Agenda of Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Ann Court	Consumer New Zealand	Board Member	None Apparent	Case by case basis
	Warren Pattison Limited	Shareholder	Building company.FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	No FNDC Controls
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No EM intervention in disputes
	Top Energy	Supplies my power		No other interest greater than the publics
	Consumer NZ	As disclosed	As disclosed	As disclosed
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Top Energy Consumer Trust	Trustee	x over in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lightning.	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potentially community funding submitter	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner Shareholder	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact(positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Propoerty on Daroux Dr, Waipapa	Power of attorney and beneficiary
	Flowers (I get flowers occasionally)	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Consider all staff my friends	N/A	Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!	Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.
		My husband is currently building a house for Kelvin Goode and is quoting Dr Dean Myburgh. My daughter works at Makana Café outside of school hours. My son works for Warren Baker.
Warren Pattinson (Husband)	Air NZ	shareholder	None	None
	Warren pattison limited	Builder	FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.	Apply arms length rules
	Kurbside Rod and Custom Club (unlikely)	President NZ Hot Rod Association	Potential to be linked to a funding applicant and my wife is on the decision making committee.	unlikely to materialize but would absent myself from any process as would Ann.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner	any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.	would not submit…. Rest on a case by case basis.
	Worked with or for Mike Colebrook and Kelvin Goode	Paid employment	N/A	N/A
Felicity Foy	Director - Northland Planning & Development	I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees.		I will abstain from any debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District Plan.
				I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team.
				I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner.
	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties on Weber Place and Allen Bell Drive.
	Elbury Holdings Limited	This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.	This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight, Tahuna Road/Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm in three titles on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 6 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
Partner Felicity Foy	Employed by Justaplumber Taipa
Partner Felicity Foy	Friends with some FNDC employees
Sally Macauley	Chairman	Northland Northland District Health Board	Matters pertaining to health issues re Fluroide and freshwater as an example.	Declare a perceived conflict.
	Chairman	Oranga Tamaraki - Ministry of Vulnerable Children- Northland Community Response Forum	Matters pertaining to this ministry	Declare a perceived conflict.
	Judicial Justice of the Peace	Visitations to Ngawha Prison	Matters pertaining to Judicial Issues re Ngawha Prison	Declare a perceived Interest
	The Turner Centre	FNDC Representative	Observer, acknowledging FNDC financial contribution.	Note FNDC partnership
	Trustee	Kaikohe Education Trust	Providing students laptops - possible request for written support to funders	Declare a conflict
	Executive member	Kaikohe Business Association	Matters pertaining to request for written support to funders.
	Chairman	Bay of Islands Arts Festival Trust	Issues pertaining to the application of support funds	Declare a conflict of interests
	Trustee	Bay of Islands Radio Marine	Issues pertaining to the application of support funds	Declare a conflict of interests
	Secretary/Trustee	Kerkeri International Piano Competition	Issues pertaining to the application of support funds	Declare a conflict of interests
	Trustee/Director	Kaikohe Community and Youth Trust	Possible application of support funding	Declare a conflict of interests
	Commercial	Palmer Macauley Offices- Kerikeri and Kaikohe	Infrastructural matters with FNDC	Declare a conflict
	Private property of which there would not be any conflict.
	Paihia, Kerikeri, Kaikohe
Peter Macauley (Husband)	Senior Partner	Palmer Macauley
	Peter Macualey	Barristers and Solicitors- Kerikeri, Kaikohe and Manganui	Legal matters with FNDC
	Director/Trustee
	ST John NZ Priory Chapter	ST John Priory Chapter	Legal matters with FNDC	Declare a conflict
	Senior Partner	Peter Macauley- Palmer Macauley Barristers and Solicitors Kaikohe, Kerikeri AND Mounganui	Legal matters with FNDC	Declare a conflict
	ST John NZ	Priory Trust Board	Writing of policies and legal matters as an example	Note Interests
	Lions Club of Kaikohe	Director	Legal matters etc	Note Interests
	Kaikohe Rugby Club	Patron	Legal Matters
	Viking Rugby Club, Whangarei	Life Member	Legal Matters
	Private Property
	Kerkeri, Paihia - no contents.
Adele Gardner	N/A - FNDC Honararian
	The Far North 20/20 , ICT Trust	Trustee
	Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Trustee
	ST Johns Kaitaia Branch	Trustee/ Committee Member
	I know many FNDC staff members as I was an FNDC staff member from 1994-2008.
Partner of Adele Gardner	N/A as Retired
Terry Greening	Greening Family Trust	Beneficiary		Highly unlikely to interface with FNDC
	Duffus Memorial Trust (Chairman)	Pensioner cottages with council easements over the land	Potential of seeking funds	Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests
	Bay of Islands Walking Weekend Trust		Potential of seeking funds	Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests
	Russell 2000 Trust (Chairman)			Trust is about to wind up.
	Russell Centennial Trust (ex-officio trustee)	Manages Russell Museum	Seeks funds from council	Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests
	Residence at Kaha Place, Russell	Nil	Nil	N/A
Terry Greening (Wife)	Greening Family Trust	Beneficiary	N/A	N/A
Terry Greening (Wife)	Residence at Kaha Place, Russell
Mike Edmonds	No form received

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A2121511

Author: Kim Hammond, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser: Kate Barnes, Governance Support Team Leader

Purpose of the Report

The minutes of the previous Infrastructure Network Committee meeting are attached to allow the Committee to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Network Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 31 May 2018 are a true and correct record.

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28A states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Infrastructure Network Committee Minutes - 31 May 2018 - Document number - A2082586 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Not applicable
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Not applicable
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Not applicable
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	None
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	Not applicable
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE infrastructure network committee held in the council CHAMBER, MEMORIAL AVENUE, kaikohe ON thursday 31 may 2018 COMMENCING AT 1.51 pM

PRESENT

Ann Court Chairperson

Members
John Carter	His Worship The Mayor
Felicity Foy	Councillor
Dave Hookway
Sally Macauley
Mate Radich
Kelly Stratford
John Vujcich
Adele Gardner	Chairperson Te Hiku Community Board
Mike Edmonds	Chairperson Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board
Terry Greening	Chairperson Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board
IN ATTENDANCE
Shaun Riley	Member of the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board
STAFF PRESENT
Kathryn Ross	Chief Executive Office (Acting)
Andy Finch	General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Dr Dean Myburgh	General Manager - District Services
Darren Edwards	Manager District Services
Glenn Rainham	Manager - Alliances
Simon Millichamp	Solid Waste Engineer
Tim Elliot	Team Leader – Road Safety and Capital Works
Gordon Dellar	Assets Manager
Dr Dean Myburgh	General Manager – District Facilities
Andrew Brown	Senior Asset Management
Seth Sirestarajah	Senior Project Consultant
Mandy Wilson	Infrastructure Consents Planner
Jessica Crawford	Infrastructure Consents Planner
Kim Hammond	Meetings Administrator

1.0 Apologies AND DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Agenda item 1.0 refers.

There were no apologies

2.0 election of deputy chairperson

Agenda item 3.0 document number A206388, pages 1 - 2 refers.

Resolved Vujcich/His Worship the Mayor

That the Infrastructure Network Committee elect Councillor Foy as Deputy Chairperson.

Carried

3.0 information and assest management

3.1. Resolution to Suspend Standing Orders

Resolved Court/Hookway

That Standing Orders “3.8 – Rules of Debate” be suspended to allow members to speak more than once.

Carried

3.2. Mangonui Boardwalk Safety Barrier

Agenda item 4.1, document number A2034005, pages 3 - 24 refers.

Moved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) endorse the previous Council resolution to install a safety barrier compliant with the Building Code without further delay.

b) staff are requested to continue working with the Mangonui community in regard to options for future waterfront development.

Amendment Moved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) Council proceed with the installation of an approved safety barrier or alternative solution approved by MBIE compliant with the Building Code without further delay.

b) Staff are requested to finalise the design in consultation with the working party and Te Hiku Community Board.

c) Staff are requested to continue working with the community of Mangonui and the Te Hiku Community Board in the design of the future waterfront developments.

The amendment became the substantive motion

Resolved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) Council proceed with the installation of an approved safety barrier or alternative solution approved by MBIE compliant with the Building Code without further delay.

b) Staff are requested to finalise the design in consultation with the working party and Te Hiku Community Board.

c) Staff are requested to continue working with the community of Mangonui and the Te Hiku Community Board in the design of the future waterfront developments.

Carried

3.3. Resolution to Resume Standing Orders

Resolved Court/Hookway

That Standing Orders 3.8 Rules of Debate be resumed.

Carried

3.4. Resolution to Suspend Standing Orders

Resolved Court/Hookway

That Standing Orders “3.8 – Rules of Debate” be suspended to allow members to speak more than once.

Carried

3.5. Alignment of Kerbside Solid Waste Services

Agenda item 4.2, document number A2052614, pages 25 - 29 refers.

Resolved Stratford/Vujcich

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) notes that the scheduling of kerbside collection is at the discretion of the waste collection providers.

b) instructs the Chief Executive to review the current waste plan to prioritise either budget or environmental outcomes.

Carried

Councillor Court abstained from voting.

3.6. Resolution to Resume Standing Orders

Resolved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That Standing Orders 3.8 Rules of Debate be resumed.

Carried

3.7. Resolution to Suspend Standing Orders

Resolved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That Standing Orders “3.8 – Rules of Debate” be suspended to allow members to speak more than once.

Carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.00 pm and resumed at 3.04 pm

3.8. Opportunities to progress the new Kaitaia Dog Pound

Agenda item 4.3, document number A2052614, pages 25 - 29 refers.

Resolved Court/Hookway

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) That Council confirms its preference for building a new Dog Pound in Kaitaia on Council-owned land adjacent to the existing pound at 303 Bonnetts Road, Kaitaia.

b) That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to approve reallocated expenditure of up to $650,000 (previously approved).

c) That prevision will need to be made in future budgets for additional operational expenses associated with all dog pounds.

d) that the concept design be circulated to the members of Infrastructure Network Committee.

Carried

Attendance: Councillor Radich left the meeting at 3.23 pm

3.9. Resolution to Resume Standing Orders

Resolved Court/His Worship the Mayor

That Standing Orders 3.8 Rules of Debate be resumed.

Carried

4.0 Close of meETING

The meeting closed at 3.54 pm.

Ann Court
Chairperson

____/____/____

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

4 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

4.1 Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Lease

File Number: A2121590

Author: Rob Koops, Contractor - Property

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager- Infrastructure & Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To obtain approval from the Infrastructure Network Committee regarding the proposal for new leases on the Recreation Reserve, Lot 1 DP 69081 and the freehold titles Lot 1 DP 54531 and Lot 1 DP90523 located at Tauranga Bay Beach Road, to the current lessee and owner/operator of the Tauranga Bay Holiday Park, Wupi Investments Limited.

Executive Summary

· The Tauranga Bay Holiday Park spans across three property titles, two being freehold and one being Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. All three titles are leased to Wupi Investment Ltd until 30 September 2038.

· The lessee has invested and is planning to invest significantly more in camp ground facilities and infrastructure that need upgrading and/or renewal.

· There is ambiguity in the existing lease documentation over ownership of facilities and infrastructure. Council has not invested in any improvements since (at least) the commencement of the lease in 1996. Some infrastructure dates back to the 1960’s.

· In order to get a return on this investment and to secure funding the lessee has requested a further 21 year right of renewal on the current lease.

· To remove ambiguity over ownership of existing improvements and responsibility for future maintenance and renewals and in accordance with Council policy #5020 “Council-Owned Campgrounds”, Council staff has proposed to replace the existing leases with a new ground lease, both for a 21 year initial term and both with a further right of renewal of 21 years.

· The Reserve Act 1977 requires public consultation before Council can enter into a new lease on Reserve land.

· The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community has delegated authority to consider all submissions and objections received in response to the public notification on the proposed new ground lease and to make a recommendation to Council on whether the proposed 21 years ground lease with further a further 21 year right to renewal should be granted to Wupi Investments Limited.

· This report was submitted to the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board meeting. The Board makes the following recommendation.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) Subject to S54 of the Reserves Act 1977 grants a lease on the Tauranga Bay Recreation Reserve being Lot 1 DP 69081 to the current lessee, Wupi Investments Ltd

Council grants a lease on the freehold titles being Lot 1 DP 54531 and Lot 1 DP90523 to the current lessee, Wupi Investments Ltd

The term of both leases shall be:

Initial Term: 21 years

Right of Renewal: One further term of 21 years

b) Council authorises the General Manager Infrastructure & Asset Management to negotiate further terms and conditions for both leases which shall be on industry practise commercial terms, at market rent and in accordance with Council policy #5020 - Council-Owned Campgrounds

1) Background

Tauranga Bay Holiday Park spans over three titles, two being freehold and set back from the beach, one being Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and directly on the beach at Tauranga Bay. Two separate leases have been in place since 1996, one on the Recreation Reserve land and one on the two freehold titles.

When the leases commenced in 1996 some improvements (i.e. kitchen, ablution, five units and a small dwelling) valued at $116,000, where in place. These improvements where established by the original camp ground owners/operators and (anecdotally) between 40 and 50 year old and need to be replaced. Over the years the improvements have been maintained and enhanced by the various operators of the camp ground. Council has not contributed to the up-keep.

The current lessee is planning a major upgrade and renewal of the improvements both on the Recreation Reserve land and the freehold land. In order to recoup the investment and to secure bank funding the lessee requests a further right of renewal of 21 years.

To remove ambiguity over ownership of existing improvements and the responsibility for future maintenance and renewals and in accordance with Council policy #5020 “Council-Owned Campgrounds”, Council staff has proposed to replace the existing leases with new ground leases, both for a 21 year initial term and both with a further right of renewal of 21 years new leases.

On 20 April 2018 Council resolved to commence public consultation on the granting of the leases and the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board was appointed to hear submissions and make a recommendation to Council.

The public consultation period ran from 1 May to 1 June 2018. Advertisements were placed in local papers and letters were sent to all ratepayers of Tauranga Bay to reach the many holiday home owners that live outside the district. Te Runanga o te Whaingaroa were contacted directly at the start of the consultation period. In total 7 submissions were received, 4 in support and 3 objections. One objection has been withdrawn because it was based on a misunderstanding. One preferred the status quo and one objects because it considers the land stolen in 1840. This objection was forwarded to the Office of Treaty Settlements and their comment is included in Attachment 1, List of submissions and staff comments.

The Board must indicate the extent to which submissions – specifically objections – have been allowed or disallowed, as required under section 120(e) of the Reserves Act 1977.

2) Discussion and Options

Option 1 – Recommended

It is recommended that existing leases are replaced and that both new leases are straight ground leases whereby the lessee owns all the improvements on the land.

This removes ambiguity over the responsibility to renew the improvements when they come to their end of life.

It also gives the operator of the holiday park the ability to plan and execute repair and maintenance, upgrades and renewals when they deem necessary rather than rely on Council plans and budget provisions.

Camp ground leases are typically registered leases and serve as security to obtain bank funding for improvements on the land. Operators need time to recoup their investment on these improvements. A lease term of 21 years with a further right of renewal of 21 years is therefore recommended.

Resolving the issue of ownership of the improvements and the 21 + 21 year lease term are in line with Policy # 5020 – Council-Owned Campgrounds. Both leases will be on industry standard commercial terms and subject to the Camping Ground Regulations 1985 and (for Lot 1 DP 69081) the requirements of S54 the Reserves Act 1977.

Option 2

Retain the status quo and let the current lease which still has 20 years to run until September 2038, run its course.

Under this scenario, as the lease gets closer to the expiry date, there will be less and less incentive on the lessee to maintain, let alone upgrade or renew the improvements and the onus will be on Council to renew the assets at some point.

Reason for the recommendation

To enable the renewal and upgrade of improvements at Tauranga Bay Holiday Park and for these renewals and upgrades to be fully funded and maintained by the holiday park operator without cost to the ratepayer in accordance with Council policy #5020 - Council-Owned Campgrounds.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

At the commencement of the lease the improvements that existed on the land where valued at $116,000. The current “book value” of the improvements is $376,000. It is proposed that they will be disposed of and the value written off to retained earnings. This is an accounting entry only and has no financial impact on rates.

Rental income to FNDC (valuation 2016) is currently $21,500+GST per annum and is currently reviewed to market rent every 5 years.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: List of Submission Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Lease with staff comments - Document number - A2107782 ⇩

2. Attachment 2: Aerial Plan showing lease area - Document number - A2107788 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low. Public consultation has been completed.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	S54 of the Reserves Act 1977 Camping Ground Regulations 1985 FNDC Policy #5020 - Council-Owned Campgrounds
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The Bay of Islands- Whangaroa Community Board is appointed to consider all submission and has made a recommendation to Council on the matter.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Iwi consultation formed part of the public consultation process. Te Runanga o te Whaingaroa were contacted directly at the start of the consultation period. No submission has been received.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	Iwi consultation formed part of the public consultation process. Te Runanga o te Whaingaroa were contacted directly at the start of the consultation period. No submission has been received.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	This has been covered under the Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision section.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

5 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group

5.1 Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station Options

File Number: A2121631

Author: Simon Millichamp, Solid Waste Engineer

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager- Infrastructure & Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To provide information on the opportunity to open a refuse transfer station (RTS) on a leased site in Waipapa.

Executive Summary

· The need for a Refuse Transfer Station to service Kerikeri is identified in the FNDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023A. The Council facility is planned to be completed in 2022/23

· Northland Waste (NW) is now proposing that Council utilises the new facility being built by NW as a RTS both short and long term.

· Staff recommend a short term agreement while longer term options for a transfer station are considered.

Recommendation

That subject to the identification of additional operational funding, the Infrastructure Network Committee:

a) Delegate authority to the General Manager of Infrastructure and Asset Management to negotiate a variation of contract with Northland Waste to provide a class 1 public refuse transfer station for the Waipapa/Kerikeri Community, at an approximate cost of $14k per month until 2020 (the end of the current contract).

b) Delegate authority to the General Manager of Infrastructure and Asset Management to negotiate with Waste Management to vary the existing contract from providing a class 1 facility at Whitehills, to a class 2 facility to assist in funding the operation of a Waipapa refuse transfer station in partnership with Northland Waste.

c) Authorise staff undertake a review of the Long Term Plan option to build a Refuse Transfer Station at Waipapa to determine what facilities are required and whether to build or lease the facility.

1) Background

The need for a Refuse Transfer Station to service Kerikeri is identified in the approved FNDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023, funded through Waste levy/ Loan .

Action: Look at joint development of suitable solutions with the private sector for Resource recovery centre in Waipapa/Kerikeri area. Investigate developing as a waste levy funded project. Estimate $600 - 800K.

Kerikeri has a choice of user pays kerbside collections, and it would undoubtedly benefit from having a RTS closer to the town. Class one RTS’s accept bulkier items of waste and recyclables (eg mattresses, whiteware, e-waste, waste oil etc) that are not accepted on the kerbside.

Our waste plan states that we aim to have a recycling facility within 15 minutes’ drive of the majority of residents. Currently, Kerikeri’s nearest refuse transfer station is approximately 20 mins drive away (19km) at Whitehills. All the other relatively large centres in the Far North have Class One RTS’s significantly closer to the town centre.

There is strong demand from the Kerikeri community for a closer RTS. Establishing a closer RTS may reduce the illegal dumping of bulky items in the countryside around Kerikeri.

Northland Waste (NW) and Waste Management (WM) approached Council in 2015 with a proposal for the joint venture development of a waste handling site at Waipapa. This was declined due to budget constraints and the need to review priorities.

Despite this, NW has secured a 15 year lease on a property accessed off State Highway 10 in Waipapa. They have obtained a resource consent to allow the public to drop off waste at the site. They are currently building a waste sorting/compacting shed on the site and have approached Council to see if we want them to open this facility to the public.

2) Discussion and Options

NW are proposing we lease their property as both a short and long term solution for a RTS at Waipapa. Council has the option to do both, either or neither. A decision regarding long term options does not need to be made at this time.

Short term use of Northland Waste’s facility as a RTS

This would be a cost effective way to provide a RTS for Kerikeri before the planned Council facility is completed in 2022/23

The proposed facility would operate like any other FNDC class 1 site under the usual terms and conditions of NW’s existing contract. NW have indicated they would require operating costs of approximately $14,000 per month. The current rates for other class one sites in the district range from $14,000 to $22,000 per month. Northland Waste is offering a purpose built facility at no capital or establishment cost to Council.

Declining this offer opens Council to the risk that NW may open the site to the public under their own terms and conditions which would most likely be to accept waste and not recycling from the public. This would result in a loss of income to Council. Fixed costs aside, waste dropped off at RTS’s generates $66.47/ton of income. This is the difference between the $132/ton Council pays NW for transport and disposal of waste, and the $199/ton NW pays Council from income received from the public as drop off fees.

Declining the offer from NW is also likely to generate negative feedback from Kerikeri residents who submitted to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023 requesting a Transfer Station.

However, there is a risk that utilising this short term lease could result in the objections to future Council expenditure on a Council owned facility on the basis that it is no longer required.

It is proposed to bring a further report to the Infrastructure Network Committee within the next 12 months, outlining the issues surrounding the long term provision of a Refuse Transfer Station for Kerikeri.

Reason for the recommendation

Short term lease of NW’s Waipapa facility for a RTS

This is a cost effective option to provide a much needed RTS to service the Kerikeri area in the short term.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Additional funding of an estimated $14k per month ($170k annually) is required to meet operational costs for an RTS at Waipapa.

The LTP 2018-2028 does not include any operational budget for an RTS at Waipapa for the term of the existing contracts. Nor does it provide for increased operational budgets to operate the Waipapa facility once it is open for operation, currently scheduled for 2022/2023.

Identifying possible savings within operations at the beginning of the financial year is problematic, particularly within Refuse as the majority of budgets are costed from existing contracts.

There is a possibility that costs could be offset by increased Refuse revenue arising from higher than budgeted tonnages, as experienced in 2017/2018. However this cannot be predicted with any certainty.

The proposed reduction in hours at Whitehills from a Class one site (63.5 hours per week) to a class 2 site (28.5 hours per week) could save around $4,600 per month at the $33/hour rate. Apart from these reduced hours, Whitehills would continue to offer the same services.

WM has expressed concern about FNDC considering contracting NW to operate a RTS in “their” area. They are likely to negotiate strongly around a reduction in hours at Whitehills RTS. There is a rate included in the contract should Council wish to reduce opening hours over winter months which equates to approximately $33/hour but WM may argue that this rate doesn’t apply to a large scale reduction in hours.

Based on achieving these Whitehills savings, additional funding of an estimated $10k per month ($120k annually) is still required to meet operational costs for an RTS at Waipapa.

The LTP 2018-2028 does include capital budgets totalling $954k timed over three years (2021 – 2023) to meet the construction of the long term Waipapa facility.

Attachments

Nil

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023 Table B3-1 Actions
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	No district wide relevance
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	No specific implications to Maori
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	Waste plan submissions on the need for a RTSA in the Kerikeri area.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Covered in section 3) Financial implications and budgetary provision
Chief Financial Officer review.	Type here

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

5.2 District Wide Sludge Management Strategy

File Number: A2121718

Author: Kate Simmonds, 3 Waters Planner

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager- Infrastructure & Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Provide an update to the Infrastructure Network Committee on the outcomes of the Far North District Council (FNDC) Sludge Strategy investigation, which identified options for the management of sludge at FNDC’s Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs).

2. Seek approval in principle to the recommendations made in the sludge strategy report (repeated in this report) to allow the next operational steps to be undertaken including further assessment and work to enable delivery of the strategy.

Executive Summary

· The Far North District Council operates 15 WWTPs, 11 of which are pond systems. Several WWTPs accept tankered wastes from septic tanks and grease traps.

· Management of sludge at the WWTPs lacks long term guidance and strategic direction. There has been little to no investment in sludge management over the past 30 years. As a result, many of Council’s WWTPs have never been desludged.

· Due to the lack of a sludge management strategy, sludge management to date has largely been reactionary and often comprises moving sludge between WWTPs to eliminate the immediate need for sludge disposal. However this only moves the problem elsewhere and does not solve the underlying issue.

· There is a significant sludge backlog, currently in excess of 130,000 tonnes (approximately 5,200 tonnes dry solids / year (tDS/yr)), and growing by 8,000 tonnes / year (approximately 320 tDS/yr). In context the volume is growing by 235 shipping containers each year.

· Sludge levels in the pond based WWTPs currently exceed the recommended maximum operational levels and this is impacting on the treatment plant performance and putting resource consent compliance at risk, resulting in abatement notices.

· Historically little work has been completed – approx. 100 tDS/yr was removed in the 2017/2018 financial year. This is not enough to address either the annual accumulation, or any backlog.

· The cost of maintaining the working practice of continuing to de-sludge and dewater using external contractors to address the backlog would be very high. This has been estimated to be $14.3 Million (Operational Costs) for the current backlog, and an additional $880,000 per year for annual accumulation. Additional costs would be incurred for sludge disposal, which would be exacerbated by the closure of local landfills

· A number of desludging, sludge management and biosolids end use options have been identified and assessed using quadruple bottom line assessment (cost and non-cost criteria including environmental, social and technical).

· There is a Community / FNDC goal to protect and enhance the environment, to reduce waste and to promote sustainable management of resources. Therefore, options which consider beneficial reuse are preferred.

· The preferred option, which is the lowest cost option, is a centralised option where sludge dredged from the ponds is stabilised and disposed to former mine / quarry sites where the original land form can be reinstated. The site can then be planted and possibly used for recreation (i.e. similar to the long-term plan for Mangere WWTP and Puketutu Island quarry rehabilitation in Auckland).

· Regardless of the final disposal route / end use of the biosolids, removal of the sludge from the pond, and dewatering of the sludge for more efficient transport, is required. It is cheaper for Council to purchase their own mobile dredging and dewatering equipment and to operate and maintain this within the current operational contract, than to engage external parties to dredge and dewater the ponds.

· Approval is now sought to proceed with the next steps of this study comprising:

o Discussion with Iwi

o Discussion with Quarry operators to confirm applicability of the option

o Purchase of Dredge and Dewatering equipment in accordance with procurement strategy (this may require further design to confirm the size and preferred types of units)

o Sampling at the WWTPs (influent, and interim stages) to enable confirmation of the design parameters.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) endorse the centralised sludge strategy outlined in the document Far North District Council Sludge Study – Stage 2 and 3 Report - Final

b) authorise staff to develop a project to deliver the centralised sludge strategy, including a project plan, budget expenditure, and timeline

c) authorise staff to commence engagement with Iwi and other stakeholders regarding the sludge strategy

d) authorise staff to commence engagement with quarry owners and operators to confirm viability of former mine and quarry site use

e) request quarterly progress reports to the Infrastructure Network Committee regarding progress on the strategy.

1) Background

Introduction

· FNDC owns 15 WWTPs; 11 of which are pond based systems. Several of the plants accept tankered wastes from private septic tanks and grease traps. The WWTPs serve the communities of Ahipara, East Coast, Kaeo, Kaikohe, Kaitaia, Kohukohu, Opononi, Paihia, Rangiputa, Rawene and Whatuwhiwhi. Sludge from the mechanical treatment plants (Hihi, Kerikeri, Kawakawa and Russell) is transported to pond based WWTPs for treatment.

· Management of the sludge at these WWTPs lacks long term guidance and strategic direction. As a result, many of the WWTPs have never been desludged, and in those cases where plants have been desludged, the work has been undertaken reactively. There is no long-term strategy for sludge management.

Current Situation

· The accumulated sludge volume is now in excess of 130,000m³. The maximum recommended percentage of sludge in any pond based treatment works is 20%, with volumes exceeding that impacting on the treatment process. More than half of the pond based WWTPs exceed the recommended limit, with many of the remainder close to reaching the limit.

The Issue

· A number of studies and ideas have been undertaken over the years but for a variety of reasons not pursued.

· Sludge management for FNDC’s WWTPs is a significant expense. Given the number of treatment plants FNDC operates, and the lack of investment in sludge management, it is now considered vital that long term investment in sludge management is undertaken in a coordinated and strategic manner.

· Sludge levels are now critical and a number of recent abatement notices issued by Northland Regional Council have added urgency to the need for a cohesive and holistic sludge management strategy to be developed and implemented.

Work Undertaken to Date

· Council has been aware of this issue for a number of years. Two previous studies into sludge treatment and disposal options have been commissioned, one in 2011 and another in 2012. The previous study findings generally align with those of the current Far North District Council Sludge Study – Stage 2 and 3 Report – Final, albeit with a few alterations to the preferred technology.

Progress from July 2017

· CH2M Beca was engaged to develop a sludge strategy for FNDC’s WWTPs with the ultimate objective being to develop a cohesive and cost-effective strategy and to inform FNDC’s Long Term Plan. The sludge strategy was developed over three distinct stages:

· Capacity assessment to define the extent of the problem. Development of an options “long list” which was reduced via high level screening of the options, bearing in mind the overall project objectives and key FNDC constraints.

· A technology selection Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) workshop using only non-cost selection criteria to select the most appropriate technology options for costing and strategy development.

· A Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) analysis which incorporates both cost and non-cost selection criteria, to select the most appropriate strategy option for implementation.

Following the development of the strategy workshops have been held with Elected Members and community boards to inform them of the strategy and seek feedback. All workshops have been well received and attendees have been positive about the proposed strategy.

2) Discussion and Options

· This report is seeking approval to proceed with the recommendations made in the sludge strategy report (Attachment 2). A number of options were identified and considered, and through QBL a preferred option has been selected, which scored highly in the non-cost criteria, and was the lowest cost option. The options are summarised as follows:

Sludge Management

· Sludge management comprises four stages:

· Stage 1 (Removal): The sludge resides in the bottom of the treatment ponds in a layer with a consistency similar to water. The sludge layer has to be pumped from the ponds to a receiving system where the water can be abstracted

· Stage 2 (Dewatering): The water is removed from the wet sludge to create a ‘cake’ that can then be transported.

· Stage 3 (Treatment): Management of the remaining sludge cake to convert it in to an asset that can be utilised in some way (biosolids).

· Stage 4 (End Use / Disposal): Reuse of the treated biosolids, or disposal of the dewatered sludge cake.

Options Identified and Summary of Capex, Opex and Net Present Cost

A number of options for sludge management were identified and assessed to shortlist the preferred option(s). Decentralised and centralised options were considered. The options which were shortlisted following multi-criteria analysis are summarised in the following graphic:

Each sub-option was costed at the small WWTP, large WWTP and Activated Sludge Plant (ASP) WWTP scale as applicable, to identify the lowest cost options to combine to make the most cost effective overall strategy.

Do nothing costs were also considered which were to transfer solids to landfill (do nothing option) or to continue to desludge using a third party as is the current practice (Business as Usual [BAU]), with disposal to landfill.

These costs are summarised as follows:

· Component	· BAU – Current	· Decentralised	· Centralised
· Small Pond WWTPs	· No treatment · Third party dewatering · Landfill	· No treatment · Mobile Dredge + Geobags · Mine/Quarry Rehabilitation	· No treatment · Mobile Dredge + Geobags · Mine/Quarry Rehabilitation
· Small ASP WWTPs	· ASP Transfers	· No treatment · Mobile Dewatering · Vermicomposting	· ASP Transfers
· Large WWTPs	· No treatment · Third party dewatering · Landfill	· Local Sludge Ponds · Mobile Dredge & Geobags · Mine/Quarry Rehabilitation	· Centralised Sludge Ponds · Mobile Dredge & Geobags · Mine/Quarry Rehabilitation
· Capital Cost ($)	· $14,000	· $3,417,000	· $2,908,000
· O&M Cost ($ p.a.)	· $1,028,000	· $506,000	· $449,000
· NPC ($M)	· $12	· $9	· $8

Reason for the recommendation

The Centralised strategy is the preferred option for implementation at FNDC’s WWTPs as it has been proven to best satisfy the main project objectives of being a cohesive and cost-effective strategy, scoring well in the multi-criteria assessment as well as being the lowest cost option.

It will also remove the sludge from the ponds, which may aid in addressing the performance and abatement issues currently being experienced at some of the WWTPs, and ensure that sludge is removed regularly, as is required to keep a WWTP operating to its optimal capacity.

This strategy aligns with the district’s vision “He Whenua Rangatira – A District of Sustainable Prosperity and Wellbeing” by giving preference to beneficial reuse over disposal.

The Centralised sludge strategy comprises of the following components:

· Continuing the existing sludge transfers from Hihi to Kaitaia, and from Russell & Kerikeri to Kaikohe for treatment.

· Extension of the existing Kaitaia WWTP sludge drying beds, and construction of sludge drying beds/ponds at both Kaitaia and Kaikohe

· Purchase of two mobile dredges for removal of sludge from FNDC’s pond WWTPs estimated at a capital cost of $350,000 per unit.

· Additional study to confirm the dewatering option to be purchased (either geobags or a mobile mechanical dewatering system depending on the location) for dewatering of the sludge dredged from all FNDC’s ponds. Concept level design study estimated at $40,000 and dewatering equipment capital cost estimated at $2 Million.

Beneficially reusing the dewatered sludge for Mine/Quarry Rehabilitation.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The capital budget for this project has been allowed for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan with $750,000 available in year one, $2M in year two and $750,000 in year three. Additionally the operational budget is $2M in year one, $1M in year two and $510,000 in future years. The budgets allow for the strategy to be implemented over 3 years and then continue at Business as Usual into the future.

The net present cost of the preferred strategy is estimated at approximately $8M; $3M of which is Capex to purchase desludging and dewatering equipment, and a further $450,000 per annum for the operational costs associated with these activities (labour, transport, etc). This is over a 20-year period and is much lower in cost than the do nothing option, or continuing to hire external parties to desludge the ponds

The following spend profile is being anticipated:

Year	Capex	Opex
Year 1	$500,000	Up to $1,500,000
Year 2	$2,000,000	Up to $1,500,000
Year 3	$500,000	$450,000¹
Total	$3,000,000	N/A - ongoing

Note 1: Annual cost will be $450,000 per year from Year 3 onwards. The initial 2 years are highest due to the backlog of sludge.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: FNDC Sludge Strategy Options Review Report - Document number - A2121699 ⇩

2. Attachment 2: FNDC Sludge Strategy Multicriteria Analysis and Strategy Recommendations - A2121707 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low– Budgets have been approved through the LTP. The Sludge management strategy has been presented to Council and Community boards through a series of workshops.Consultation with Iwi has not been conducted thoroughly – and is recommended.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	He Whenua Rangatira – A District of Sustainable Prosperity and Wellbeing. Health Act 1956 – provision of sanitary services Local Government Act – Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Resource Management Act 1991 Resource Consents for all WWTPS (breaches of consent conditions) Biosolids Management Guidelines NZ – still in draft form.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This project is of relevance district wide. The sludge management study was presented to each community board at a workshop.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Maori are to be consulted on this matter as part of the consultation strategy.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	The local community and ratepayers, the Community Liaison Group, Community Board, landowners, District Health Board, Northland Regional Council, and local Iwi, all of whom will be consulted and/or advised.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Please see the report above at section 3.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Type here

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

PDF Creator

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

5.3 Russell Community Water Supply Discontinuing

File Number: A2122220

Author: Barry Somers, Assets Manager - 3 Waters

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager- Infrastructure & Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To seek Councils direction in relation to the pending discontinuation of the local community water supply in Russell.

Executive Summary

In Russell there are two separate reticulated water supplies covering different areas:

1. The Council owned Fire Fighting supply which has very poor quality water and is not suitable for potable use.

2. The Russell Community Water Supply. This is a local supply which utilises Council assets and is operated by the Motor Camp. The water is sourced from, and treated by the Motor Camp then reticulated to around a dozen mainly commercial properties located near the water front.

The new operators of the Motor Camp have advised their core business is operating a Motor Camp and they do not wish to be a community water supplier.

Factors such as the extra responsibilities and increasing costs associated with the water supply outside their property have influenced their decision to cease supplying the external properties before Christmas 2018.

There are eight known non-residential properties facing disconnection including a number of community and Council buildings.

Council does not have a readily available alternative potable water source that could be immediately offered to the affected properties. Alternative options involving Council will likely to take a number of years to develop. There are no plans to develop a Council run drinking water supply to Russell included in the Long Term Plan or 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) Notes the intention of the existing private water supplier, The Motor Camp, to discontinue the supply of potable water to a limited number of commercial users in Russell.

b) Approves the recommendation to encourage the properties impacted to identify their own alternative water supply which would include working as a collective with the Motor Camp operators as to alternative options.

1) Background

In Russell there are two separate water supply schemes, the Council operated firefighting network and a locally operated Russell Community Water Supply (RCWS) that predominately uses Council owned assets.

The Council firefighting network is supplied by a bore which feeds to a series of storage tanks and reticulated to a number of fire hydrants. This water is not treated and is of very poor quality and likely to be difficult to treat. Apart from being used as flushing water in the public toilets, there are no customers connected to this scheme. There is limited water available to this scheme and the resource consent that Council holds to take the water from the aquifer specifies its use to firefighting only. There are no targeted rates for this service so the total funding of this scheme is via a district wide water supply operational rate at a cost of approximately $10,000 annually.

The Russell Community Water Supply (RCWS) covers a separate part of Russell. This is a treated water scheme with water sourced from a bore in the Motor Camp. A 1994 agreement between Council and the Motor Camp describes the pipes as being jointly owned between Council and the Motor Camp and for the Motor Camp to operate the scheme. This was a 1 year agreement and appears not to have been renewed. In the latest lease there is a confused cross referencing in the lease making it uncertain whether Council or the lessee owns the water assets within the Motor Camp and no reference to the water supply outside the Motor Camp. Also since 1994 the Motor Camp has added new assets and possibly a new bore to further confuse who owns what assets.

The RCWS has been developed over many decades, possibly starting as early as the Second World War when American troops were based in Russell. The scheme appears to have been initially developed as Council assets to service the “public facilities” i.e. Police Station, Post Office, Bowling Club, Hall, Museum, and Wharf. An early plan shows the water was initially sourced from a bore in the Bowling Club. At some stage it was changed to a bore in the motor camp. In the last decade it is known that some additional properties were connected, and some new reticulation installed. As Council has not had any involvement with this scheme for many decades information and records are very limited. Since the Local Government Amalgamation occurred in 1989, the RCWS has not been run or operated as a Council water supply scheme and a rating area to enable a water supply has not been established in Russell.

Despite being two very separate schemes there were some common linkages until recently. The source bores for the RCWS and the firefighting supply are 200m apart and prior to 2016 they had a common resource consent. The two schemes were also physically linked for emergency backup until 2017. The reason for separating the two consents was so each consent holder was clear on their responsibilities and to clearly define the liability of each supplier to their regulators.

As the Motor Camp contains the bore and treatment plant, the Motor Camp by default became the supplier of the RCWS running the scheme, maintaining the scheme and billing the users. This responsibility has been nominally handed from one Motor Camp operator to the next with Council not having any involvement with this scheme.

The Russell aquifer is fully allocated and the Northland Regional Council has concerns over elevated chloride levels, especially with regards to properties near the water. This will limit being able to develop an alternative bore water sources in this area. The effects of saline intrusion have been aggravated through the installation of improved stormwater networks and reticulated wastewater reducing the recharge of the aquifer. The motor camp area is seen as the best long term ground water source for Russell.

The Motor Camp operators have indicated that they would consider the option of a separate line from the bore to the boundary with any treatment facilities located outside the Motor Camp boundary. This would be subject to further negotiations.

Notice to Discontinue

The current operators of the Motor Camp have advised their core business is operating a Motor Camp and they do not wish to be a community water supplier. Resulting from The Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water the District Health Boards are looking more closely at the smaller suppliers. Requirements, including having Water Safety Plans, are making it increasingly more onerous for small suppliers to meet the compliance standards for a water supply resulting in increased responsibility and costs. The Motor Camp has now advised Council and their customers that the supply will be discontinued by Christmas 2018. Consumers were advised of this around the 20 June 2018.

The exact extent of the community water supply is not known to Council. However, it is known that at least eight properties are affected including the Police Station, Museum, Hall, Public Toilets, Wharf, Swordfish Club, motel and a series of shops. Anecdotal evidence suggests it is possible there are other properties that will be affected but we believe all affected properties are non-residential. Some of the affected properties already have on-site water storage.

2) Discussion and Options

Legal Position

From a legal perspective the situation in Russell is different to that in Mawson Avenue. Mawson Ave was a private water supply. In Russell the majority of the assets belong to Council, but Council has not been involved in operating the scheme since at least 1994.

Councils linkage to past asset ownership does place requirements on Council. Due to the confused status of asset ownership, and Council’s non-involvement with the scheme for a long period of time, the extent of Council’s responsibilities or liabilities is difficult to quantify.

While Council is likely to have a degree of legal responsibility, determining that could be both time consuming and expensive. A more pragmatic approach would be a negotiated agreement involving the consumers and the Motor Camp resulting in Council formally divesting the scheme to a newly formed organisation.

Council has responsibilities under the Building Act to ensure property is sanitary. If a property doesn’t have a potable water supply, Council has a responsibility to serve notice on that property to either resolve the issue or vacate the property.

In the very short term, tankers in the street could provide potable water. This is not overly practical and the nearest bulk water supply point in Paihia at Te Haumi Flat. Water tanks could be suitable for some properties, but there will be properties where this may not be an option due to lack of space or volume of water required.

Alternatives for consideration

OPTION 1 – Develop a New Council Owned and Operated Water Supply for Russell.

To enable this to occur would require the following:

1. Locate a viable water source. Sources could include: local bores, remote bores, reverse osmosis using sea water, reverse osmosis using treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant.

2. Determine the area to be serviced/demands and develop a project estimate.

3. Undertake a special consultation procedure with those affected properties and if sufficient support, establish a Russell Water Supply rating area.

4. Council consult on, and provide funding to enable the works and operate the scheme.

5. Construct the water supply scheme.

While a detailed programme of work has not been developed, this process is likely to take in excess of five years and would require wide community support. This option is not recommended

OPTION 2 – Council Procure the Motor Camp Water Supply Assets via changing the lease agreement.

To enable this to occur would require the following:

1. Negotiate a change to the lease agreement.

2. Determine the necessary infrastructure to enable operating the scheme and compliance with the drinking water standard.

3. Determine the area to be serviced and develop a project estimate.

4. Consult with those properties concerned via a Special Consultative Procedure and establish a rating area.

5. Council consult on, and provide funding to enable the works and operate the scheme.

6. Council formally consider options and provide sufficient funding to enable the works.

While a detailed programme of work has not been developed, this process is likely to take one to two years. This option is not recommended

OPTION 3 – Offer financial assistance modelled on the previous Te Kao resolution.

1. Offer properties interest free loans, to be repaid via a targeted rate, should they need funding to enable the installation of water tanks.

2. This option requires consultation through the Annual Plan/LTP process to establish a rating area and if adopted would not be available before 2019/20 financial year.

Council would need to determine if this option only applies to residential properties or all affected properties including private businesses. Due to the time delays associated to the required consultation process which would delay a decision until adoption of the next Annual Plan, this option is not recommended.

OPTION 4 – Offer the Firefighting water as a source of raw water.

1. Offer properties access to the firefighting water which they could then treat on-site.

2. The water is of very poor quality and will be difficult to treat to make potable. Further testing would be required to determine if the water is treatable.

3. The resource consent limits use to firefighting only and would require changing.

4. The volume allocated via the current consent will limit any potential use. Due to the aquifer being fully allocated with increasing saline levels, increasing the volume could be difficult.

5. Reticulation would need to be funded and installed.

6. For Council to be able to charge or rate, the option would need to be consulted on via the Annual Plan/LTP process.

7. Council would need to develop a water safety plan compliance with which could force Council into additional expenditure.

Due to the limitation of the current supply, poor water quality, potential costs and likely time delays, this option is not recommended.

OPTION 5 – Consult on divesting the scheme

This would involve working with the affected properties and the Motor Camp on options of establishing a special entity to run the water supply and Council formally divesting the water supply to that entity.

For a raw water source, the Motor Camp operators have indicated that they would consider the option of a separate line from the bore to the boundary with any treatment facilities located outside the Motor Camp boundary. This would be subject to further negotiations.

This option is recommended, but would require staff resources to be re-allocated from other priority projects or additional resources to be identified.

Reason for the recommendation

It is currently understood that the Russell Community Water Supply services a select number of commercial properties only. At this time residential properties are not believed to be connected. Finding a viable alternative potable will be expensive, problematic and time consuming. Support for expanding the scheme area is likely to be variable as many properties are already self-sufficient with their own water tanks or bores. While Council has established precedents with the Te Kao and Mawson Avenue, due to financial, physical and time constraints, having the affected properties determine their own solution is considered the best option.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Relative to the recommendation, there are no immediate financial implications apart from the need to identify staff resources to manage the project.

Should either financial assistance or a water supply scheme be considered as part of a future Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process, financial considerations will be part of that process.

Attachments

Nil

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	High significance due to potential cost and reputational impact.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	· The Local Government Act 2002; · The Health Act 1956; and · The Building Act 2004
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The decision potentially has District wide implications.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	None
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	Customers connected to et Russell Community Water Supply Scheme
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Nil
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda

31 July 2018

Meeting: Infrastructure Network Committee - 31 July 2018

Name of item: Water and Wastewater Compliance to 18 June 2018

Author: Jessica Crawford - Infrastructure Consents Planner

Date of report: 20 June 2018

· Document number: A2094703A2094703

Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide resource consent non-compliance information for water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants.

Ongoing non-compliance, if not dealt with effectively, may result in legal proceedings, environmental degradation and public health issues.

This is an update report on new non-compliance and material changes since the previous report dated 17 April 2018. The report also reiterates significant on-going non-compliance. Full reports are provided every third committee meeting.

Executive summary

Water Treatment Plants

· The pump test at the Smoothy Road bore was completed in May 2018. The results of the test are still being studied and early indications are that the bore is capable of yielding the water demands of Opononi.

Wastewater Treatment Plants

· Three wastewater treatment plants have had breaches of resource consent limits since the last report. All occurrences have a low significance as they likely to be one-off events.

· Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge volume is trending upwards and will breach consented limits if the trend continues.

· Kohukohu wastewater treatment plant continues to show elevated 5-day median faecal coliform counts.

· At the time of writing this report, staff understand that the Northland Regional Council will be applying for an Enforcement Order on the Council for the ongoing non-compliant discharges from Paihia wastewater treatment plant.

Recommendation/s

The report is noted.

Glossary

Term	Expanded	Purpose
12-day Median	The median value calculated over the most previous 12 results.	A way to remove random noise from a series of data in order to show trends more accurately.
BOD	Biochemical Oxygen Demand	The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in a waterbody by biological processes breaking down organic matter. Used as a measure of the amount of organic pollution in water.
c/100mL	colony- forming units per 100 millilitres	Used as an indicator of micro-organisms in water.
pH	Potential Hydrogen	Most consent conditions for WWTPs have a requirement of a pH range between 6.5 and 8.5. Most microorganisms live within this pH range.
TSS	Total Suspended Solids	Particles of silt, clay, or organic matter suspended in the water column.

1) Background

This report has been prepared to ensure that elected members are briefed on issues of resource consent compliance at water treatment plants (WTP) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTP).

2) Discussion and options

Water Treatment Plants Compliance Summary

Opononi/Omapere - Smoothy Road bore update

A condition of the resource consent to take water from the Waiotemarama Stream requires that the residual flow must be increased from the 10 litres per second to 14 litres per second by June 2019. Failure to meet this condition will result in non compliance.

The pump test at the Smoothy Road bore was completed in May 2018. Monitoring and pumping took place over 12 days. The results of the test are still being studied, and early indications are that the bore is capable of yielding the water demands of Opononi. Council will be preparing an application to Northland Regional Council for resource consent to take water from the aquifer. It is expected that the application will be lodged before 31August 2018.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Compliance

Tables below provide information on WWTPs where new non compliance has occurred since the previous report (dated 17 April 2018) and WWTPs with significant on-going non compliance.

Table 1: New non compliance occurrences

Treatment Plant	New non compliance occurrences	Frequency	Significance
Kaeo	Breach of downstream pH limit	On-going	Low
Kaikohe	Effluent volume approaching consented discharge volume limit	On-going	High
Kaikohe	Breach of downstream ammonia limit	Infrequent	Low
Taipa	Breach of faecal coliform limit	Infrequent	Low

Kaeo

The lower pH limit is pH 6.5. Both results over the reporting period were non-compliant at pH 5.88 and pH 6.01. The timing of these results corresponds with desludging of the ponds therefore it is expected that the desludging activity is the cause of the low pH. The pH results are expected return to typical within a short period and no further action is planned at this time.

Kaikohe

(a) The discharge volume limit is 1,710m³/24 hours. Over the reporting period the effluent flows average 1,649m³/24 hours; a significant increase on previous reporting periods. If this trend continues it is likely that there will be a breach of consent. Operations staff are assessing the trend to ascertain its cause.

(b) The limit for the downstream ammonia is dependent on the discharge pH – at a pH of 8 the ammonia limit is 0.9g/m³. Over the reporting period one result was non-compliant at 2g/m³. This is a high and uncommon result. It is likely to be a one-off and no further action is planned.

Taipa
The limit for faecal coliforms is 1,000c/100mL. The results from this reporting period include a non compliant result of 8,000c/100mL. This is expected to be a one-off result, and is considered to be caused by the recent desludging of the effluent ponds. The faecal coliform count should return to typical within a short period and no further action is planned.

Table 2: Significant ongoing non compliance

WWTP	Significant ongoing non compliance	Frequency	Significance	Update
Ahipara	Operating under two abatement notices. Abatement notices issued due to: (a) on-going breach of 12-day median and 90th percentile faecal coliform limits; and (b) on-going breach of volume of leachate discharged into the pond system from the Ahipara Landfill.	On-going	High	(a)Planned actions continue (b) Flows are now compliant with the consent
Kaitaia	Operating under abatement notice. Abatement notice issued due to ongoing over-flows from the wastewater network.	Ongoing	High	Planned actions continue
Kerikeri	Ongoing breach of E.coli, BOD, TSS and ammonia limits.	On-going	High	Planned actions continue
Opononi	Operating under abatement notice. Abatement notice issued due to ongoing breach of 12-day median and 90th percentile E.coli limits.	On-going	High	Planned actions continue
Paihia	Operating under abatement notice. Abatement notice issued due to ongoing breach of ammonia.	Ongoing	High	Planned actions continue
Russell	Operating under abatement notice. Abatement notice issued due to ongoing breach of E.coli limits.	Intermittent	High	Planned actions continue

Paihia WWTP Enforcement Order

Staff understand the NRC CEO has agreed with apply to the Environment Court for an Enforcement Order to be issued against FNDC for Paihia WWTP. At the time of writing this report no further information is available. A verbal update can be provided at the meeting to give the most current information

Reason for the recommendation

This report is for information purposes.

3) Financial implications and budgetary provision

Financial implications associated with addressing resource consent non-compliance are outside the scope of this report.

Manager: Andy Finch - General Manager – Infrastructure and Asset Management

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This report is significant in that it reports WTPs and WWTPs that are non compliant with consent conditions and/or that are currently operating under enforcement action by NRC.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report is for information only.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	These issues are operational in nature and Community Board views have not been sought.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	This report is for information only. Where appropriate, Maori representatives are regularly updated regarding WTP and WWTP compliance with resource consent conditions.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	Interested parties include: · NRC · Community Liaison Groups, established as a requirement of conditions of resource consent for discharges from some of the WTPs and WWTPs; · Public Health Officer · General public who interact with the waterways and sites where WTP and WWTP discharges are located.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	This report is for information-only.
Chief Financial Officer review.