AGENDA
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting
Thursday, 27 September 2018
Time: |
1.15 pm |
Location: |
Council Chamber Memorial Avenue Kaikohe |
Membership:
Cr Ann Court - Chairperson
Mayor John Carter
Cr Felicity Foy
Cr Dave Hookway
Cr Sally Macauley
Cr John Vujcich
Cr Kelly Stratford
Cr Mate Radich
Community Board Chairpersons
Adele Gardner - Te Hiku
Mike Edmonds - Kaikohe-Hokianga
Terry Greening – Bay of Islands-Whangaroa
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda |
27 September 2018 |
INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK 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 |
|
|
Carter Family Trust |
|
|
|
|
Ann Court |
Consumer New Zealand |
Board Member |
None Apparent |
Case by case basis |
Warren Pattinson 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 Pattinson 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 |
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 |
|
|
|
Friends with some FNDC employees |
|
|
|
|
Dave Hookway |
Employed as “Health Promotion Advisor – Alcohol and other Drugs” for Northern District health Board. |
A professional understanding of issues relating to drugs and alcohol. |
Have made personal and professional submissions on Council policies. |
Consider policies and proposals as presented in a fair and balanced manner. |
I own my own property in Waipapa West. |
Have 3 dogs and 2 cats (and quite a few chickens). |
Love my pets |
Consider policies and proposals as presented in a fair and balanced manner. |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
John Vujcich |
Board Member |
Ngati Hine Health Trust |
Matters pertaining to property or decisions that may impact of their health services |
Declare interest and abstain |
Board Member |
Pioneer Village |
Matters relating to funding and assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Waitukupata Forest Ltd |
Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Rural Service Solutions Ltd |
Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust |
Potential funder |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Partner |
MJ & EMJ Vujcich |
Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Member |
Kaikohe Rotary Club |
Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Member |
New Zealand Institute of Directors |
Potential provider of training to Council |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
Member |
Institute of IT Professionals |
Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
Member |
Kaikohe Business Association |
Possible funding provider |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
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 |
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 |
Residence at Kaha Place, Russell |
|
|
|
|
Mike Edmonds |
Chair |
Kaikohe Mechanical and Historic Trust |
Council Funding |
Decide at the time |
Committee member |
Kaikohe Rugby Football and Sports Club |
Council Funding |
Withdraw and abstain |
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda |
27 September 2018 |
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting
will be held in the Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe on:
Thursday 27 September 2018 at 1.15 pm
Order Of Business
1 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
4 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board
4.1 Airspace Lease - 30 School Road, Paihia
5.1 Lease of part Pioneer house Kaitaia to Far North Community Foodbank Trust
6 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
6.2 New Water Source for Opononi/Omapere Water Supply - Progress Report Q1 2018/2019
6.3 Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station Business Case Review
6.4 WATER AND WASTEWATER COMPLIANCE TO 18 JULY 2018
6.5 Accessible Parking Changes
Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Community Board and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.
If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Governance Support (preferably before the meeting).
It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
1.15 pm Kelli Sullivan - Communications & Stakeholder Manager, New Zealand Transport Agency.
27 September 2018 |
3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
File Number: A2190710
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.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 31 July 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.
1. 2018-07-31 Infrastructure Network Committee Minutes - Document number - A2144416 ⇩
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 |
27 September 2018 |
MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial
Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Tuesday, 31 July 2018 AT 10.00 am
PRESENT: Cr Ann Court, Mayor John Carter (VC), Cr Felicity Foy (VC), Cr Dave Hookway, Cr Sally Macauley, Cr John Vujcich, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Mate Radich (VC), Terry Greening, Adele Gardner (VC) and Mike Edmonds
IN ATTENDANCE:
STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke - Chief Executive Officer; Andy Finch - General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management; Richard Edmonds - Manager Communication; Glenn Rainham – Manager - Alliances; Jessica Crawford - Infrastructure Consents Planner; Mandy Wilson - Infrastructure Consent Planner; Jon Pheloung - Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Advisor; Simon Millichamp - Solid Waste Engineer; Tim Elliot - Team Leader - Road Safety; Kim Hammond – Meetings Administrator.
1 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
Nil
2 Deputation
Nil
3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes |
Resolution 2018/1 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford That the Infrastructure Network Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 31 May 2018 are a true and correct record. Carried |
4 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board
4.1 Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Lease |
Resolution 2018/2 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: His Worship the Mayor 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 Carried |
5 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
Suspension of Standing Orders |
Resolution 2018/3 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr John Vujcich A motion was moved that Council suspend standing orders: 3.8 – Rules of Debate. Carried |
Resumption of Standing Orders |
Committee Resolution 2018/4 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford A motion was moved that Council resume standing orders. Carried |
5.1 Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station Options |
Resolution 2018/5 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 area, 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. .Amendment Moved: Cr Dave Hookway Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford 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 area, at an approximate cost of $14k per month until 2020 (the end of the current contract). b) 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. In Favour: Crs Ann Court, John Carter, Felicity Foy, Dave Hookway, Sally Macauley, John Vujcich, Kelly Stratford and Mate Radich Against: Nil carried 8/0 Resolution Moved: Cr Dave Hookway Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford 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 area, at an approximate cost of $14k per month until 2020 (the end of the current contract). b) 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. Carried |
Notes – request Infrastructure and Asset Management staff provide an update at the next meeting, including the information requested from Councillors.
Suspension of Standing Orders |
Committee Resolution 2018/6 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: His Worship the Mayor A motion was moved that Council suspend standing: 3.8 – Rules of Debate. Carried |
Attendance: Terry Greening left the meeting at 11.08 am and rejoined the meeting at 11.09 am.
Resumption of Standing Orders |
Resolution 2018/7 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Dave Hookway A motion was moved that Council resume standing orders. Carried |
5.2 District Wide Sludge Management Strategy |
Resolution 2018/8 Moved: Cr Felicity Foy Seconded: Cr John Carter 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 e) request quarterly reports to the Infrastructure Network Committee regarding progress on the strategy Amendment Moved: Cr Felicity Foy Seconded: Cr John Carter 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 e) request quarterly progress reports to the Infrastructure Network Committee regarding progress on the strategy. f) request staff to capture and report on all the recommendations in the sludge management strategy
Resolution 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 e) request quarterly progress reports to the Infrastructure Network Committee regarding progress on the strategy. f) request staff to capture and report on all the information in the sludge management strategy. Carried |
Note: The Infrastructure Network Committee request information be provided to the Committee on the Taipa Waste Water Treatment Plan project.
5.3 Russell Community Water Supply Discontinuing |
Resolution 2018/9 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: His Worship the Mayor 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. c) that the Infrastructure Network Committee recommend the CEO be authorised to engage an appropriate external resource to undertake the consultation and lead technical input into a community based solution. Carried |
6 Information Reports
6.1 Information Report |
Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr John Vujcich Seconded: Cr Ann Court This Report is noted. |
Note: Report to be brought back to the Infrastructure Network Committee on the possibility of connecting Ahipara to Kaitaia sewage.
7 Meeting Close
The meeting closed at 12.00 pm.
The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting held on 27 September 2018.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
27 September 2018 |
4 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board
4.1 Airspace Lease - 30 School Road, Paihia
File Number: A2199297
Author: Kaye Lethbridge, Property Legalisation Officer
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
This report asks that the Infrastructure Network Committee approves that Council grant an airspace lease for a deck entrance and for car parking purposes above the sealed side access road at 30 School Road, Paihia. The legal description of the property is Lot 5 DP29434 NA 729/58 – Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.
Executive Summary
· The applicant seeks a lease of airspace above the legal road, to enable a cantilevered deck to protrude into that airspace.
· An application for resource consent has been lodged.
· Resource consent will be subject to the granting of the airspace lease.
· Written approval has been provided by neighbouring property owners.
· Council’s roading and planning departments have no issues with the proposal.
· This report was first presented at the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board meeting on 28 May 2018. The Board resolved to leave the item to lie on the table until feedback from the relevant neighbours be provided – Attachment 3.
· The Board makes the following recommendation to the Infrastructure Network Committee:
That the Infrastructure Network Committee approves on behalf of Council: a) that the Council pursuant to section 341 of the Local Government Act 1974, grants a lease to occupy airspace above the side access road at 30 School Road, Paihia to be used for an entrance deck (level 1) and car parking (level 2) subject to the following conditions: · The extent (dimensions) of the leased area shall be such as to enable the protrusions into airspace above legal road depicted in the Boyd Design plans for project no. 176 dated 10-11-2017 and 28-02-2018; · The lease shall commence on the date the building consent is granted for the proposed building, and the term of the lease shall be 30 years; · The annual rental shall be determined by a registered valuer; · The rental shall be reviewed 10 years after the commencement of the lease and reviewed again 20 years after the commencement of the lease; · The lessee shall pay the Council’s costs incurred in preparing the lease, obtaining the rental valuation, and subsequently undertaking rent reviews. |
1) Background
The applicant, Mr Robert Cross has applied for resource consent to build a third dwelling at 30 School Road. This dwelling proposal requires additional on-site car parking. The dwelling is on the front part of a cross-lease section, up a steep sealed one-way side access road, off the formed part of School Road. This side road provides access to properties at 32 and 34 School Road. The properties at 28 and 26 School Road use only the vehicle crossing entrance.
Road-side parking along School Road is very limited with yellow dotted lines most of the way.
The property is to be used for short term accommodation and the extra car parking is needed to meet district plan parking requirements. A lease of the airspace would legalise the entrance deck on level one and the upper parking deck on level two. The level one entrance deck could be considered as a ground-level entrance because the house is built into the hill side. There is also a lower level ground-floor garage for parking.
It is proposed that the term of the lease shall be for 30 years. The annual rental shall be determined by a registered valuer and reviewed after 10 years and reviewed again after 20 years from the date of commencement of the lease.
2) Discussion and Options
Legislation and policy
There is no Council policy covering leases of the airspace above, or the subsoil beneath, legal roads.
Section 341 Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74) authorises Council to grant a lease to any person of the airspace or any part of the airspace above the surface of any road. And provided also that, in exercising these powers the Council shall ensure that sufficient airspace remains above the surface of the road, for the free and unobstructed passage of vehicles and pedestrians lawfully using the road.
As well as the key conditions listed in the recommendation, the lease will include other standard conditions including a requirement that the lessee produce proof of adequate public liability insurance.
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered. This road is not a “strategic asset” under the policy and the proposed recommendation to grant the lease of airspace is not considered to be “significant”. Consequently the policy’s compulsory consultation requirements are not triggered.
Council’s roading and development engineers have no concerns with the building proposal or the use of the airspace above the side road. Council’s planner has advised that the recommendation will be to approve the proposal as any adverse effects can be mitigated by the conditions of consent. One of these conditions will be that the works are not to commence until the airspace lease has been granted.
The applicant has advised that the current design plan evolved with input from the neighbours in order to gain their approval and he has provided copies of their written consent.
This proposal is reliant on Council’s consent to the airspace lease.
Option 1
That the Infrastructure Network Committee grant a lease of the airspace above the side road at 30 School Road, Paihia for an entrance deck and upper deck parking.
Option 2
Alternatively, if the Infrastructure Network Committee considers that a formal community consultation process of some sort should take place, the Committee could recommend that the Council undertake a consultation process seeking community views in respect of the proposed use of airspace. This option is not recommended, given that the applicant is required to obtain resource consent and as part of that process has already obtained neighbour consents.
Option 3
Which has not been recommended but is an available option, would be to recommend that the request be declined.
Reason for the recommendation
Council’s roading and planning staff have no concerns with the proposed use of the airspace above the road. The proposal will facilitate the provision of accommodation in the area. Lease rental will compensate for the use of airspace.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There will be no costs for Council as the applicant will cover all costs associated with the preparation of the airspace lease and pay an annual rental.
1. Airspace Lease Aerial - Document number - A2005226 ⇩
2. Buidling/Airspace plans - Document number - A2005237 ⇩
3. Airspace lease neighbouras approval - Document number - A2128795 ⇩
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 |
The proposed lease of airspace above road is considered to be of low significance |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
The airspace lease complies with s341 LGA74 |
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 proposal is not of District-wide relevance. This report seeks a recommendation from the Community Board. |
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 implications for Maori have been identified |
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. |
Written approval from neighbouring property owners has been provided. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There will be no adverse financial implications for Council. The applicant will pay an annual rental determined by a registered valuer and pay all costs associated with the preparation of the airspace lease. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
This report has been approved by the Chief Financial Officer. |
27 September 2018 |
5.1 Lease of part Pioneer house Kaitaia to Far North Community Foodbank Trust
File Number: A2168445
Author: Rob Koops, Contractor - Property
Authoriser: Samantha Edmonds, General Manager - Corporate Services
Purpose of the Report
To seek approval to grant a new six year lease to the Far North Community Foodbank Trust on standard commercial terms for the premises they currently lease within the Pioneer House (the former Far North Museum) at 6 South Road, Kaitaia.
executive summary
· The Far North Community Foodbank Trust currently lease space within the Pioneer House.
· The six year lease term expired 30 June 2018.
· The Foodbank have requested a new lease with an initial term of 2 years followed by two times 2 year right of renewal.
· The Te Hiku Community Board considered this report at their meeting on 16 August 2018 and made the following recommendation.
· The Council has delegated to the Infrastructure Network Committee the authority to grant leases on its behalf.
That the Te Hiku Community Board recommends that the Infrastructure Network Committee a) grants the Far North Community Foodbank Trust a lease of six years with an initial term of 2 years followed by two rights to renew of 2 years each at market rent and on standard commercial terms. b) authorises the GM Infrastructure and Asset Management to negotiate the terms and conditions of the lease and prepare the necessary documentation for execution by Council.
|
1) Background
Since 2012 the Far North Foodbank Trust (the Foodbank) has leased space at the rear of the Pioneer building, the former Far North Museum. The lease expired on 30 June and the Foodbank has requested a new lease of six years with an initial term of 2 years and two rights of renewal of 2 years each.
The Foodbank has provided the following information:
“Over the past 12 months we have handed out 852 parcels helping to feed 1,010 adults and 1,128 children.
We have one paid employee (the Manager) who works 21 1/4 hours a week but also puts in volunteer hours along with 2 volunteers who work approx 500 hours each in a 12 month period.
Our Trust is made up of six local organizations working within the community. We meet every month to ensure the Foodbank is running in the best professional manner possible.
Our last audited accounts show our expenses being around $49,000. We rely on funding from Lotteries, COGS, Foundation North and partner up with any local organization that can help support what we do for the community.
We have not applied for funding from FNDC.”
2) Discussion and Options
Option 1 (recommended):
Grant a new lease to the Far North Foodbank Trust for a six year term enabling them to continue to carry on the good work they do from a location that is well set up and well known to the people that use the service.
Option2:
Not grant a new lease and force the Foodbank to find alternative premises which will cause major interruption to the important service they provide and the people of Kaitaia that need them.
Reason for the recommendation
The Far North Foodbank Trust has leased the premises for the past six years. They pay full market rent and have never missed a payment.
The premises are well setup, the location is ideal in that it is well known by the people that require the service, it provides good off street parking yet is discreet.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
·
There is no cost to Council. The lease
will be at market rent which is currently $5,276.64 +GST per annum.
· Any rental income we receive is used to fund repairs and maintenance for the building. Any surplus is used to offset the general rate burden for the district.
1. Pioneer House Lease - Floorplan showing lease area - Document number - A2168436 ⇩
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 |
Low |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
In accordance with Reserves Act 1977 |
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. |
A recommendation from the relevant Community Board is sought through this report. |
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 that don’t apply to the general ratepayer |
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. |
Rent at market currently $5,276.64+GS |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
Rent at market currently $5,276.64+GST |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |
27 September 2018 |
6 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
File Number: A2176813
Author: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To provide a summary of Council’s footpath assets including inventory, condition and value for money.
Executive Summary
· A Deep Dive report has been prepared on the budget allocation and delivery of footpath capital and operational work for a Community Board Chair.
· This report is now being shared with Elected Members through the Infrastructure Network Committee.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee note the report and accompanying Footpath Deep Dive. |
1) Background
Earlier this year a request for information in respect of budget allocation and delivery of footpath capital and operational work was made by a Community Board Chair. The scope of the information required was confirmed and subsequently the Footpath Deep Dive, included as an attachment to this report, was produced. Elected Members requested that this report be shared through a formal report to the Infrastructure Network Committee.
A subsequent meeting requested further information on how new footpath projects are identified and funded along with the establishment of a footpath working group to oversee future footpath work. This group has now met and will bring a future paper to the Infrastructure Network Committee detailing recommendations.
2) Discussion and Options
Footpath Deep Dive
The footpath deep dive provides inventory, condition, age and performance information about the footpath network, along with maintenance, renewal and new works budgets. The information has been provided on a ward basis.
Whilst conclusions have intentionally not been provided it is evident that maintenance and renewal budget allocations are equitable across the wards.
Where there is less clarity is around the provision of new footpaths through the capital works programme. The data is skewed by two projects:
1. SH11 to Waitangi shared footpath
2. Kerikeri Packhouse market to SH10 shared footpath
These two projects were funded through minor safety improvement funding.
It is also evident that the physical delivery of capital projects may not be equitable across the wards, with a number of projects being deferred for operational reasons. The issue is clearly one of communication of the changes to the programme and discussions with the appropriate community board about substitute projects.
Funding
Historically footpaths were funded through:
1. Maintenance & Operations: Ward based Rates
2. Renewals: Renewal depreciation funded through Ward based Rates
3. New Projects (Non-Roading): Borrowing repaid through Ward based Rates
4. New Projects (Roading): Borrowing repaid through District Wide Rates.
However, from July 2018 all NZTA approved footpath works now attract subsidy from NZTA at a rate of 66%. Approval would be through the justification detailed in the Asset Management Plan. Council can identify a level of investment greater than that approved by NZTA, but would need to fund the full cost of this without subsidy.
Under the new regime the funding of the Local Share remains as above.
If going forward footpath renewal works are subsidised then the current level of depreciation funding can be used to increase the volume of work done. The quantum of this still has to be assessed.
Scheme Initiation
Footpath projects have historically been initiated from a number of resources:
· Maintenance & Renewals: Through RFS’s and Engineer’s inspections
· New Projects: Largely identified through the relevant Community Board.
Going forward the Northern Transportation Alliance will be undertaking a network wide condition assessment of footpaths. This will inform the future renewal programme which will be prioritised on the basis of use, adjacent traffic volume, condition, age and the potential consequence of failure. This is aligned to the expectations of NZTA who will require evidenced based decisions for renewal projects in order to attract subsidy.
For new footpaths then there is an ongoing need to balance individual community needs against available budgets. This process will, in time, need to be aligned with the Walking and Cycling Strategy supported by the Roading Asset Management Plan which will set out a district wide prioritisation process for investment in new footpaths. This is an emerging piece of work.
Regional Walking and Cycling Strategy
A draft Northland Regional Walking and Cycling Strategy has been published. This is focused on the development of the regions’ facilities so that it becomes a walking and cycling destination for international, domestic and local users, with safe, connected and enduring walking and cycling network and facilities that support growth and lifestyle choices. The draft strategy is largely focused on developing cycling facilities but does seek to increase participation in walking.
An update to the FNDC Walking and Cycling Strategy will be developed by the Northern Transportation Alliance and will follow finalisation of the regional strategy.
Reason for the recommendation
To provide Elected Members with information about the Council’s footpath assets.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
This is an information only report and accordingly there are no additional financial implications.
1. Footpath Deep Dive August 18 V3 - Document number - A2176509 ⇩
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 |
The report has a low degree of significance. |
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. |
The report was requested by the Chair of a Community Board and accordingly is of interest to all Boards. |
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. |
Not applicable. |
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. |
Information only report and accordingly there are no additional financial implications. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda |
27 September 2018 |
Executive Summary
1. This report provides a summary of FNDC’s footpath assets including its inventory, condition and value for money.
2. Its purpose is to provide a greater level of understanding of FNDC’s assets and current asset management initiatives.
3. The analysis includes shared cycle routes but excludes cycle tracks
4. Footpath assets represent around $32 million of value over a 200 km road network. The network is increasing due to the addition of new subdivisions and FNDC’s programme of enhancing the existing network through new footpaths, cycleways, and other improvements.
5. Current asset management initiatives are focussed on the upcoming Asset Management Plan 2018 to 2021.
6. Investment has to equitable, effective, efficient and provide value for money.
7. Further work is needed to strengthen asset data quality, particularly in relation to condition.
8. Further work is needed to develop footpath performance measures.
Strategic Context
9. The strategic context for this report is FNDC’s stewardship of a footpath network that contributes to active transport modes and provides an alternative to vehicle travel in townships, particularly for local journeys. It aligns predominately with the community outcome to provide liveable communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable.
Population
10. Estimated population is based on figures produced by Statistics NZ. Land area is based on the Stats NZ Measures for land area, which excludes bodies of water larger than 15 km2 such as inlets, bays, and lakes (this captures Lake Omapere).
Area |
Population Estimate |
Land Area (Km2) |
|||||
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|||
Te Hiku |
Total Population |
18950 |
19150 |
19250 |
19450 |
19850 |
2320 |
Density (p/km2) |
8.2 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
8.6 |
||
Bay of Islands-Whangaroa |
Total Population |
27400 |
27600 |
27700 |
28100 |
28700 |
2063 |
Density (p/km2) |
13.3 |
13.4 |
13.4 |
13.6 |
13.9 |
||
Kaikohe-Hokianga |
Total Population |
14250 |
14300 |
14350 |
14450 |
14700 |
2295 |
Density (p/km2) |
6.2 |
6.2 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
6.4 |
||
FND Total |
Total Population |
60600 |
61050 |
61300 |
62000 |
63250 |
6677 |
Density (p/km2) |
9.1 |
9.1 |
9.2 |
9.3 |
9.5 |
Asset Network
11. As at June 30th 2018, FNDC is responsible for a 201km long footpath network.
· Te Hiku (North) – length is 67.1km (34%)
· Kaikohe-Hokianga (West) – 29.5km (15%)
· Bay of Islands-Whangaroa (East) – 97.5km (48%)
· State Highway – 7km (4%)
12. Over the last ten years the footpath network has increased by 41 km.
· Te Hiku (North) – length is 12.3km
· Kaikohe-Hokianga (West) – 1.9km
· Bay of Islands-Whangaroa (East) – 24.1km
· State Highway – 2.0km
Asset Condition
13. Footpath condition is undertaken on a standardised visual grade rating system, with the assessment of individual footpath sections being given a score ranging from Excellent (1) to Very Poor (5). The last footpath condition assessment was undertaken in 2015. The Northland Transportation Alliance is currently undertaking new footpath condition assessments. It is likely that condition deterioration has occurred since the last condition assessment.
Asset Age
14. The age profile for the footpath network is detailed below:
Customer Service Requests
15. The total Requests for Service (RFS) recorded annually relating to footpaths are detailed below:
At this time it is not possible to filter RFS’s by ward.
Performance Measures
16. Existing performance measures around footpaths are still emerging and will need strengthening to provide meaningful indicators.
· Department of Internal Affairs (mandatory)
Footpaths: To maintain the District’s footpath network and infrastructure to high standards. |
|||||||
DIA Performance Measures |
Result |
Performance Targets |
Measurement Method |
||||
2016/17 |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
2020/2021 |
2021 onwards |
|||
1.4 |
4:Footpaths |
Not measured |
Year 1: Baseline to be established and targets established. |
Maintain / increase |
Maintain / increase |
Maintain / increase |
We need to audit/condition rate the footpath network assets place prior to any measuring, this should be completed by end of 2017/18 year. |
· Proposed Council Performance Measure in draft Long Term Plan
Footpaths |
|||||||
To maintain the District’s footpath network and infrastructure to high standards. |
|||||||
Proposed District Performance Measure for 2018-28 LTP |
Result |
Performance Targets |
Measurement Method |
||||
2016/17 |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
2020/2021 |
2021 onwards |
|||
1.9 |
Resurface and extend the footpath network as outlined in the Long Term Plan and the Annual Plan |
New |
≥95% of planned work completed |
≥95% of planned work completed |
≥95% of planned work completed |
≥95% of planned work completed |
Contractor compliance reports monitored monthly |
17. Interventions for Far North footpaths are driven from RFS’s raised. Complaints and concerns raised by customers are inspected and programmed for repair by the roading engineers and roading inspectors. A new approach will be undertaken following the condition assessment. A maintenance intervention strategy will be developed that prioritises renewals programs and maintenance items. This will be once levels of service have been set from the condition data analysis of the assessment in year one of the coming LTP.
The following performance specifications for footpaths are included in the new roading maintenance contracts:
Footpath Maintenance, Renewals and New shall meet the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Engineer:
· The Contractor shall take all necessary measures to ensure that while the concrete is setting the surface finish is not damaged.
· All repaired surfaces are to match existing in colour and level unless specified otherwise by the Engineer
· All repaired surfaces are to provide adequate slip resistance for foot and/or cycle traffic.
· The work is completed in accordance with the material specifications.
Footpath Cleaning shall meet the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Engineer:
· A consistent visual appearance shall be obtained on treated sites.
· The entire treated surface in each scheduled area shall be free from detritus.
Definitions
18. The following definitions refer to the key physical works activities undertaken. The activity is related to the funding source.
Maintenance - work carried out to keep an asset functioning or providing a predetermined level of service. This can be either reactive or planned/programmed. An Opex cost, and for footpaths funded through Ward Rates.
Reactive maintenance, also often referred to as breakdown maintenance or corrective maintenance is very much a reactive strategy where repairs are performed at the point when assets fail. This is a far more costly approach for an organization due to unplanned downtime, damaged assets overtime and callout fees. Ideally this method should only be performed on assets that are inexpensive and easy to replace or repair. Items such as guardrails and signs fit reactive maintenance profiles due to damages from accidents.
Planned/programmed maintenance on the other hand, also referred to as scheduled maintenance or preventive maintenance, is a proactive strategy where maintenance and inspections of assets are undertaken at regular intervals to ensure that they remain operating correctly so as to minimize breakdown and level of service interruptions.
Operations - the planning and management tasks undertaken to enable forward works programs to be developed and delivered. This can include activities such as Asset Management Plan development, network inspections and responding to Customer queries. An Opex cost, and for footpaths funded through Ward Rates.
Renewal - work carried out to replace an existing asset that has achieved its lifecycle return or has failed beyond repair. This does not increase the existing level of service. A Capex cost, and for footpaths funded through Renewal Funding Depreciation.
Capital Works – New works, building of new assets to improve on a level of service. A Capex cost, and for footpaths funded through Borrowing.
Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA)
19. The Northland Transportation Alliance was formed on 1 July 2016 and is a shared service business unit that incorporates transport staff from WDC, KDC, FNDC and NRC.
The objective of the NTA is to share services, create a centre of transport excellence, to encourage collaboration and sharing of ideas and to create efficiencies by increasing buying power and combining contracts. This should result in more consistent and efficient planning and operations being adopted across the region.
The Northland Strategic Business Objectives are:
· More engaged and capable workforce delivering superior asset management
· Improved regional strategy, planning and procurement
· Improved transport/customer outcomes, enabling investment and social opportunities
· Transport infrastructure is more affordable.
Footpath Investment
20. Historic and current investment is detailed in the tables below:
· Maintenance and Operations – Historic and Current Year
1. Ward |
2. Av Budget/km (14/15, 15/16, 16/17) |
3. Av Budget/population (14/15, 15/16, 16/17) |
4. Te Hiku |
5. $2,727 |
6. $3.13 |
7. Kaikohe-Hokianga |
8. $3,254 |
9. $2.16 |
10. BoI - Whangaroa |
11. $2,205 |
12. $2.52 |
· Renewals – Historic and Current Year
13. Ward |
14. Maint & Ops Budget (14/15, 15/16, 16/17) |
|
15. |
16. /km |
17. / av population |
18. Te Hiku |
19. $2,282 |
20. $9.44 |
21. Kaikohe - Hokianga |
22. $3,287 |
23. $4.85 |
24. BoI - Whangoroa |
25. $2,166 |
26. $6.65 |
· 2017/2018 Footpath Renewal Programme:
27. Ward |
28. Project List |
29. BOI - Whangaroa |
30. Skudders Beach Road - Completed |
31. |
32. Mill Lane Kerikeri Footpath - Completed |
33. |
34. Seaview Road Paihia Footpath – Carry Forward |
35. |
36. Albert Street Footpath Kawakawa - Completed |
37. |
38. Harry’s Place Footpath Kawakawa - Completed |
39. |
40. State Highway 11 Footpath Kawakawa – Carry Forward |
41. |
42. Moerewa Footpath - Deferred |
43. |
44. State Highway 10 Kaeo Footpath - Completed |
45. |
46. Mawson Avenue Footpath Waipapa - Completed |
47. Te Hiku |
48. Mangonui Beach – Carry Forward |
49. |
50. Commerce Street Kaitaia - Completed |
51. |
52. Ahipara Footpath - Completed |
53. |
54. Coopers Beach - Completed |
55. Kaikohe - Hokianga |
56. Settlers Way - Completed |
57. |
58. State Highway 12 Opononi - Deferred |
LTP 2018 Footpath Renewals Inflated Budget:
59. Ward |
60. 2018/2019 |
61. 2019/2020 |
62. 2020/2021 |
63. Total |
64. Te Hiku |
65. $150,000 |
66. $153,000 |
67. $156,360 |
68. $459,360 |
69. Kaikohe- Hokianga |
70. $95,000 |
71. $96,900 |
72. $99,028 |
73. $290,928 |
74. BoI- Whangaroa |
75. $205,000 |
76. $209,100 |
77. $213,692 |
78. $627,792 |
79. Totals |
80. $450,000 |
81. $459,000 |
82. $469,080 |
83. $1,378,080 |
84. Ward |
85. Renewals Budget (14/15, 15/16, 16/17) |
|
86. |
87. /km |
88. / av population |
89. Te Hiku |
90. $2,282 |
91. $7.85 |
92. Kaikohe - Hokianga |
93. $3,287 |
94. $6.69 |
95. BoI - Whangoroa |
96. $2,166 |
97. $7.43 |
· Historic and Current Footpath Capital Works Budget by Ward:
· 2017/2018 Capital Works Programme – current status
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward |
||||
ID |
Footpath Location |
Cost Estimate |
Comments |
|
1 |
Omapere: Part of Signal Station Road |
$ 30,000 |
As per the resolution passed on 7 February 2018, the footpath is to remain on the prioritized list whilst alternatives for external funding are to be explored. Carry forward $30k budget. Full works cost currently estimated at $285k so further work is needed on this project. |
|
2 |
Kohukohu: Part of Marriner Street to Sports Club |
$ 35,000 |
On hold, Awaiting Tourism Infrastructure Fund feasibility study Carry forward $30k budget. Full works cost estimated at $134k, so further budget will be required. |
|
3 |
Kaikohe: Recreation Road |
$ 73,000 |
These works are interdependent with a proposed storm water upgrade along Recreation Road planned for 2019/20. Works are to be deferred for a collaborative approach to both projects. |
|
4 |
Opononi: Taumatawiwi Street to State Highway 12 via Bowling Green |
$ 15,000 |
Consultation is being undertaken with the bowling club, as this is leased land. Provided the outcome of the consultation is approval, physical works to commence in June |
|
5 |
Opononi: Fairly Crescent to State highway 12 through reserve |
$ 15,000 |
Completed |
|
6 |
Rawene: Manning Street |
$ 20,000 |
Physical works are due to commence in June. Commit $20k before financial year end. |
|
|
|
|||
Bay of Islands - Whangaroa Ward |
||||
ID |
Location |
Project Cost Estimate |
Comment |
|
1 |
Kerikeri: Kerikeri Road from Maraenui Road to State Highway 10 |
$ 216,000 |
Completed |
|
2 |
Kawakawa: Hospital Road from Hospital Road along Greenacres Drive to Johnson Road |
$ 200,000 |
Tender to be released end of the month – so funds can be committed this FY |
|
3 |
Kawakawa: Station Road to provide safe access to tourists accessing cycle trail, locals walking to various facilities. |
$ 35,000 |
Completed |
|
4 |
Moerewa: Marshall Street |
$ 15,000 |
Completed |
|
5 |
Waitangi to Haruru Stage 3: Landslips Section |
$ 215,000 |
Design underway - Carry Forward. |
|
Te Hiku Ward |
||||
ID |
Location |
Project Cost Estimate |
||
1 |
Coopers Beach: State Highway 10. From existing footpath on Kupe Road along State Highway 10 to Beach Road |
$ 207,500 |
Awaiting NZTA safety audit of design - tender expected to be released July. |
|
2 |
Doubtless Bay: Tokerau Beach Road. From Virtue Crescent to Virtue Crescent. |
$ 80,000 |
Completed |
|
Other Footpaths planned/completed under NZTA subsidy
ID |
Location |
Project Cost Estimate |
Comments |
1 |
Coopers Beach: State Highway 10. From existing footpath on Kupe Road along State Highway 10 to Beach Road |
$ 207,500 |
Awaiting NZTA safety audit of design - tender expected to be released July.
|
2 |
Waitangi to Haruru Stage 3: Landslips Section |
$ 215,000
|
Under design review
|
3
|
Kerikeri: Kerikeri Road from Maraenui Road to State Highway 10
|
$ 216,000
|
Completed
|
Funding
21. Maintenance and Operations
22. Capital and Renewals
Footpath Depreciation Funds Held
23. Prior to 2016/2017 all renewal funding (depreciation) for all asset classes in each ward was held in a single account. During 2016/2017 the funds were allocated to the correct asset class. This is why there is an increase in 2016/2017.
NZTA Subsidy
24. Prior to July 2018 all footpath works were not subsidised by NZTA (but cycleways were?) From July 2018 this has changed and all footpath and cycleway works are now fully subsidised at 66%. We are still working through the implications of this, but it is likely that the local share the Council makes towards the footpath activity class will be lower. The cost savings to the local share may mean that the maintenance and renewal programmes can be accelerated.
Walking and Cycling Strategy
25. Work updating the 2007 Walking and Cycling Strategy began in 2016. Much of the work involves consultation with communities and identifying projects on the urban networks that focus on improving pedestrian and cyclist health, safety and well-being. Completion of the FNDC W&C Strategy will closely follow the publication of the regional strategy. This is expected to be August 2018.
Risks
|
AMP Risk Dashboard – Footpaths |
Date: December 2017 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risk ID |
Inherent Risk Score |
Risk Statement |
Impact |
Treatment proposed |
Treatment Implemented |
Residual Risk Score |
Effectiveness |
|||||||||||||||||||||
F1 |
15 |
Structural damage, failure or collapse due to age, inappropriate usage and asset condition/design/construction leading to accessibility issues, Health and Safety hazards and increased costs to Council |
· Pedestrian or cyclists safety · Widespread footpath deterioration caused by lack of funding · Footpath or cycleway deterioration caused by poor design/construction or poor reinstatement by utility providers · Accessibility issues for disabled persons / wheelchairs /strollers / walkers/ prams / mobility scooters from road parking areas, pedestrian crossings |
· Implement 12-monthly inspection program for the entire network. Audit programme |
· Inspections of high use footpaths and cycleway in town centres only. Respond to RFS in other areas |
11 |
Good |
|||||||||||||||||||||
F2 |
5 |
Changing population (areas of expansion and ageing) coupled with new design requirements will impact costs to ratepayers and expected / desired level of service |
· Financial costs to ratepayers · Increased level of RFS's |
· Review of funding allocation based on results from inspection program. Complete inspection program of entire footpath network, then determine appropriate funding allocations (e.g. depreciation) |
· Review of funding allocation based on results from inspection program. Reactive renewals as reported by the public or Council officers |
5 |
Good |
|||||||||||||||||||||
F3 |
7 |
FNDC organisational structure is not optimised to support staff, institutional knowledge and efficient achievement of FNDC objectives to create value for the ratepayer |
· Capital works projects not delivered in full, on time to specification · Work programming is impacted |
· Corridor Access
requests and compliance with Councils Engineering Standards and Guidelines. |
· Regular peer reviews and audits carried out · Engineering Plan Approval and Corridor Access Request processes in place to ensure compliance with Council’s Engineering Standards and Guidelines |
7 |
Good |
|||||||||||||||||||||
F4 |
5 |
FNDC lacks integrated systems, process and information services and technology, creating wastage and missed opportunities |
· Engineering standards not updated · Need to write each tender in word as no updated standard |
· Review Council policy for taking bonds, communication protocols and inspections upon completion of works. |
· Identify issues via community groups · Typically reactive identification of works · Established communication through a disability forum, which meets quarterly |
5 |
Good |
|||||||||||||||||||||
F5 |
11 |
Rate payer experiences increased costs and/or loss of services due to amplified rate of asset deterioration caused by poor asset management and/or lack of knowledge/condition assessment of the asset |
· The Community Trust may not have the time, skills and/or experience to govern, operate and maintain the Twin Coast Cycle Trail |
· Council supports the Twin Coast Cycle Trail until appropriate trustees can be found |
· Council supports the Twin Coast Cycle Trail until appropriate trustees can be found |
7 |
Good |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Financial Risk |
|
Customer Risk |
|
Reputational Risk |
|
Compliance/Legal Risk |
|
Health and Safety Risk |
|
||||||||||||||||||
High - Intolerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Medium |
|
5 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
1 |
|
|
||||||||
Low- none |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
|
|
2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
|
|
2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
|
|
1, 2, 4, 5 |
|
|
|
2, 3, 4 |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Unlikely |
Probable |
Will Happen |
|
Unlikely |
Probable |
Will Happen |
|
Unlikely |
Probable |
Will Happen |
|
Unlikely |
Probable |
Will Happen |
|
Unlikely |
Probable |
Will Happen |
|
||||||||
27 September 2018 |
6.2 New Water Source for Opononi/Omapere Water Supply - Progress Report Q1 2018/2019
File Number: A2181555
Author: Melissa Parlane, Team Leader - Infrastructure Planning
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to inform elected members of the progress being made towards a new raw water source for the Opononi/Omapere Water Supply. Without a new water source Council risks providing an exceptionally low level of service to customers of the supply from December 2019 when existing consents will become insufficient.
Executive Summary
In 2013 the Environment Court issued the consent which allows Council to take water from the Waiotemarama Stream. The consent requires that the residual flow in the stream increase from 10 to 14 litres per second in June 2019. The increased residual flow requirements will significantly change how the Opononi/Omapere Water Supply is operated. To prevent very low levels of service a new source is required.
A bore was constructed near Smoothy Road to test the long term sustainable yield of the aquifer. The location was chosen because of its geology and its proximity to the raw water pipeline serving the Opononi/Omapere Water Treatment Plant. Industry standard tests were performed and the following conclusions were drawn:
· No measureable change in the water levels was observed in nearby surface water bodies during pumping tests.
· The well can produce 6 litres per second for 19 hours each day.
A resource consent will be sought from the Northland Regional Council for permission to abstract the water for the purpose of supplying Opononi/Omapere Water Supply.
Detailed design of the supporting infrastructure will be procured in parallel with the resource consent application to minimise the risk of delay beyond the 2019/2020 dry season.
The 2018/2028 Long Term Plan identified funding totalling $938,420 for this project.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report New Water Source for Opononi/Omapere Water Supply - Progress Report Q1 2018/2019.
|
Background
Most years the Opononi/Omapere Water Supply struggles to supply customers in late summer and early spring due to low flows in the source stream. Level 2 water restrictions are automatically put in place each December to encourage water conservation. Level 2 restrictions ban unattended sprinklers and hoses. Most years water restrictions are increased to Level 3 in late summer. Level 3 restrictions ban all outdoor water use. Restrictions are usually removed in March or April depending on the level of rainfall experienced.
In 2013 the Environment Court issued the consent which allows Council to take water from the Waiotemarama Stream. The consent currently requires a minimum flow of 10 litres per second past the point of abstraction (this is called residual flow). In June 2019 the consent requires that the residual flow increase to 14 litres per second. The increased residual flow requirements will significantly change how the Opononi/Omapere Water Supply is operated. Unless a new source is consented and constructed before the dry season in 2019/20:
· Water restrictions will start earlier in Summer and last longer
· Water restrictions will be more significant and customers may be forced to restrict water use to consumption and critical personal hygiene
· Water Shortage Directions (applications to Northland Regional Council (NRC) to take more water than is allowed by the consent) will be more frequent and NRC will be less obliging.
A study in 2015 of South Hokianga Water Supplies identified a number of options available to support the Opononi/Omapere Water supply. An evaluation identified the three most practicable options and they are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 - Options for Opononi/Omapere Water Supply as shortlisted in the South Hokianga Water Supplies study in 2015.
Option |
Description |
Estimated Cost of Investigation |
Estimated Capital Cost |
Additional Annual Operating Cost |
1 |
Construct raw water storage. (Site not determined) |
$200,000 |
$5,790,000 |
$20,000 |
2 |
Groundwater (Bore water availability unknown) |
$80,000 |
$ 710,000 |
$10,000 |
3 |
Supplementary intake constructed on the Waimamaku River |
$80,000 |
$1,280,000 |
$10,000 |
Council progressed with the lowest cost option 2 by undertaking a groundwater investigation in 2017. Council commissioned CH2M Beca to assist with the investigation. A small diameter exploratory bore was constructed in a farm paddock adjacent to Smoothy Road. The location was chosen for its geological features and proximity to the existing raw water pipe from the Waiotemarama Stream to the Opononi/Omapere water treatment plant.
The outcome of the groundwater investigation was promising but a larger diameter bore was required to confirm the sustainable yield of the aquifer. The large diameter bore is referred to as a production well. The production well was constructed in April 2018 and tested in May 2018.
Discussion and Next Steps
Smoothy Road Bore
CH2M Beca continued to support Council with expert hydrogeotechnical advice during this phase of the project. Council also commissioned McMillans Drilling to construct the production well at Smoothy Road.
The production well has been drilled to 120m below ground level (BGL) where it intersected 63m of fractured basalt interbedded with clay and weathered rock. The production well is 150mm diameter and cased to 65m BGL with mild steel. Two 50mm diameter observation wells were also constructed:
· One deep - drilled and cased to 118.5m BGL and,
· One shallow – drilled and cased to 16m BGL but no water table was found.
Industry standard tests were performed on the production well. The results of the tests are used to determine its long term sustainable yield. The testing comprised of:
1. Initial monitoring - background water level collection for 24hours
2. Stepped rate testing - water was pumped for one hour at each flow rate (2, 4, 6, 7.5, and 8.5 L/s)
3. Constant rate testing - water was pumped for 120 hours continuously at 7L/s
4. Recovery monitoring – water level collection for 36 hours after pumping ceases.
Monitoring devices were placed in the deep observation well and three local springs; Leigh’s Spring, Big Spring and Parlane’s Dam. Rainfall was heavy at times during the pump test. Other than rainfall related fluctuations, no measureable change in water level was observed in nearby surface water bodies during pumping testing.
The water quality analysis completed indicates that the water available from the bore is of excellent quality for a drinking water supply (once treated).
Pump test analysis recommends a maximum flow rate of 6L/s and a regular rest period. Peak demand from the Opononi/Omapere water treatment plant is currently around 410m3/d and occurs for only a handful of days each year. The bore is capable of satisfying the entire peak demand of the supply by pumping at 6L/s for 19 hours each day.
The production well at Smoothy Road appears to be a suitable supplementary source for the Opononi/Omapere Water Supply. An adaptive management approach towards using the production well as a water supply is proposed. This will involve incrementally increasing the pumping rate to the required rate over an extended period of time. Additional monitoring of the surrounding groundwater levels can be undertaken to provide confirmation that the groundwater take is sustainable and has no impact on the environment.
The Smoothy Road production well construction and testing work is summarised in a report by CH2M Beca. The report has been provided to residents in the vicinity of the bore that requested a copy during earlier consultation. The report has also been discussed with members of the Opononi/Omapere Water and Wastewater Community Liaison Group (CLG). The CLG includes members of the Residents and Ratepayers Association, Representatives of the four local Marae and Community Board Members. Feedback on the report has been critical of the extent and timing the pump tests. Tests followed a wet summer and were undertaken in a period of steady and heavy rain. A number of specific questions will be followed up with CH2M’s hydrogeologist but are not expected to change the findings of the report.
Next Steps
An application for resource consent to abstract water from the production well is being prepared. The application will be submitted to the Northland Regional Council in the coming weeks. The application, including proposed conditions of consent, will seek to:
· Permit abstraction of water from the Smoothy Road production well up to 6L/s for 19 hours per day, and
· Give confidence to spring users that impact of the abstraction will not negatively impact on their water use.
Further socialisation of the bore results is planned including returning to the community of Waimamaku and a hui at Kokohuia Marae.
The detailed design of the well head, power supply, and pipework will be procured in parallel with the resource consent process. The risk of having insufficient water in December 2019 weighed against the risk of committing funds for a detailed design of an unconsented activity led to the decision to progress the two in parallel.
The production well is on private farm property. The design of any potential supporting infrastructure will need to minimise land requirements and be mindful of the farm’s operation.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The need for a new source was confirmed in 2013 when the consent was issued. Previous Long Term and Annual Plans provided funding for the Waimamaku River option in Table 1. Since the successful groundwater investigation this figure was revised down to the estimated cost of establishing a groundwater supply.
The 2018/2028 Long Term Plan provides $50,000 in year one and $888,420 in year two. At this stage it is considered that these funds will be sufficient to complete the proposed work. There will be more certainty once the resource consent is lodged and its level of required notification is known, and once the detailed design has been completed. This will include an engineer’s estimate.
Nil
27 September 2018 |
6.3 Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station Business Case Review
File Number: A2184270
Author: Simon Millichamp, Solid Waste Engineer
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
The Infrastructure Network Committee meeting held on 31 July 2018 requested that further information be brought back in relation to feasibility of the feasibility of the Waipapa Transfer Station. This is an interim report to update Elected Members while a detailed business case is commissioned and prepared.
Executive Summary
The need for a Resource Recovery Centre to service Kerikeri/Waipapa is identified in the Far North District Council (FNDC) Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023.
The proposed Resource Recovery Centre is planned for completion in 2022/2023 and is funded in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP).
Options for this facility include the options to:
· lease or build our own Resource Recovery Centre
· build a basic Refuse Transfer Station or a Refuse Transfer Station with a waste processing building
Future waste contract implications need to be considered as part of this decision.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the report. |
Background
As well as the need for a facility for Kerikeri residents to drop off waste, Council waste contractors in the southern area need a facility to process and compact rubbish and recycling before transporting south for disposal.
Currently the southern contractors are compacting waste at a leased site in Kaikohe and compacting recycling at a leased site in Waipapa.
Discussion and Next Steps
An interim report is included as Attachment 1. This provides a high level overview of the proposed Refuse Transfer Station at Waipapa and will be expanded to a review of the business case and options.
The establishment of a Council controlled waste processing site in Waipapa would result in efficiencies but require capital investment or ongoing lease costs.
The costs of the various options proposed need to be investigated so that an informed decision can be made as to the preferred design and ownership of the facility.
Consideration to the impact on future waste contracts must be considered including the number of waste contractors able to tender for such contracts as well as the resulting contract prices.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
None from this information report.
1. Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station Indicative Business Case - Document number - A2185652 ⇩
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda |
27 September 2018 |
Kerikeri Waste Facility
Indicative Business Case
Contents
1........ Executive Summary
2........ Strategic Context
3........ Background
4........ Benefits / Risks
5........ Development Options
6........ Financial implications
7........ Timeline
Appendix A Locations of FNDC Refuse Transfer Stations
1 Executive Summary The Infrastructure and Assets Committee in July 2018 approved the following;
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 (RTS) for the Waipapa/Kerikeri area, at an approximate cost of $14k per month until 2020 (the end of the current contract).
b) 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.
Operational funding for the short term option of providing the Waipapa RTS is yet to be confirmed.
A permanent Resource Recovery Centre to service Kerikeri and surrounding communities is identified in the FNDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023.
The proposed Resource Recovery Centre is planned for completion in 2022/23 as part of the 2018-28 LTP.
Options for this facility need to be considered including the options to:
- lease or build our own facility
- build a basic RTS or a RTS with waste processing building
Future waste contract implications need to be considered as part of this decision.
A consultant will be engaged to develop a detailed business case to outline options, the associated capital costs and the impact on future operational costs.
2 Strategic Context
2.1 FNDC Waste Strategy
The need for a resource recovery centre to service Kerikeri and surrounding communities is identified in the FNDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023.
The difference between a Resource Recovery Centre and a Refuse Transfer Station is not specified however to clarify the key functions please refer to an explanation below:
Refuse Transfer Stations (RTS) accept waste and recycling which is transported offsite for processing and disposal
Resource Recovery Centres (RRC) e.g. Kaitaia operate as RTS as well as having a variety of buildings / facilities that enable the:
Sorting of rubbish to remove recyclable items
Compacting of residual rubbish for transport to landfill
Sorting and baling of recyclables
Community Recycling Centres (CRC) only accept recycling which is transported offsite for processing and disposal.
Council’s waste plan states that we ‘aim to have a recycling facility within 15 minutes drive of the majority of residents’.
Kerikeri’s nearest RTS is Whitehills, approx. 20 minutes drive away. All the other main centres have a Class 1 RTS close to the town centre e.g. Kaitaia and Kaikohe.
2.2 Contractual Considerations
The current waste contracts for the Northern and Southern areas expire in September 2020 and Council has the discretion to offer a 2 year extension which could take the contracts through to 2022. The build is programmed to be completed 2022.
The contractors who operate the FNDC network of RTS’s and CRC’s need a facility to sort and compact waste and recycling before being sent south for disposal.
Northland Waste (NW), the northern contractor uses the Council owned RRC located in Kaitaia.
Waste Management (WM), the southern contractor lease a site in Waipapa to process recycling. They have been unable to get a resource consent to process waste at this site so have leased a site on Station Road, Kaikohe to sort and compact waste. WM utilise this site as their FNDC contracted RTS for Kaikohe instead of using the FNDC owned site in Carey Road. This was to eliminate establishment costs at Carey Road and to gain staffing efficiencies from operating from one rather than two sites.
The lack of a Council controlled processing site in the south adds complications (and therefore costs) to any company tendering in future for southern contracts. Waste processing sites aren’t easy to establish as they attract numerous objections in the consenting process. This added complication is likely to reduce the number of companies that would tender future contracts.
3 Background
In 2006, a facility to sort and compact waste was built in Station Road, Kaikohe by Waste Works.
In 2010, Waste Works was sold to Northland Waste but the Station Road facility wasn’t included in the sale. The problems with establishing a waste processing facility on Station Road include:
the previous high asking price
the lack of facilities and space required for processing recycling
the majority of the southern area’s waste comes from the east coast so utilising a Kaikohe site would result in higher transportation costs
In 2015, Northland Waste (NW) and Waste Management (WM) approached Council with a joint venture proposal to develop a waste handling site at Waipapa. This was declined due to budget constraints and the need to review priorities.
In 2018, NW secured a 15 year lease on a property accessed off SHW 10 in Waipapa. NW obtained a resource consent that allows the public to drop off waste at the site and in a joint venture with JSB Construction Ltd, built a waste sorting / compacting shed on site.
WM are investigating a similar arrangement with JSB Construction Ltd who have additional land available next to the site.
Council may wish to consider proposing a long term lease of a facility purpose built by JSB Construction Ltd.
4 Benefits / Risks
4.1 Benefits of establishing a Refuse Transfer Station at Waipapa are:
1 Benefits |
2 Description |
3 Residents |
4 Establishing a RTS in Waipapa will reduce residents round trip travel distance to Council’s closest recycling centre by approx. 36km |
5 Education |
6 Utilising RTS’s enables users to be informed of what can and can not be recycled |
7 Recycling benefits |
8 Residents are able to drop off large items such as white ware, TV’s etc for recycling reducing the number of items ending up in privately hired waste skips and landfilled. 9 Household recycling is likely to increase with the free Council service being more convenient. 10 The cost to drive to Whitehills to recycle outweighs any potential savings from the resulting reduction in rubbish disposal fees. |
11 Illegal rubbish |
12 Most illegal dumping is recyclable so making free disposal of recycling more convenient and accessible should reduce the amount of illegal dumping. |
4.2 Risks of establishing a Refuse Transfer Station at Waipapa are:
13 Risks |
14 Description |
15 Costs |
16 Increased annual operational costs of around $220,000 17 Escalating property and building prices |
18 RMA process |
19 Objections to a resource consent 20 Traffic management requirements |
21 Private competition |
22 Private waste companies offering discounted rubbish disposal 23 |
5 Development Options
5.1 Type of facilityOption 1: Refuse Transfer Station (Class 1) – open 7 days, accepts bulk and bagged rubbish, household recycling, e-waste, white ware, scrap metal, waste oil and hazardous waste.
24 Option |
25 Advantages/Benefits |
26 Disadvantages / Risks |
27 Recommended / Not Recommended |
28 Staff offices and services |
29 Permanent facilities will be more cost effective long term than relying on contractors to provide temporary facilities as part of the contract. 30 Permanent facilities would be of a higher standard than any temporary facility |
31 Capital cost |
32 Recommended |
33 Covered recycling drop off facility 34 |
35 Customers sort their own recycling into the appropriate containers 36 37 Reduces operating costs 38 39 Ensures good quality product to maximise returns from sale of recyclables 40 41 Shelter encourages customers to take their time to recycle properly despite adverse weather conditions |
42 Capital cost |
43 Recommended 44 45 |
46 Hazardous waste store |
47 Allows for the diversion of materials otherwise hazardous to landfill |
48 Capital Cost 49 High disposal costs |
50 Recommended 51 |
52 Waste oil tank |
53 Allows for the diversion of materials otherwise hazardous to landfill |
54 Capital cost 55 Neutral disposal costs |
56 Recommended 57 |
58 Bin Bays 59 30m3 bins for rubbish, scrap metal and green waste |
60 Low cost |
61 Doesn’t enable recovery of recycling / re-usables 62 Staff exposed to the weather 63 Open to weather conditions – when wet, increases transport and disposal costs 64 Dump trucks unable to tip their loads – must be unloaded by hand 65 Fall hazard to customers |
66 Not recommended 67 Waste shed option below preferred |
Option 2: Resource Recovery Centre (additional facilities to sort and process rubbish and recycling)
68 Option |
69 Advantages/Benefits |
70 Disadvantages / Risks |
71 Recommended / Not Recommended |
72 Waste Shed 73 Incl. separate dump zone for rubbish, scrap metal and green waste) |
74 Allows for recovery of recyclables / re-usables 75 Staff not exposed to the weather 76 Rubbish doesn’t gets wet, reducing transport and disposal costs 77 Dump trucks able to tip their loads |
78 Capital costs |
79 Recommended |
80 Recycling shed |
81 Allows onsite baling of recyclables 82 Reduces transport costs 83 Allows waste companies with no local infrastructure to tender for southern contract |
84 Capital cost |
85 Recommended |
86 Reuse shop |
87 Promotes and increases recovery and reuse 88 Provides an outlet for materials recovered from rubbish |
89 Capital costs 90 Operational costs 91 Limited recovery for money invested 92 Social / community good |
93 Desirable |
5.2 Ownership of facility
Council owned
Waipapa appears the best option for buying affordable land for a Council owned RTS for the greater Kerikeri catchment area. As the area is ‘Industrial’ by nature, a resource consent may be easier to obtain.
Leased
Lease costs have yet to be determined.
The 3 possible options at the Waipapa site which Northland Waste has a long term lease on as a waste facility include:
1. Sublease the premises from NW for long term use as a Council Refuse Transfer Station. The lease period would be for a minimum of the term of the next waste contract 2020 to 2025. NW are aware that any lease arrangements will have to allow a third party to use the Waipapa RTS should the contract be awarded to another company in future. NW is open to this requirement and has expressed a willingness to negotiate this further.
2. Sublease premises from WM for long term use as a Council Refuse Transfer Station if their proposed development goes ahead. This option has yet to be investigated further.
3. Approach the land owner and discuss the option of a purpose built facility on the adjacent site under a long term lease agreement with Council. This has yet to be investigated.
94 Option |
95 Advantages/Benefits |
96 Disadvantages/Risks |
97 Recommended / Not Recommended |
98 Council Owned |
99 Provides security of service for the future. 100 101 Allows waste companies without local infrastructure to tender for future contracts on an equal basis with existing waste companies. 102 103 Reduces operational costs. |
104 High capital cost. 105 106 Negative response from ratepayers who think that the spending is un-necessary due to the established Northland Waste facility |
107 Recommended |
108 Long Term Sublease 109 Northland Waste’s facility or 110 Waste Management - sub lease a facility if their proposal proceeds |
111 No capital cost 112 113 No Council staff time required 114 115 Can start immediately 116 117 118 |
119 High operational costs 120 121 Need to ensure the lease includes the right for another waste company to occupy the site should Northland Waste lose future contracts |
122 Not recommended |
123 Lease 124 Independent private owner |
125 Provides security of service for the future 126 127 Allows waste companies without local infrastructure to tender for future contracts on an equal basis with existing waste companies |
128 High operational costs 129 130 |
131 Not recommended |
6 Financial implications
6.1 Business Case Development Costs
Funding is being identified to engage a consultant to develop a detailed business case.
6.2 Operational costs
There is no OPEX budget allocated for the Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station for the term of the existing contracts.
Funding the operational costs of Waipapa Refuse Transfer Station will be included for consideration in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.
6.3 Capex Costs
To establish a waste facility in Waipapa, the 2018-2028 LTP has identified the following CAPEX:
132 2020/21 |
133 $28,000 |
134 2021/22 |
135 $587,000 |
136 2022/23 |
137 $339,00 |
138 TOTAL |
139 $950,000 |
The planned CAPEX $950k budget appears insufficient if the purchase of land is required.
A basic Class 1 RTS requires approx. 4000m3 of land. A Resource Recovery Centre with facilities to sort and process both waste and recycling requires approx. 8000m3 of land at an estimated cost of $600K to $800K
The Kaitaia Resource Recovery Centre which functions as both a waste processing centre and a RTS cost approx. $1.5M in 2008 and didn’t require the purchase of land.
140 Timeframe |
141 Details |
142 October 2018 |
143 Business case development plan to the Procurement Board |
144 January – April 2019 |
145 Study period |
146 June 2019 |
147 Report to Council |
148 November 2019 |
149 Council decision on preferred option |
150 2020/21 |
151 Preliminary investigations |
152 2021/22 |
153 Purchase property /start build |
154 2022/23 |
155 Project Completion |
27 September 2018 |
6.4 WATER AND WASTEWATER COMPLIANCE TO 18 JULY 2018
File Number: A2185451
Author: Jessica Crawford, Infrastructure Consents Planner
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
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 operated by the Far North District Council.
Ongoing non-compliance, if not dealt with effectively, may result in legal proceedings, environmental degradation and public health issues.
This is a full report on the non-compliance of water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants. This report also contains planned actions for resolving non-compliance. This reporting period covers the date since the previous report, 16 April 2018, to 18 July 2018.
This is the last water and wastewater compliance report to be prepared by Infrastructure Planning. Future compliance reports will be prepared by the new Three Waters Alliance.
Executive Summary
Water Treatment Plants (WTP)
· The Monument Hill Water Treatment Plant, which supplies a portion of Kaikohe’s water, has taken more water from the aquifer than the consent allows over the course of a year.
· Progress has been made to maximise production at Kaikohe’s other WTP Taraire Hills, despite declining raw water quality.
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP)
· Kaeo and Hihi WWTPs have had one-off or infrequent breaches of resource consent limits since the last reporting period.
· Kaikohe WWTP is consistently non-compliant with its wastewater discharge volume limit.
· Five wastewater schemes continue to operate under abatement notices.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report Water and Wastewater Compliance to 18 July 2018.
|
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).
Discussion and Next Steps
Water Treatment Plants Compliance Summary
WTPs with compliance concerns are discussed below.
Kaikohe
The water supply for Kaikohe and Ngawha Springs is provided by the Taraire Hills WTP and the Monument Hill WTP. The majority of water for the Taraire Hills WTP is taken from the Wairoro stream with the supply supplemented by the Taraire Hills Dam. The water for the Monument Hill WTP is supplied from the Monument Hill bore.
The resource consent for the Monument Hill bore has a volume limit of 180,000 cubic metres per year. This year the annual take was 187,259 cubic metres resulting in non-compliance. Northland Regional Council (NRC) have confirmed that they will not been issuing an infringement for this non-compliance.
The reason the operators are extracting higher than normal volumes of water from the bore is the poor quality of water currently available in the Wairoro stream. Suspended solids present in the raw water adversely affect the performance of the treatment membranes and reduce production capacity. The reduced production capacity at Taraire WTP means that the Kaikohe supply has become more dependent on the Monument Hill WTP and water take.
Increased suspended solids are often a result of upstream land based activities with inadequate sediment control.
Planned actions
Staff have made a submission on the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland highlighting this issue and the adverse effect that it has on infrastructure.
A complete set of new membranes for the Taraire WTP has been commissioned and the existing membranes have been bought to full capacity. Full production capacity should be returned within the next reporting period and reliance on the Monument Hill take should be reduced.
The consent for the Taraire Hills Wairoro stream water take has recently been renewed with a 35 year consent term.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Compliance Summary
· This table provides information on the compliance status of all WWTPs. Planned actions for non-compliant WWTPs are discussed below.
·
Treatment Plant |
Water quality compliance summary updated 012.02.2018 |
Frequency |
Significance |
Ahipara |
Abatement notices remain in place for the non-compliant volume of leachate being discharged to the pond system from the Ahipara Landfill and for breaching 12-day median and 90%ile faecal coliform limits. Ahipara WWTP is now operating under two abatement notices. |
On-going |
High |
Hihi |
Breaching pH limits. |
Intermittent |
Low |
Kaeo |
Breach of bacteriophage limit. |
Intermittent |
Medium |
Kaikohe |
Breach of effluent volume. |
On-going |
High |
Kaitaia |
Treatment plant compliant. The network is currently operating under an abatement notice due to unconsented over flows from the wastewater network. |
On-going |
High |
Kawakawa |
Compliant. |
|
|
Kerikeri |
Breach of Ammonium. |
On-going |
High |
Kohukohu |
Compliant. |
|
|
Opononi |
Breach of median 12 E.coli limit. Currently operating under an abatement notice due to non-compliance with E.coli median and 90%ile limits. |
On-going |
High |
Paihia |
Breach of ammonia limit. Currently operating under an abatement notice due to non-compliance with ammonia limits. |
On-going |
High |
Rangiputa |
Compliant. |
|
|
Rawene |
Breach of 90%ile faecal coliform limits |
On-going |
High |
Russell |
Currently operating under an abatement notice due to non-compliance with E.coli limits. |
Intermittent |
High |
Taipa |
Breach of ammonia limits. |
On-going |
High |
Whatuwhiwhi |
Compliant. |
|
Details of wastewater treatment plant non-compliances
Ahipara - Leachate
The daily leachate discharge limit is 10m3 per day; the results over the reporting period were compliant however the abatement notice remains in place.
Planned Action:
Improvements have been made to the pump station at the landfill and a request was made to NRC to cancel the abatement notice in April 2018. The request was declined because evidence was needed that the WWTP would continue to comply. Staff will request to cancel the abatement notice again before the end of this year.
Ahipara – Faecal Coliforms
The consent limit for 12-day median faecal coliform is 5,000c/100mL, and for 90%ile faecal coliforms is 25,000c/100mL. Both results across this reporting period were significantly above consented limits.
Planned Action
Wetlands have been desludged and will be replanted. Staff are finalising plans to desludge the pond. It is anticipated that the desludging will increase wastewater exposure sunlight and reduce faecal coliform concentrations. Staff are also considering accelerating the installation of a disinfection unit planned for year 4 of the Long Term Plan.
Hihi
· The consent limit for pH is between 6.5 and 9.0. pH results over the reporting limits are intermittently lower than pH6.5.
·
Planned Action
· The pH results are expected return to typical within a short period and no further action is planned at this time.
Kaeo
The consent requires that a minimum 4.0 log reduction in bacteriophage concentration is achieved, between the influent and effluent bacteriophage samples. Compliance is occasionally not achieved with this condition and across the reporting period both results were non-compliant, at 3.6 and 2.9 log reduction.
Planned Action:
Staff believe that the way faecal coliform reduction is measured by the resource consent (basically a percentage reduction between influent and effluent) does not reflect the reality of the WWTP’s ability to treat faecal coliforms to a high degree. An application to amend to resource consent is programmed for 2019/20.
Kaikohe
· The consent limits the discharge volume to 1,710m3 over 24 hours. Over the reporting period the effluent flows have increased to 2465m3 over 24 hours; a significant increase on previous reporting periods.
Planned Action:
· Operations staff are assessing the trend to ascertain its cause. The likely cause is stormwater infiltration. Smoke – testing or CCTV investigation can be used to confirm this. Funding is available through the Long Term Plan to undertake this investigative work.
Kaitaia
· The wastewater network is prone to overflowing due to high inflow and infiltration. The overflows are unconsented and an abatement notice was issued by NRC.
Planned Action
· As a temporary measure screens have been installed at the overflow locations. The screens prevent solid matter from discharging from the network, however, the abatement notice remains until the overflows are stopped or consented.
· Addressing the overflows are a project and significant funds have been committed to address the problem through the Long Term Plan. NRC are provided monthly updates on the project. Detailed design around the approach will be progressed in late 2018.
· Kerikeri
· The new resource consent sets limits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonia and E.coli. Consistently the 50th percentile and 90th percentile TSS, E.coli and BOD limits are non-compliant. The WWTP is operating well above its designed capacity and this is affecting its ability to treat wastewater. Most significantly, the operators have to periodically bypass the treatment filter, which is significantly reducing disinfection rates.
Planned action:
· Staff are progressing a project of developing a new WWTP for Kerikeri. Once this new plant is commissioned the discharges from the new plant will be fully compliant with resource consent conditions.
Opononi
· The consent includes a 12-day E.coli limit of >3,000c/100mL; two of the three results across the reporting period exceeded this limit at 2,4196c/100mL
Planned Action:
· Operations staff are preparing a response plan to address ongoing non-compliance. Recently purchased Sonde Probe instruments, that continuously measure pond variables, will assist in determining the cause of the non-compliance. Further, scoping has started on reinstating cell 1 of the wetland which was sacrificed as part of the desludging of the WWTP ponds.
· Paihia
· Breaches in ammonia limits for the plant are ongoing; the downstream limit for ammonia is 1.61g/m3, all results across the reporting period exceeded this limit; the median result being 6.3g/m3.
Planned Action:
· A project to upgrade the plant is underway. 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.
Rawene
· The resource consent limit for 90th percentile faecal coliforms is 5,000g/m3. Both results over his reporting period were non-compliant at 8,000g/m3. This is a consequence of two high results over summer.
Planned Action
· At the time of drafting this report the operator is investigating this issue and any potential improvements.
Russell
· An abatement notice is in place for this WWTP. The limit for E.coli, post UV treatment is 1,000c/100mL, this limit was often exceeded during summer 2017/2018, however the latest seven samples over the last 5 months have all been compliant.
Planned Action
Should the E.coli limits continue to comply for 12 months, staff will request to cancel the abatement notice.
Taipa
· The resource consent limit for ammonium is 5.0g/m3. Ammonium limits continue to be significantly in excess of the consent limit.
Planned Action:
FNDC staff, community representatives, and technical experts are working towards an acceptable WWTP upgrade option, which will form the basis of a resource consent renewal application for this site. The upgrade will seek to address this on-going ammonia limit breach.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The purpose of this report is to brief elected members on resource consent compliance issues. Any specific actions with financial implications or seeking governance resolution will be dealt with in a separate report.
Nil
27 September 2018 |
6.5 Accessible Parking Changes
File Number: A2187086
Author: Keith Kent, Transport Planner
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To seek the approval of the Infrastructure Network Committee to implement various proposed changes to accessible parking arrangements throughout the district.
Executive Summary
· The Disability Action Group regularly reviews the suitability and level of provision of accessible parking spaces in communities and receives suggestions for improvements, relocations and provision of additional spaces.
· Reports and recommendations on proposed changes have been submitted to the three Community Boards. The Kaikohe Hokianga Community Board have not confirmed recommendations for their ward and so are excluded from this report
· The Bay of Islands Whangaroa and Te Hiku Community Boards have now approved the recommendations in these reports and seek Council approval to action them.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee approve the following Community Board Resolutions: a) The Bay Of Islands Whangaroa Community Board recommend to the Council that the following proposed changes to Disability Parking be approved: 1. Gillies Street, Kawakawa: provide 1 new disability park outside the relocated Post Office 2. Gillies Street (SH1), Kawakawa: reschedule existing disability park on the right hand side 3. Williams Road, Paihia: provide 1 new disability park outside the relocated Post Office 4. Fairway Drive, Kerikeri: provide 1 new disability park outside Community Fitness 5. York Street, Russell. provide 1 new disability park outside the Chemist 6. Chapel Street, Russell: remark, sign and schedule existing marked Disability Park outside RSA 7. Cass Street, Russell: sign and schedule existing marked disability park near Great Sights Booking Office 8. The Strand, Russell: remove disability park from Bylaw Schedule And That b) the Te Hiku Community Board recommend to the Council that the following proposed changes to Disability Parking be approved: 1. Melba Street: Provide 2 new disability parks for the Remembrance Park War Memorial 2. Melba Street: Swap positions of the scheduled disability park with the taxi stand 3. Commerce Street: Remove the scheduled disability park on the right hand side which is obstructing the accessway 4. Commerce Street: Reduce the extent of the scheduled loading bay and provide 1 new disability park 5. Bank Street: Reposition the dropped kerb serving the disability park on the right hand side. |
1) Background
The Disability Action Group have sought proposed changes to disability parking arrangements around the district for some time but progress towards achieving the desired changes has been thwarted by the lack of progress on the review and update of the Parking and Traffic Control Bylaws. Parking and Traffic Control will be covered in the scope of the District Transport Strategy. which is planned to be completed for inclusion in the 2019 Annual Plan.
Disability Parking signs and markings require legal definition in terms of length and location through the Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw schedules to enable enforcement. This has previously been considered a prerequisite to any changes being made on the ground, but the Disability Action Group consider that this matter can no longer be delayed and wish to emphasise the special nature and need for appropriate Disability Parking provision within the district. They ask that progress be made independently of the wider parking and bylaw review process. Risks associated with the independent progression of these changes are considered minimal and may be considered beneficial in providing accurate location data around which to rebuild the other schedules.
Provision of Disability Parking spaces can lead to the loss of standard parking spaces. This potential is discussed on a site specific basis and has been considered by the Disability Action Group. In the majority of cases, the current level of overall parking provision suggests that the loss of standard spaces can be accommodated without issue.
No general community consultation on the proposed changes has been undertaken.
2) Discussion and Options
Common Issues
Issues which frequently arise when considering the provision of disability parking spaces throughout the Far North District are:
• Locations are no longer appropriate. For example the majority of Post Office services have moved from dedicated facilities into counters in local stores
• Inconsistent markings. A mixture of old style yellow markings or old full blue markings, with very few agreed new small blue emblems
• Inconsistent signage
• Inaccurate Bylaw schedules. Incorrect location distances. Schedules don’t always have corresponding markings and signs
• Dropped kerbs in wrong place or missing
• Insufficient resources to monitor and enforce control
Data Analysis
In order for the Disability Action Group to make an informed judgement regarding adoption of any proposed changes to disability parking provision, they are presented with data and engineering comment on existing arrangements and the results of analysis of the potential effects of changes to the overall level of parking provision for the relevant township.
Data presented to the Disability Action Group comprises:
1. Confirmation of current bylaw schedule entries. These are scheduled entries from the FNDC Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw 1 July 2010, last updated November 2017. This data is not currently accessible to the public.
2. The total number of public parking spaces. The source of this data is the parking survey carried out December 2013 to February 2014.
3. Variation between number of parking spaces and requirements of the District Plan levels of parking provision. Any significant shortfall is reported, especially where conversion of spaces from standard to disabled is proposed.
4. The occupancy rate of public parking spaces. Same data source as 2 above.
5. The existing ratio of disability parks to standard parks. Ratio of parks relative to the adopted standard target ratio of 2%.
6. The changed ratio resulting from the adoption of the proposed change
7. Maps displaying surveyed parking arrangements and proposals. Data derived from survey carried out February 2016.
Relevant legislation and policies
• The FNDC Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw 1July 2010, last updated November 2017. Clause 2008.4 states “Power to amend schedules - Council may from time to time by resolution substitute, or make additions, or alterations to any Schedule of this Bylaw.
• NZS4121:2001 – Design for access and mobility – buildings and associated facilities. Section 5 specifies appropriate provision as 1 per 50 or 2%
• Local Government Act 2002 section 156 allows Bylaw amendment by resolution of Council: “(2) Despite subsection (1), a local authority may, by resolution publicly notified,—
Make minor changes to, or correct errors in, a bylaw, but only if the changes or corrections do not affect—
an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty of any person to whom the bylaw applies or
an existing status or capacity of any person to whom the bylaw applies.”
• Land Transport Act 1998 also contains provision for Territorial Authorities to set bylaws in relation to parking controls.
• Manual of Traffic Signs and Road Markings, Part 2: Markings 2.12.07 Disabled Parking Space. FNDC comply generally with the relevant rule regarding provision of the standard marked symbol but by request from the Disability Action Group in 2015, agreed to implement a local variation that features a slightly reduced scale white symbol on a blue square background containing sand to remove potential wet slip hazard.
Recommended Options
The Community Board resolutions are reproduced above. Confirmed minutes of the Community Board Meetings are also provided for reference in Attachment 1. Note that at time of writing, the Kaikohe Hokianga Community Board have not confirmed recommendations for their ward and so are excluded from this report.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The estimated cost of the recommended works is presented for each of the wards in the respective reports.
Funding provision has been made in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 as follows:
• 2018/19 $31,089 ($10,363 per ward)
• 2019/20 $16,860 ($5,620 per ward)
Accessible parking is funded through District wide rates. It does not attract NZTA subsidy.
1. Disability Parking Changes CB Minutes - Documet number - A2179502 ⇩
2. Disability Parking Changes Site Details - Document number - A2179542 ⇩
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 |
Low |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
As stated under Relevant Legislation above |
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. |
Yes Each Community Board has been presented with a report relative to their Ward |
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. |
Implications and benefits are appropriate to all communities and without differentiation of ethnicity |
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. |
Disability Action Group are nominated representative of all disabled persons within the district. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
As stated in report section 3 |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
Reviewed and approved by CFO |
27 September 2018 |
7.1 Allocation of additional operational funding approved through the Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 for Animal Management
File Number: A2187357
Author: Darren Edwards, Compliance Manager
Authoriser: Dean Myburgh, General Manager - District Services
Purpose of the Report
This report seeks approval to create three additional Animal Management Officer roles within the Animal Management Team (Compliance Department), utilising the additional $180,000 allocated through the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 for this purpose. It is proposed that the balance of this allocation be allocated to an annual ‘Nga Kuri O Auau.’ (Chip it ‘n’ Snip it) day which has proven to be very successful.
Executive Summary
This report provides background to the need for additional staff resourcing in the Animal Management Team and the utilisation of funding allocated through the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 for this purpose. It is proposed to enhance the Animal Management capability of Council by creating three additional Animal Management Officer roles, including one Senior Animal Management Officer .
That the Infrastrcuture Network Committee: a) Approves the creation of three additional Animal Management Officer roles utilising the additional operational funding ($180,000) approved as part of the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028; and b) Approves the utilisation of the balance of this allocation for an annual ‘Nga Kuri O Auau.’ (Chip it ‘n’ Snip it) day.
|
1) Background
The Dog Control Act 1996 allows for every Territorial Authority to make such provision as is necessary for the proper custody, care and exercise of dogs impounded, seized or committed to its custody under this Act and includes establishing, maintaining and operating a dog pound.
Recently, there has been heightened community interest in Council’s management of its dog pound facilities. Given the additional funding allocated through the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 for additional staffing, this this report recommends extending Council’s current Animal Management capability, with a particular focus on complying with Animal Welfare Codes.
The Animal Management team responds to 200 dog-related complaints each month, including matters related to:
· dog attacks
· wandering stock or dogs
· barking dogs
· requests to pick up stray or unwanted dogs
The wider community relies on Animal Management to detain dogs that are potentially dangerous or cause a nuisance to the community. Impounded dogs are held in custody for up to 9 days, allowing sufficient time for the owner to claim their pet.
In many cases, dogs remain unclaimed requiring Council to manage the dogs’ welfare while in our custody for extended periods as we work on the release or rehoming of these dogs. Our rehoming program now includes the use of an active rehoming webpage and is supported by good working relationships with the SPCA and a local Bay of Islands Animal Rescue Group.
Dogs that are impounded as a result of attacks on people or other animals are held for longer periods pending prosecution.
2) Discussion and Options
The Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 confirmed additional funding of $180,000 to increase staffing levels in Council’s Dog Pound Facilities.
The establishment of three additional Animal Management Officers will allow for an improved operational delivery of service within the dog pounds and an ability to address Animal Welfare compliance issues, e.g. daily exercising of impounded dogs. Compliance with Animal Welfare Codes has been the subject of recent discussions and improvement efforts, working with the SPCA.
It is proposed that the balance of the funding is allocated towards a continuation of the successful community development programme ‘Nga Kuri O Auau.’ (Chip it ‘n’ Snip it), with one ‘Dog Day’ per annum rotated across the District..
Initiative: |
Funding Allocation: |
3 Animal Management Officers |
$160,000 |
Annual ‘Nga Kuri O Auau.’ – Chip it ‘n’ Snip it |
$20,000 |
Reason for the recommendation:
This recommendation addresses the appropriate utilisation of allocated funding within the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 to provide increased capability within Council’s Animal Management Team to address compliance with Animal Welfare Codes.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 confirmed a funding allocation of $180,000 to increase staffing levels within the Animal Management Team to address Animal Welfare requirements at Council’s Dog Pound Facilities. It is proposed that this funding is allocated as follows:
3 Additional Animal Management Officers $160,000
Annual ‘Nga Kuri O Auau.’ – Chip it ‘n’ Snip it $20,000
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
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 |
High |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Dog Control Act / Dog Control Bylaw Animal Welfare Act / Animal Welfare Code Local Government Act
|
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 establishment of 3 additional Animal Management Officers will allow for an improved operational delivery of service in the dog facilities as we provide better care for dogs in our custody. This will also ensure we are meeting our legislative requirements with regard to the Animal Welfare Code.
|
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. |
Nil |
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. |
N/A |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
The Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 confirmed a funding boost of $180,000 to increase staffing levels in Councils Dog Pound Facilities.
|
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |