,000,000	50,000 (1,500,000)	50,000 (1,500,000)	0	0	0	0	0
Cleveland Terrace Intake Upgrade (Stormwater)	750,000	500,000 +500,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Devenish Place Intake resilience (Stormwater)	200,000	500,000 +300,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	2,650,000 +900,000	5,550,000 +3,600,000	7,100,000 +5,000,000	1,050,000 (1,500,000)	250,000 (2,300,000)	300,000 (1,200,000)	500,000 (1,500,000)	500,000 (1,500,000)	1,000,000 (1,000,000)	1,500,000 (500,000)

5.3 In summary, it is proposed to bring forward funding totalling $9.5 Million into years 1-3 of the LTP including $6.5 Million under Maitai Flood Management currently allocated in years 5-10 of the LTP and $3 Million under Flood Recovery River Stream Improvements currently in years 4-5 of the LTP.

Stormwater and Flood Protection activity alignment

5.4 A number of projects included in the RIF funding were already included in the Storm Recovery programme and planning for the delivery of these projects in 2024/25 is well advanced with design largely completed and implementation already underway. This includes projects on the Oldham Creek in Dodson Valley and the upgrade of the Cleveland Terrace intake where physical works is due to commence in March 2025. As a result of this some adjustments across the Stormwater and Flood Protection activities budgets are required.

A re-allocation of funding for RIF projects from the Flood Protection Activity to the Stormwater Activity as outlined below:

5.4.1 From Maitai Flood Management (Flood Protection) to Queens Gardens Stormwater a total of $1.7 Million to mitigate the risk of flooding at Queens Gardens, the Suter Centre, and Bridge Street properties. Flooding at these properties during the August 2022 event occurred as a result of backflow from the Maitai River through the stormwater network. This funding is proposed to be re-allocated in Years 1-3 of the LTP as follows: $200,000 in 2024/25, $1,000,000 in 2025/26 and $500,000 in 2026/27.

5.4.2 From Flood Recovery – River Stream Improvements (Flood Protection) a total of $800,000 in year 2 of the LTP (2025/26) to be re-allocated to the following Flood Recovery - Stormwater Intake projects, including $500,000 to the Cleveland Terrace Intake Upgrade, and $300,000 to Devenish Place Intake Resilience Improvements on the Oldham Creek.

Reporting Structure

5.5 It is proposed that progress on the implementation of these projects is reported to the Storm Recovery Taskforce as a number of the RIF projects are Flood Recovery projects which the Taskforce has oversight for, as all the projects address flood issues observed in August 2022.

Project Delivery Structure

5.6 A delivery structure, using and building on the structure successfully implemented to deliver the August 2022 recovery projects has been put in place pending approval by Council to proceed with these resilience RIF projects.

5.7 This includes a project sponsor (Group Manager Infrastructure) with lead Project Manager from the Capital Projects team and individual project managers assigned to all sub-projects sitting under this RIF programme of works. Reporting will be, if approved, to the Storm Recovery Task Force.

Deliverability

5.8 Securing the RIF funding and bringing forward budgets and work programmes to the first three years of the LTP to meet the RIF funding requirements will increase the capital works programme, specifically the Infrastructure capital programme.

5.9 Whilst a delivery structure has been set up building on the success of delivering the storm recovery programme, risk clearly exists with not only a very tight delivery timeframe but with changes needing to be made five months into year 1 of the LTP – essentially time lost.

5.10 Alongside bringing budgets forward (as approved at the October Council meeting) to commence some works earlier on Bridge to Better along with approved carry forwards from last financial year, the Infrastructure capital works programme for 2024/25 is currently $59 Million. The net effect of the RIF funding for 2024/25 increases this by a further $900,000 to $60 Million.

5.11 To place this in context the Infrastructure capital works programme for last year was $52 Million with a total spend of $49 Million (around 94%).

5.12 The works planned to be undertaken as part of the RIF funding over a three year period will not be without its challenges, as several projects will require community consultation with this needing to be done in a much shorter time frame than previously envisaged within the timings in the LTP – this will undoubtedly be the main challenge as we move forward.

5.13 That said, some commentary and context on deliverability of key Infrastructure work programmes is timely. There will always be challenges in terms of the unexpected and the organisation needs to be agile and mature enough to be able to tweak the capital works programme to cater for the unexpected – such as needing to re-arrange the funding and delivery from the likes of the RIF initiative – that could involve dropping off some capital works.

5.14 This exercise of looking at what works could drop off has not occurred as part of this report, mainly due to the urgency of needing to adjust the programme to meet the RIF requirements. There is however no reason this exercise should not be undertaken as part of good management and there is an opportunity to report back on any implications to the capital works programme to either a future Audit Risk and Finance Committee or Council following any such exercise.

5.15 That said, as noted by the Group Manager Infrastructure at the most recent Audit Risk and Finance Committee and the 10 October Council meeting, whilst the programme is very ambitious, good processes are in place to keep the capital programme moving forward, especially the larger projects as detailed below:

o the Recovery programme is tracking very well and is ahead of schedule. The risk to the programme is deemed low.

o Work on the Council enabling Mahitahi work programme has not yet commenced pending approval by the Environment Court and this will be the subject of a future report to Council. This risk to the programme is deemed low.

o Bridge to Better (including the main body of work, the Paru Paru wastewater pump station and early water ring main work) is on track to meet the IAF deadlines and a robust structure is in place with progress reported to the City Revitalisation Taskforce. The risk to the programme is deemed low/medium.

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented. Approve bringing budgets forward and re-allocate funds from Flood Protection to the Stormwater Activity or not bring budgets forward and not re-allocate funds from Flood Protection to the Stormwater Activity. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Approve bringing forward budget of $9.5 Million from 2027-28 to 2033-34 into 2024-25 to 2026-27 and re-allocating $2.5 Million from Flood Protection to Stormwater.
Advantages	· Supports delivery of the Regional Infrastructure Fund - flood resilience programme · Enables recovery of the full $9.0 Million of grant funding available from MBIE. · Provides certainty over project budgets for the three year RIF programme. · Good use of contractor availability and advantageous prices. · Builds on the reputation Council established with completion of Saxton Creek Stage 4 works. · Brings forward flood resilience works that would otherwise be implemented in up to seven years later.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some delivery risks with the implementation of the three year $15.0 Million RIF programme in addition to other projects in the LTP programme, however Project Managers have already been assigned to all RIF sub-projects
Option 2: Don’t approve bringing forward budget from 2027-28 to 2033-34 into 2024-25 to 2026-27 and re-allocating $2.5 Million from Flood Protection to Stormwater.
Advantages	· Longer time frame for implementation of flood resilience works reduces delivery risks. · Less concentration of Flood Protection funding over the first three years of the LTP.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduced ability to deliver the RIF programme and recover the full $9.0 Million in MBIE funding. · Likely to negatively affect Council’s credibility in implementing Central Government co-financed infrastructure projects. · May result in missed opportunity to utilise contractor availability and save costs. · Lost opportunity to bring forward flood resilience works.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council has secured up to $9 Million from MBIE in co-investment for flood resilience works that need to be completed by June 2027. To ensure that the full $15 Million programme can be implemented within the first three years of the LTP, funding will need to be brought forward so that budgets are in place to enable efficient delivery of projects.

7.2 Funding re-allocations of $2.5 Million from the Flood Protection activity to the Stormwater activity are also required to cover the implementation of stormwater projects included in the RIF programme.

7.3 This will also allow Council to benefit from the current competitive construction prices.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Once budget transfers have been approved by Council, work will begin to meet the June 2027 deadline.

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in this report support the cultural, economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the community by accelerating flood resilience works in order to mitigate existing and future flood risk in areas impacted by the August 2022 floods. Opportunities for implementing nature based solutions will be considered for river and stream works, for instance through approaches that make ‘room for the river’.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report align with the following community outcomes:

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

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

• Our communities are healthy, safe, and resilient

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

Risk

The recommendations in this report are considered to be low risk for Council because the report simply adjusts funding timing for projects already confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2024-34.

Financial impact

The Maitai Flood Management project and RIF Flood Recovery projects are large projects that have funding identified in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 that has been adopted by Council. Bringing forward the funding as recommended will require an adjustment in Council’s borrowing requirements over the first three years of the LTP from 2024-25 to 2026-27, off-set by income from MBIE on 60% of the RIF programme. Net debt will reduce by $690,000 at the end of Year 1, with net debt impact at Year 3 up slightly by approximately $500,000 however overall debt reduces by approximately $9.0 Million over the LTP2024-34.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

Funding for the Maitai Flood Management project and the Flood Recovery projects was consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation. Amending budget timing is of low significance.

Climate Impact

Climate impact will be considered throughout the design, material selection, and construction methodology and period of this project. The flood resilience projects have been identified with the primary objective of reducing flood risk, including for a potentially warmer future climate.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have not been engaged as part of writing this report.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 11: Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility

Report Author: Karl Noldan - Team Leader - Parks and Facilities Activity Management

Report Authoriser: Andrew White - Group Manager Community Services

Report Number: R28843

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the Nelson Surf Life Saving Facility Feasibility Assessment

1.2 To consider ownership of the Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility and confirm the type of funding to be provided.

1.3 To approve the project management structure for the Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility.

2. Summary

2.1 A feasibility assessment has been completed, looking into the suitability of developing a fit-for-purpose facility at Tāhunanui Reserve for a Surf Lifesaving Facility.

2.2 Through this process the ownership of the facility has repeatedly been a point of discussion.

2.3 Work is now underway to move the project ahead and governance direction is required to confirm the ownership, project delivery structure and funding mechanisms .

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility (R28843) and its attachments; and

2. Receives the Nelson Surf Life Saving Facility Feasibility Assessment - Stage 2 July 2024 (Attachment 1); and

3. Agrees that the proposed facility will be owned by the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club; and

4. Approves the project management structure as set out in Nelson Surf Lifesaving Club - Project Delivery Structure October 2024 (Attachment 2); and

5. Approves that given the recommended ownership model, the current capital expenditure and grant funding budgets for the Surf Life Saving facility in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan be reallocated to a loan funded operating grant (2024/25 $100,000, 2025/26 $766,500 and 2026/27 $784,875) to be repaid over 60 years; and

6. Approves that the funding of $1,650,625 be provided to the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club in stages, subject to a formal grant agreement being approved by Council; and

7. Approves Council entering into a community lease with the Nelson Surf Lifesaving Club for a ground lease in accordance with the Community Assistance Policy 2015.

4. Background

4.1 Council allocated $100,000 operating expenditure in the 2023/24 Annual Plan to ‘investigate opportunities for the development of a surf lifesaving and sports facility/facilities at the Tāhunanui Beach Reserve’.

4.2 The Marina and Tāhunanui Sea Sports Facilities Taskforce was established to consider items relevant to the development of sea sports and associated facilities.

4.3 The Taskforce has overseen the development of a Business Case for future provision of sports facilities at Tāhunanui Reserve.

4.4 The Business Case was completed by Breeze Consulting in December 2023.

4.5 The preferred option in the Business Case is a staged approach to the delivery of enhancements at Tāhunanui Reserve, which allows the issues with the highest need to be addressed first and can spread the funding over a longer period. It also anticipated wider strategic planning to be carried out through the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan process, prior to any on-field sports facility being developed.

4.6 Subsequently, funding has been included in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan for the surf lifesaving project totalling $3.3 million. $200,000 has been phased for 2024/25, $1.53 million in 2025/26, and $1.57 million in 2026/27, with an income from the NSLSC to offset these costs of $100,000 in 2024/25, $766,500 in 2025/26 and $784,000 in 2026/27. Council funding has been capped at these amounts and assumes a 50% contribution from the Nelson Surf Lifesaving Club (NSLSC) and any balance of funding over this amount.

4.7 The resolution from the Long Term Plan 2024-34 deliberations on 23 May 2024 related to this item is as follows:

Approves Council’s proposal (option 2) as set out in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document to upgrade the changing facilities at Tāhunanui Beach Reserve; and

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; and

4.8 Following on from the business case, a feasibility assessment has now been completed by Veros Ltd for the proposed surf lifesaving facility. The report considers the needs of NSLSC and the strategic case for providing a new facility. It contains information on proposed locations, and possible scenarios for ownership as well as a set of drawings showing the concept proposal.

4.9 Some early engagement has been completed with iwi on this project. Further iwi engagement will be required on the surf club project, as well as on the future review of the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan.

4.10 A number of locations were considered as part of the report with the preferred location undergoing further technical investigations including geotechnical, ecological and planning.

4.11 It presents options on the facilities ownership and shows that either Council or NSLSC could feasibly own the facility. While it documents that Surf Lifesaving New Zealand has a general preference for clubs to own their facilities it does not overtly preference one option over the other for Council.

4.12 NSLSC is supportive of taking on ownership of the facility and the management of the project with support from Council.

4.13 Input into the Feasibility report was sought from a range of stakeholders, including internal business units, the Nelson Regional Development Agency, Coastguard, Harbourmasters, Police Search and Rescue, and the Tāhunanui Business Association.

4.14 The report also presents a set of concept designs for a 680m2 building over two levels plus a viewing tower.

4.15 The estimated cost of constructing the facility is $4.6 million, exceeding the $3.3 million provisioned in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan, noting though that Council will fund only up to a cap of $1.6 million (inflated $1.65 million) towards the project. This means that the NSLSC will be required to fund significantly more than 50% of the total project costs.

4.16 In July 2024 the NSLC secured funding of $1.6 Million from the Surf Lifesaving New Zealand Capital Fund. This funding will be available from July.

4.17 The feasibility assessment was presented to the Marina and Tāhunanui Sea Sports Facilities Taskforce (Taskforce) on August 8th 2024.

5. Discussion

Preferred Direction

5.1 After digesting the contents of the feasibility report and taking onboard guidance the Marina and Tāhunanui Taskforce, officers are recommending that the ownership of the facility and the management of the project should sit with the NSLSC.

Ownership

5.2 Models of ownership for the facility are explored through the feasibility assessment in section 7.4 and potential annual expenses and income in section 7.3. The assessment looks at advantages and disadvantages for both Council and for the NSLSC of the two ownership models and shows that it would be feasible for either organisation to own the facility.

5.3 There is no overarching policy on ownership of buildings on Council land. The reserve management plan is the place where such expectations would usually be included.

5.4 The 2004 Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan (TRMP) is not explicit anywhere about a preference on ownership of facilities.

5.5 The TRMP does have a section on Recreational Facilities in section 1.10 of the Management Objective and Policies and states:

5.5.1 Upgrade existing and/or invest in new facilities and site furniture to ensure that:

· The number size and quality of the Reserve facilities and site furniture adequately meets the demand

· Facilities are located appropriately with regard to use and safety

· Surplus facilities are removed, relocated or redeveloped.

5.6 The proposed location of the facility will be in the Inland Management Area, Zone D, the only policy under Section 3.2 Structures and Development states:

5.6.1 Ensure new structures or developments will not have a significant visual impact on the Coastal Management Area.

5.7 Surf Lifesaving New Zealand is noted in the feasibility report (section 7.4.2) as preferring ownership be with the local surf club.

5.8 NSLSC supports taking on ownership of the facility and the management of the project, with support from Council.

Funding

5.9 The current funding in the Long Term Plan 2024-34, is budgeted as capital expenditure which assumes Council ownership of the facility. ($200,000 has been phased for 2024/25, $1.53 million in 2025/26, and $1.57 million in 2026/27).

5.10 The current income line in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 shows NSLSC’s expected contribution. ($100,000 in 2024/25, $766,500 in 2025/26 and $784,000 in 2026/27).

5.11 With the ownership changing to the NSLSC a change to the budgets will be required. The capital budget and corresponding income line will need to be removed and a new line created for loan funded operational expenditure. ($100,000 in 2024/25, $766,500 in 2025/26 and $784,000 in 2026/27)

5.12 The resulting financial impacts of an ownership change would mean:

5.12.1 Depreciation will not have to be funded by Council

5.12.2 Future building renewals will not have to be funded by Council

5.12.3 Income will only be from the ground lease

5.13 A formalised grant agreement would be developed to outline the expectations of both parties in respect to Council’s grant contribution, including:

5.13.1 project timeline,

5.13.2 project expectations,

5.13.3 payment milestones,

5.13.4 reporting requirements, and

5.13.5 expected quality standards.

Ground Lease

5.14 As a not-for profit organisation NSLSC is eligible for a community lease in line with Council’s Community Assistance Policy. This allows for the annual rent to be charged at a discounted rate

5.15 The annual rent has been estimated to be $1600 per year.

5.16 The ground lease would specify, among other things, that a Club License would not be permitted to allow the sale of alcohol through an onsite bar. A Special Licence could potentially be permitted in future for one off events, although Council could decide to restrict this potential now if it wished.

Project Management and Delivery Model

5.17 In line with the recommendation that NSLSC owns the facility, officers recommend that Council formalises a structure for oversight of the project management and delivery model.

5.18 The sensitive nature of the location of the facility and scale of the vertical infrastructure necessitates Council remains a key partner in the delivery of this project.

5.19 The project delivery structure (Attachment 2) sets out the proposed structure for the management of the project. Whilst this scenario could change as work on the project progresses, the project management and governance structure has been set up to operate effectively irrespective of how the physical works are delivered.

5.20 The design of the proposed structure seeks to ensure that all project duties are defined and allocated, and that there is clear and appropriate channels for information flow and inputs into the project.

5.21 Several engagement and partnership mechanisms will be established, including specific liaison with iwi.

5.22 Continued reporting back to the Taskforce is expected and fits within the current Terms of Reference.

5.23 If an alternative option is preferred and a decision is made that Nelson City Council will own the facility, the project management and delivery model required for the construction would be different to what is proposed. Further work would be required to be able to recommend the framework and project controls to effectively deliver the project and to take into account the Audit Risk and Finance requirements for vertical infrastructure projects of this scale.

5.24 Designing an alternative model will take some time and will require officers to prepare an alternative structure and report back to Council in the new year.

6. Options

6.1 There are two matters before Council, namely:

6.1.1 Consideration and approval of the ownership of the building

6.1.2 Consideration and approval of the project management and delivery model

Ownership

6.2 In relation to ownership, Council has two options to consider, either:

6.2.1 Option 1: Council owns the building that will be constructed

6.2.2 Option 2: NSLSC owns the building that will be constructed

6.2.3 The preferred option is that the NSLSC owns the facility.

Option 1: Council owns the building that will be constructed
Advantages	Council has long term control of the building use (note this could be achieved through ground lease terms although not all eventualities may be anticipated). Council has project delivery capability, systems and established processes. Council has property management capability to ensure appropriate exterior maintenance and renewals are regularly undertaken. Facility lease has greater Council oversight to ensure expected maintenance, renewals and any compliance works. Council has greater say in project outcomes.
Risks and Disadvantages	Council likely to be required to maintain exterior (depending on lease terms) which may not be fully offset by the lease return. Council retains requirement to depreciate the value of the new facility.
Option 2: NSLSC owns the building that will be constructed (preferred option)
Advantages	Council only has to administer a ground lease, all other facility management requirements are with the NSLSC. Checks will be completed to ensure regular maintenance is being undertaken to an appropriate level. Council does not have to fund the depreciation or renewals for the facility.
Risks and Disadvantages	NSLSC is required to regularly fundraise to cover renewals work and ongoing maintenance, putting more pressure on members. Risk of underinvestment in the facility and expectation for NCC to have to step in. In future, if NSLSC for some reason had to be dissolved, Council would likely be required to take over ownership of the facility. Risk of taking over an asset that has not been adequately maintained and required investment. Council may have reduced influence on the facility outcomes through the project delivery phase.

Project management and delivery model

6.3 Should Council agree that the NSLSC should be the owner of the building, a project management and delivery model needs to be confirmed.

6.4 Council has three options to consider in this matter, either:

6.4.1 Option 1: Approve the proposed project management and delivery model (Attachment 2)

6.4.2 Option 2: Not approve the proposed project management and delivery model

6.4.3 Option 3: Propose an alternative framework for delivery of the project

6.5 The preferred option is option 1.

6.6 Should Council not agree that the NSLSC will be the owner of the building, an alternative project management and delivery model will need to be determined which has not been attached to this report and officers will need to report back with this model in a future report.

6.7

Option 1: Approve the proposed project management and delivery model (preferred option)
Advantages	Provides a robust independent framework for the successful delivery of the project The structure is based on professional project management advice and represents industry good practice The structure provides clarity of responsibility and quality assurance The structure, whilst different to how Council officers manages smaller capital projects, is fit-for-purpose for larger, more complex vertical infrastructure projects
Risks and Disadvantages	Nil
Option 2: Not approve the proposed project management and delivery model
Advantages	Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	The Project Director is a pivotal role and is subject to a procurement process - any delay in approving the framework will delay this procurement and delay the overall project
Option 3: Propose an alternative framework
Advantages	May meet Council expectations
Risks and Disadvantages	Would delay the project as officers would need to seek advice on any proposed alternative Any changes are likely to result in delays to the project Significant changes may compromise the effectiveness of the proposed structure.

7. Conclusion

8. Council and the Nelson community have high expectations for the Nelson Surf Lifesaving Project, and while there are still a multitude of decisions to be made in relation to this project, it is critical at this time to decide on the ownership to enable the project to progress.

9. Once ownership is confirmed, it is essential that there is confidence in the project management and delivery model to give Council assurance that the funding it provides towards the project will be well spent.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Communicate decisions from this meeting to the NSLSC.

10.2 A Project Liaison will be appointed from the Infrastructure Capital Projects Team who will stand up the Project Control Group and work through more detailed planning, including meeting and reporting requirements and decision making framework.

10.3 Support NSLSC to develop and implement a fundraising plan

10.4 Develop and implement a stakeholder management plan including further iwi engagement

10.5 Develop a grant agreement, outlining the expectations of both parties including; project timeline, project expectations, payment milestones, reporting requirements and expected quality standards.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Nelson Surf Lifesaving Facility Feasibility Assessment - Stage 2 - July 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: Nelson Surf Lifesaving - Project Delivery Structure - October 2024 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This addition of the Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility at Tāhunanui Reserve is expected to support the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community in the present and for the future.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report are consistent with the below community outcome. The Surf Lifesaving Facility will provide enhanced access to beach education programmes and wider opportunities for recreational activities in Nelson.

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

Nelson has developed high quality sports and recreation facilities for all ages. There are educational and leisure opportunities for the whole community to enjoy. We protect, enhance and celebrate Nelson’s human heritage and historic sites.

Risk

All construction projects have a degree of inherent risk, as issues will arise at each stage of the process. The recommendations in this report provide a framework for managing those risks, which includes clarity around responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring, reporting and delivery. A separate Quality Assurance Team will provide professional oversight of the project to ensure key Council expectations are met.

There is a risk in having the NSLC as owners of the facility around the pressure it puts on the membership to keep up with the required maintenance and renewal requirements.

Financial impact

Budget for the facility is already in the LTP, the preferred option will not impact the funding provided towards the project but will reduce the cost to Council over time by having ownership of the facility with NSLSC.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low/medium significance as it relates to management processes relating to the Surf Lifesaving Facility rather than to the specifics of the location and design.

No specific community consultation or engagement has been carried out as part of preparing this report. However, feedback from the community through the LTP process did show support for this facility.

Climate Impact

The decisions in this report focus on management processes only. The impact on climate have been discussed in previous reports and will be further explored through the next phase of planning and consenting.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

Council has retained all responsibilities, powers, functions, and duties in relation to governance matters for the Tāhunanui Surf Life Saving Facility.

The Marina and Tāhunanui Sports Facilities Taskforce has the following delegations:

Areas of responsibility:

· To provide guidance and support to staff on the following initiatives:

o Tāhunanui surf lifesaving / sports / community facilities; and

o Marina sea sports facility.

· To provide guidance to staff as they develop a new business case (in line with the Better Business Case methodology) for each of the sports facilities.

· To consider timeframes and appropriate levels of budget expenditure for each facility.

· To make recommendations to Council on the above matters as appropriate.

Powers to Decide:

· None.

Powers to Recommend:

· The taskforce is able to make recommendations to Council on its areas of responsibility.

Item 12: Review of Biosecurity Annual Report 2023/24 & Adoption of Operational Plan 2024/25

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Review of Biosecurity Annual Report 2023/24 & Adoption of Operational Plan 2024/25

Report Author: Richard Frizzell - Environmental Programmes Officer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28842

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present a summary of progress against the targets and objectives of the 2023-24 Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (TNRPMP); and

1.2 To seek approval of the TNRPMP Operational Plan for the 2024-25 financial year.

2. Summary

2.1 The Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019–2029 was established under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and provides a framework for the efficient and effective management of specified organisms (declared ‘pests’) across the Tasman and Nelson regions.

2.2 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have operated a joint Regional Pest Management Strategy/Plan, and have provided an Operational Plan, as required by the Biosecurity Act since its introduction in 1993.

2.3 The Biosecurity Act 1993 requires Council to prepare and review an Operational Plan for the TNRPMP and report on its implementation to both Councils responsible for the TNRPMP not later than five months after the end of the financial year, i.e. before the end of November.

2.4 The TNRPMP Operational Plan 2024-25 outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken this year in implementing the TNRPMP and needs to be approved by the Council.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Review of Biosecurity Annual Report 2023/24 & Adoption of Operational Plan 2024/25 (R28842) and its attachments; and

2. Approves, subject to the approval of Tasman District Council, the Operational Plan 2024/25 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

4. Background

4.1 Tasman District Council is the management agency for the joint TNRPMP. Section 100B (2(a)) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the management agency to prepare an Operational Plan for the TNRPMP and then review that Plan annually and report on its implementation to both Councils responsible for the TNRPMP. Nelson City Council implements the Operational Plan for the Nelson region and reports to Tasman District Council as the management agency for the TNRPMP.

4.2 There are five types of pest management programmes to be carried out under the TNRPMP. These are summarised below along with a number of key projects that highlight the range of activities covered in the programme:

4.2.1 Exclusion pest programme – preventing 12 high threat pests from establishing in the Tasman and Nelson regions.

4.2.2 Eradication pest programme – eliminating 24 high threat pests from the regions (or parts of a region).

4.2.3 Progressive containment pests programme – containing and reducing the extent of seven pest plants across the regions.

4.2.4 Sustained control pest programme - ongoing control of 23 widespread pest plants and other organisms to reduce their impacts and spread to other properties.

4.2.5 Site-led pest programmes – control of named pests to reduce their impacts on natural biodiversity values at specific sites. There are three key sites or places covered by the TNRPMP, all of them are in the Tasman District Council region.

4.3 The Operational Plans are based on the pests and programmes contained in the TNRPMP outlined above along with the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

4.4 The 2023-24 TNRPMP Operational Plan was approved by Council at the 9 November 2023 meeting.

4.5 The 2024-25 Operational Plan outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken when implementing the TNRPMP for this financial year.

4.6 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership (TOSMBP) along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). Greater Wellington Regional Council joined this Partnership in July 2023. This continues to be an effective forum through which to prepare for, and respond to, marine pest incursions, including TNRPMP species.

4.7 In addition to meeting its obligations under the TNRPMP, the Council undertakes extensive control of plant and animal pests that are not included in the TNRPMP, but which threaten ecological values on Council land or important areas for biodiversity, including Significant Natural Areas.

5. Discussion

Report on TNRPMP Operational Plan 2023-24

5.1 Progress against the targets in the Operational Plan 2023-24 are provided in Attachment 1. A summary of actions undertaken and progress relevant to Nelson is provided below.

Exclusion pests

5.2 Biosecurity Officers from both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council continued surveillance monitoring and investigation to check and prevent 12 exclusion pests becoming established in the region: Cape tulip, Chilean needle grass, hornwort, Indian myna, Johnson grass, Koi carp, Phragmites, rooks, Senegal tea, velvetleaf, wallabies and water hyacinth.

5.3 Biosecurity NZ reported an instance of Phragmites seeds present in a shipping container of orchard equipment from Australia. The seed was discovered when the container was opened at Solly’s Depot at Tahunanui. On discovery, the container was moved inside the warehouse, where it was decontaminated. Surveillance was carried out at this site, and two sites in Tasman where the containers contents were distributed. No Phragmites were found, and surveillance will continue each spring and summer at these sites until 2027.

5.4 A reported sighting of a wallaby near the Rai Saddle was meticulously investigated using trail cameras and specialised detection dogs but no evidence was found.

Eradication pests

5.5 Twelve of the 24 eradication pests occur in Nelson. Apart from Gambusia, these are generally on track to be eradicated over the duration of the TNRPMP (i.e. by 2029). Further surveillance and monitoring of boneseed, wilding kiwifruit and Himalayan balsam is required to determine if total eradication is on track for these pest plants.

5.6 The Department of Conservation (DOC) reports that the DOC-led eradication of pest fish is making slow progress with the pests remaining largely contained within their known areas. A feasibility study concluded that Gambusia eradication is not technically feasible with the current techniques and focus will now move to preventing spread. Reactive environmental DNA (eDNA) water sampling in response to a koi carp report at Miyazu Gardens dis not detect koi carp. Nelson appears to remain free of wild populations of Perch, Rudd, and Tench.

5.7 The Council continued to support the TOSMBP, with a focus on eradicating Sabella. No new marine species to New Zealand or Sabella incursions were detected in Nelson by dive surveys, giving confidence that the intensive management of Sabella is leading to eradication.

5.8 Cathedral bells are known at a number of new sites, with active sites in Dodson Valley. However, the long-term trend indicates progress is being made.

5.9 There are two climbing spindleberry sites in Nelson which are both under control and eradication is on track. Analysis of drone surveillance has not revealed any new sites.

5.10 There are two existing sites and one new site of Himalayan Balsam in Nelson. Although the infestations appear to be under control and moving towards eradication, further surveying is required to determine if total eradication is on track.

5.11 One new Madeira vine site was recorded in Nelson, but very close to existing infestations. Active control at these sites aims to achieve zero density. Zero density is a term used when there are no known live animals or plants remaining of the pest species at the end of annual pest control operations in the area of concern. It is used when there is a risk of reinfestation, e.g. from viable dormant seed. It has a status slightly lower than eradication and recognises potential imperfections in surveillance, monitoring, and detection.

5.12 Work has progressed to control Taiwan cherry in the Nelson region. Management has been directed toward a large source infestation in Atawhai. Follow up surveillance was undertaken where trees were identified during surveys in 2021-22. Control was carried out in North Nelson working south into Dodson Valley and Nelson Central as far south as Enner Glynn. A total of 212 mature trees were controlled, juvenile plants were controlled on 13 properties, and saplings on seven properties. Eradication is still considered possible if all sites with seedlings are monitored and controlled each year.

5.13 There is one active site of saffron thistle in the Maitai Valley, site management has resulted in the overall increasing trend at zero levels. The long-term trend indicates progress is being made.

5.14 There are two new wilding kiwifruit sites and one reinfested site in Nelson. The number of new and reinfested sites outweigh the number of sites moving to zero density, indicating a lack of progress. As there are no commercial growers in Nelson the main risk is as an environmental weed. Recorded sites will be followed up with action in 2024-25.

5.15 DOC leads the Spartina surveillance. No new Spartina sites were discovered during this period. There are currently three sites under surveillance (active within the last three years) and 21 historic sites being monitored in Nelson. Two of the three surveillance sites are in Tahunanui and the other on the Nelson Boulder Bank.

5.16 Both Nelson City and Tasman District remain free of wild populations of Indian Ring-necked Parakeet. Nelson remains free of Bathurst Bur, Boxthorn, Egeria, Entire Marshwort and Asiatic Knotweed.

Progressive Containment pests

5.17 In Nelson the Progressive Containment pest programmes for Nasella tussock, Variegated thistle and White edged nightshade have been effective, and indications are that these pests are well on the way to being contained within their respective containment zones.

5.18 Nelson appears to remain free of Bomarea, Chinese Pennisetum, Purple Loosestrife, and Reed Sweet Grass.

5.19 An increased number of individual Nasella tussock plants were found within the existing infestation area (outside the containment), but the level of incursion is low. No checks have been conducted inside the containment area since the landowner (DOC) stopped work at the site due to health and safety risks. Roadside surveillance in the containment zone has not detected any new sites.

5.20 For White-edged nightshade the level of new sites discovered outside containment is balanced by the increase in the number of sites at zero density. A new site at Best Island is a monitored location where contaminated flood debris was moved from Nelson city. Progress was made on last year and the long-term trend remains optimistic. Inside containment the seed bank remains very active on disturbed sites. Post flood slips and forestry harvest are strongly associated with White-edged nightshade occurrence.

5.21 Proactive management of Variegated thistle is being undertaken by land occupiers and owners. The control history shows that new incursions can be effectively managed, and the long-term trend remains positive. The detection of new sites indicates surveillance is effective.

Sustained Control pests

5.22 The ongoing control of 23 widespread pests to reduce their impacts and spread to other properties continued under the Sustained Control programme, with many of the sustained control areas located in Tasman District.

5.23 The known number of Chocolate vine, Gunnera and Yellow-flag iris sites continues to grow. The growth is closely balanced with the number of sites moving to zero density. The overall trend remains positive and infers that spread is being effectively managed.

5.24 The high level of surveillance for Queensland poplar continues to identify new sites. However, the movement of sites to zero density outweighs the number of new incursions. The trend remains positive, indicating that spread is being effectively managed.

Site-led pests

5.25 There are no site-led pest programmes under the TNRPMP in the Nelson region.

Pest management in addition to TNRPMP 2023-2024

5.26 In addition to controlling pests in the TNRPMP, the Council also undertook extensive programmes directed at organisms not listed in the TNRPMP, but which threaten ecological values on Council land or important areas for biodiversity or have very invasive characteristics with the potential to become widespread (emerging pests).

5.27 Emerging pest plants targeted included water celery, Vietnamese parsley, moth plant and blue passionflower. During 2023-24 these were being considered for inclusion in the TNRPMP as outlined below.

5.28 A considerable amount of work has been undertaken by both Councils on a limited review of the TNRPMP, which was completed recently with the amended TNRPMP being adopted by Tasman District Council on 12 September 2024 and by Nelson City Council on 10 October 2024. There are 17 additional species included in the TNRPMP (blue passionflower, moth plant, pampas, water celery, Vietnamese parsley, and 12 wilding conifer species), and four amendments to existing species rules (Sabella, feral cats, boneseed, and koi carp). Biosecurity Officers have been supporting this process, and a proposal was presented to both Councils on 14 December 2023. This was adopted by both Councils for notification and submissions were sought from 28 February to 28 March 2024. 101 submissions were received, and 12 submitters spoke in hearings to the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee on 27 May 2024. Deliberations by the Joint Committee were held on 11 July 2024.

Operational Plan 2024-2025

5.29 The Operational Plan for 2024-25 sets the programme of work that has already been committed to via the TNRPMP and is budgeted (Attachment 2). It has been reviewed by biosecurity staff from Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council and outlines a programme consistent with the previous year. Findings from the review of the 2023-24 Operational Plan have been considered and priority given to species where progress is yet to be determined or not being made.

5.30 Delivery of the TNRPMP focusses on the listed species in each of the programmes. In addition to these listed pests, officers investigate and respond to new and emerging pests and support Biosecurity NZ with known unwanted organisms not yet established in our region.

5.31 The total approved budget for implementing the 2024-25 Operational Plan for the Nelson region is $312,000.

6. Options

6.1 Officers recommend option 1 to approve the 2024-25 Operational Plan.

Option 1: Approve 2024-25 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Plan · Meets Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements · Work is budgeted for
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Amend 2024-25 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for changes if deemed inconsistent with the Regional Pest Management Plan
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates delays/reprioritisation of work · Potential additional costs · Potential significant risk of not controlling pest plants and animals · May not meet Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report details the implementation of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan in Nelson and associated biosecurity matters.

7.2 The TNRPMP Operational Plan 2024-25 provides for a consistent and efficient approach to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. Focus this year will be on implementing new rules resulting from the TNRPMP partial review, improving the pest inspection database managed by Tasman District Council, identifying priority sites for surveillance, and supporting the delivery of partner agencies (Tasman District Council and DOC). The Operational Plan ensures the Council meets its statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993. Programmed work meet budget, as set out in the Council’s Long Term Plan.

8. Next Steps

8.1 The TNRPMP Operational Plan 2024-25 and the review of the 2023-24 Operational Plan will be reported to Tasman District Council’s Environment & Regulatory Committee meeting on 21 November 2024 as a joint partner and the management agency for the TNRPMP.

8.2 Both Councils will continue to implement the TNRPMP Operational Plan 2024-25.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Review of Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan Operational Plan 2023-24 ⇩

Attachment 2: Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan Operational Plan 2024-25 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report and recommendations achieve a consistent and cost-effective approach to pest management across the Nelson-Tasman regions by working jointly with the Tasman District Council to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993. It also provides a valuable service to the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from pests are effectively addressed and this contributing to the environmental wellbeing of the community.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The report and recommendations detail implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan and align with the strategy vision of “Enhancing community wellbeing and quality of life” by providing a framework for efficient and effective pest management and making the best use of available resources. This contributes to the Council’s following Community Outcomes in particular:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected;

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

Risk

The Operational Plan for 2024-25 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Any changes would risk delaying the ongoing implementation of the Plan.text

Financial impact

This activity is already funded within the Council’s Long-Term Plan and no additional funding is sought.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance and no engagement is planned. This annual report is a statement of accountability and while the activity affects many landowners, it is delivery of statutory requirements. The Operational Plan identifies programmed work which falls within budget limits. The activity is important for those landowners who are involved with managing pests, but approving the Operational Plan is not a significant decision.

Climate Impact

Climate change has not been considered within this report. However, it is acknowledged that climate change will have implications for future biosecurity risks and incursions and response to these. Control of biosecurity threats will provide more native vegetation growth in the future and increase carbon sequestration.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

The Council has power to make this decision under section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993. The legal process that the Council must follow to make this decision is to review the operational plan for its Regional Pest Management Plan annually; and decide on appropriate amendments to the operational plan.

This is a matter for Council.

Item 13: Adoption of Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2024 - 2034

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Adoption of Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2024 - 2034

Report Author: Michelle Joubert - Strategic Adviser Environmental Management

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28851

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2024 – 2034 (AMP) following Long Term Plan 2024 – 2034 decisions.

2. Summary

2.1 Council approved the draft AMP in October 2023 for the purposes of informing the LTP. The LTP was adopted in June 2024 and the next step is to adopt the revised AMP.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Adoption of Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2024 - 2034 (R28851) and its attachment; and

1. Adopts the revised Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2024 – 2034 (NDOCS-887727126-3304); and

2. Delegates authority to His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve any minor amendments required to the documents prior to the public release of the Environmental Management Activity Management Plan.

4. Background

4.1 A workshop was held with elected members to consider the draft AMP. The draft AMP informed the development of the LTP, its consultation document and supporting information.

4.2 Council deliberated on the LTP submissions on 23 and 24 May 2024 and adopted the LTP on 27 June 2024. The draft AMP has been revised to reflect those decisions and is ready for Council approval.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Executive Summary of the revised AMP is appended as an attachment to this report.

5.2 The revised AMP will be published on Council’s website, 2024-34 Activity Management Plans page https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans.

6. Key changes to AMP

6.1 The AMP has been updated to reflect the LTP in relation to the following:

6.1.1 Financial Budgets.

6.1.2 Council’s Vision, Priorities and Outcomes.

6.1.3 Levels of Service.

6.2 Other minor updates and edits have also been made that generally update work activities, record minor changes to legislation, and fix typographical errors.

7. Options

7.1 Two options are presented. Adopt the AMP, or not adopt the AMP and suggest changes. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Adopt the AMP (preferred option)
Advantages	· Implements the decisions Council made following consultation and deliberations on the Long Term Plan. · Supports delivery of recently adopted Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would not have an opportunity to make major changes to the document.
Option 2: Do not adopt AMP and suggest changes
Advantages	· None - this option would be appropriate if Council considered that the AMP does not adequately reflect Council’s decisions on the Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Further work by staff and reconsideration of the AMPs by Council

8. Conclusion

8.1 The AMP has been reviewed and revised to reflect all decisions made by Council in the LTP 2024-34 process, and now need to be adopted.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Following adoption, the AMP will be uploaded to Council’s website, https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Environmental Management AMP - Executive Summary ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The LTP development and consultation process leading to the final AMP enabled Council to democratically make decisions on behalf of the community, and to consider its services, work programme and budgets in terms of the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the community.

Adopting the AMPs fits with the purpose of local government as this/these documents set out the services Council intends to provide, how these services will be measured, and how each service will be funded.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Implementing the AMP enables Council to support delivery of all Council’s Community Outcomes.

Risk

Adopting the AMP is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects the relevant Long Term Plan decisions. Adopting the AMP helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets.

There are continued areas of uncertainty that present risks to the 10 year work programme, such as from legislative and regulatory change, climate change and natural disasters, and the economic environment.

Financial impact

Council considered the financial impact of the content of the AMP during the preparation of the Long Term Plan and during deliberations on submissions.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decision on the content of the AMP is of moderate significance to residents and ratepayers of Nelson because of the financial and services implications. The public consultation undertaken on the Long Term Plan, using a special consultative procedure, ensured that Council had a good understanding of the view of the public prior to deciding what services and projects would be included in the final Long Term Plan and the AMP.

Climate Impact

The impact of climate change has been considered as part of development of the AMPs. Some work programmes in the AMPs contain expenditure to support Council to adapt to climate impacts and reduce its emissions. The Long Term Plan consultation process has allowed the community to provide feedback on Council’s climate response budgets and activities.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement occurred with iwi during the draft AMP preparation process and through an iwi summit on the Long Term Plan.

Legal context

Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of LGA2002.

Council has the power to make these decisions in accordance with sections

76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegations

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

Item 14: Adoption of the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034

Council

7 November 2024

Report Title: Adoption of the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034

Report Author: Tess Harvey - Property Asset Planner

Report Authoriser: Nikki Harrison - Group Manager Corporate Services

Report Number: R28770

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (AMP).

2. Summary

2.1 This report seeks approval for the Property Activity Management Plan (AMP) 2024-2034.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Adoption of the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (R28770) and its attachment; and

2. Adopts the revised Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (NDOCs 714127617-20137); and

3. Delegates authority to His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve any minor amendments required to the document prior to the public release of the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034.

4. Background

4.1 A workshop was held with elected members to consider the Draft Property Activity Management Plan (AMP) on 2^nd June 2023 to inform the development of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, its Consultation Document and supporting information.

4.2 Council deliberated on the submissions on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 on 23 and 24 May 2024 and adopted the final Plan on 27 June 2024. The Property Activity Management Plan (AMP) has been amended to reflect those decisions and is ready for Council approval.

5. Discussion

5.1 An executive summary of the revised Property Activity Management Plan (AMP) is contained in attachment 1 to this report.

5.2 The revised AMP (NDocs 714127617-20137) will be updated on the Council website, 2024-34 Activity Management Plans page 2024-2034 Activity Management Plans - Nelson City Council

5.3 The key changes to the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (AMP) to ensure consistency with the final Long Term Plan 2024-2034 are summarised as follows:

a) Community Outcomes were updated to reflect Council decisions included in the LTP.

5.4 Other minor updates and edits have also been made to the AMP.

a) Grammatical and proofreading changes were made.

b) All references to pending public consultation or subsequent decisions by council have been removed or replaced with confirmation of the decision.

c) All changes to legislation and national standards have been updated.

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented. Adopt the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (AMP) or not adopt the Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (AMP). Officers recommend Option 1.

Option 1: Adopt the Property Activity Management Plan. (Recommend option)
Advantages	· Implements the decisions Council made following consultation and deliberations on the Long Term Plan. · Supports delivery of the recently adopted Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would not have an opportunity to make major changes to the document(s).
Option 2: Do not adopt the Property Activity Management Plan
Advantages	· This option would be appropriate if Council considered that the AMP does not adequately reflect the Council’s decisions on the Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This option would require further work by staff and reconsideration of the AMP by Council.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 (AMP) has been reviewed and updated following the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 and now needs to be adopted.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Following approval of the AMP, the final AMP will be uploaded to Council’s website https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Property Activity Management Plan 2024-2034 Executive Summary ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The LTP development and consultation process leading to this final AMP enabled Council to democratically make decisions on behalf of its community, and to consider its services, work programme and budgets in terms of the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of its community.

Adopting the AMP fits with the purpose of local government as this document sets out the services Council intends to provide, how these services will be measured, and how each service will be funded.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Implementing the AMP is a key method used by Council to support delivery of all Council’s community outcomes.

Risk

There are continued areas of uncertainty that present risks to the 10-year work programme, such as from legislative and regulatory change, climate change and natural disasters, and the economic environment (as outlined in the assumptions contained in the AMPS).

Financial impact

The financial impacts of the content of the AMP have been considered by Council during the preparation of the Long term Pan and during deliberations on submissions.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decisions on the content of the AMP are of moderate significance to residents and ratepayers of Nelson because of the financial and services implications. The public consultation undertaken on the Long Terms Plan, using a special consultative procedure, ensured that council had a good understanding of the view of the public prior to deciding what services and projects would be included in the financial Long Term Plan and the AMP.

Climate Impact

The decisions in this report will impact on Council’s ability to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future. The impact of climate change has been considered as part of the impact of the AMP. Some work programmes in the AMP contain expenditure to support Council to adapt to climate impacts and reduce its emissions. The Long Term Plan consultation process has allowed the community to provide feedback on the Council’s climate change response budgets and activities.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement has occurred with iwi during the Draft AMP preparation process and through an iwi summit on the Long Term Plan.

Legal context

Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 od LGA2002.

Council has the power to make these decisions in accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegations

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