AGENDA
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting
Thursday, 23 May 2019
Time: |
10.00 am |
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
Member Adele Gardner
Member Terry Greening
Member Mike Edmonds
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting Agenda |
23 May 2019 |
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 |
Waipapa Business Association |
Member |
|
|
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 |
|
District Licensing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Top Energy Consumer Trust |
Trustee |
Crossover 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. |
|
Property 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 a builder and may do work for Council staff |
|
|
|
Warren Pattinson (Husband) |
Warren Pattinson Limited |
Director |
Building Company. FNDC is a regulator |
Remain at arm’s length |
Air NZ |
Shareholder |
None |
None |
|
Warren Pattinson Limited |
Builder |
FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer. |
Apply arm’s 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. |
|
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, Seaview Road, 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 and 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 and 1 dwelling at 64 Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and one property at 96 North Road, Kaitaia |
|
|
|
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 |
Resident shareholder in Kerikeri Irrigation |
|
|
Declare if issues arise. |
Shareholder in Farmlands. |
|
|
Declare if issues arise. |
|
Employee – Northland District Health Board – Public Health Unit – Health Improvement Advisor |
|
Am employee have no personal gain. |
Declare employment should issues concerning the Northland DHB arises. |
|
On property in Waipapa West Rd. |
|
Possible issues relating to the street or zoning. |
Declare when appropriate. |
|
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 |
|
Cr Kelly Stratford |
Office manager at Kinghans. |
|
|
|
Denture assistant at
Kawakawa denture Services |
None |
None |
|
|
KS Bookkeeping and Administration |
Business owner, bookkeeping and development of environment management plans for clients. |
None perceived |
I’d step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts |
|
Kinghans Accounting |
Office Administration |
None perceived |
Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts. |
|
Waikare Marae Trustees |
Trustee |
May be perceived conflicts |
Case by case basis |
|
Kawakawa Business & Community Association |
Committee member/newsletter editor and printer |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Bay of Islands College |
Parent elected trustee |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Karetu School Bay Cosmos Soccer |
Parent elected trustee. Committee member and coach |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Property in Waikare and Moerewa |
|
|
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Coffee and food |
Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage |
Bias or pre-determination |
Case by case |
|
Kelly Stratford (Husband) |
Puketona Junction Café 39 Gillies Café |
Barista & Chef Barista |
N/A |
N/A |
Property in Moerewa |
|
N/A |
N/A |
|
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 (Chairman) |
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 |
23 May 2019 |
Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting
will be held in the Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe on:
Thursday 23 May 2019 at 10.00 am
Order Of Business
1 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
4 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
4.2 Paua Fertiliser Shed - Asbestos Demolition.
4.4 Addressing the key recommendations of the NTA Review
4.5 Northland Transport Alliance Structure Update
4.6 Paihia Water Treatment Plant Status Report
4.7 Kaitaia, Reducing Non Revenue Water
4.8 3 Waters Benchmarking 2017- 2018
4.9 Water Supply; Smart Water Meters
1 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
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.
Megan McCracken will speak regarding the tar sealing of Pungaere Road, Kerikeri
Ken Rintoul will speak regarding the Okaihau Development
23 May 2019 |
3 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
File Number: A2471595
Author: Kim Hammond, Meetings Administrator
Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Governance Support
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 21 March 2018 are a true and correct record. |
1) Background
Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 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. 2019-03-21 Infrastructure Network Committee Minutes - A2411302 ⇩
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 |
23 May 2019 |
MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Infrastructure Network
Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council
Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 21 March
2019 AT 10:00
AM
PRESENT: Cr Ann Court, Cr John Carter, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Sally Macauley, Cr John Vujcich, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Mate Radich (video-conference), Member Adele Gardner, Member Terry Greening, Member Mike Edmonds
IN ATTENDANCE: Calvin Thomas (Northland Transport Alliance Manager), Shawn Baker (Northland Transport Alliance), Natalie Blandford (Contractor – Infrastructure and Asset Management), Seth Sirestarajah (Senior Project Consultant), Alan Houghton (Alliance General Manager – 3 Waters)
STAFF PRESENT: Andy Finch (General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management), Dean Myburgh (General Manager – District Services), Glenn Rainham (Manager - Alliances), Roger Ackers (Manager – Strategy Development), Tanya Proctor (Team Leader – Infrastructure Programmes), Melissa Parlane (Team Leader - Infrastructure Planning), Leanna Ransom (Infrastructure Compliance Planner), Jessica Crawford (Senior Infrastructure Consents Planner), Reshma Harikumar (3 Waters Planner), Kim Hammond (Meetings Administrator), Alan Houghton (3-Waters Alliance)
1 Prayer/opening |
Meeting was opened with a minutes silence for the victims of Christchurch followed by a karakia |
2 DEPUTATION |
Holli Rudolph and Ange Waitohi represetative from Far North REAP spoke regarding the work that they undertake and projects being undertaken. Shawn Baker from the Northland Transport Alliance spoke regarding the Regional Speed Reviews. |
Attachments tabled at meeting 1 Presentation - Far North REAP 2 Tabled Document - Far North REAP Statistics 3 Presentation - NTA Regional Speed Reviews |
3 Apologies and Declerations of Inerest |
Resolution 2019/1 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr John Vujcich That the apology received from Cr Dave Hookway be accepted and leave of absence granted. Carried |
4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
3.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes Agenda item 3.1 document number A2333862, pages 14 - 15 refers |
Resolution 2019/2 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Member Adele Gardner That the Infrastructure Network Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 28 November 2018 are a true and correct record. Carried |
5 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
4.1 Infrastructure and Asset Management Update Agenda item 4.1 document number A2365977, pages 23 - 23 refers |
Resolution 2019/3 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr John Vujcich That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report Infrastructure and Asset Management Update Carried |
At 11:06 am, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 11:08 am, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.
At 11:16 am, Member Terry Greening left the meeting. At 11:19 am, Member Terry Greening returned to the meeting.
4.2 Water Loss Key Performance Indicators Agenda item 4.2 document number A2325526, pages 53 - 57 refers |
Resolution 2019/4 Moved: Cr John Vujcich Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the report Water Loss Key Performance Indicators. Carried |
4.3 Sludge Strategy Progress Report #2 Agenda item 4.3 document number A2359497, pages 58 - 59 refers |
Resolution 2019/5 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Mayor John Carter That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the Sludge Strategy Progress Report #2. Carried |
4.4 Infrastructure Compliance Report Agenda item 4.4 document number A2368499, pages 60 - 61 refers |
Resolution 2019/6 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Member Terry Greening That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the Infrastructure Compliance Report. Carried |
At 11:58 am, Mayor John Carter left the meeting. At 11:58 am, Mayor John Carter returned to the meeting.
At 12:00 pm, Mayor John Carter left the meeting to attend the Race Relations lunch with Far North District Council staff.
4.5 Project update on Dog Pound in Kaitaia and Ngawha Agenda item 4.5 document number A2386025, pages 63 - 65 refers |
Resolution 2019/7 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the report - Project Update on Dog Pound Kaitaia and Ngawha, as an information report. Carried |
5 Public Excluded
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Resolution 2019/8 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr John Vujcich That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
Carried |
6 Meeting Close
The meeting closed at 12.59 pm.
The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting held on 23 May 2019.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
23 May 2019 |
4 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
4.1 Inclusion of Te Rangi Cross Road in the Schedule of Far North District Council - Maintained Roads
File Number: A2418687
Author: Glenn Rainham, General Manager - Infrastructure Asset Management (Acting)
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To obtain a Council determination on the inclusion of Te Rangi Cross Road, Paihia in the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads.
Executive Summary
· Te Rangi Cross Road, Paihia was constructed in its current from as part of the development of the Bridgewater Apartments complex in the early 2000’s. It was not constructed to the FNDC standard for this category of road. It is located entirely within road reserve (map attached).
· FNDC legal advice confirms that there is nothing that compels Council to take over the formed road as an FNDC asset.
· Residents believe the road either is, or should be, a Council asset and have taken legal advice that supports their position.
· To any casual observer, whether motorist or pedestrian, the road appears no different to any other local road accessed off the state highway in that vicinity.
· Parts of the road are currently in a state of disrepair that could cause damage to vehicles or create a road safety hazard. This state of disrepair can be expected to worsen as winter approaches.
· FNDC policies provide for Council to either take over the road as a maintained asset or not, at Council’s discretion.
· This report concludes that on balance the road should be included in FNDC’s schedule of maintained roads.
That Council approves that Te Rangi Cross Road is to be included in the schedule of FNDC - Maintained Roads. |
1) Background
Te Rangi Cross Road was constructed in the early 2000’s as part of the development of the Bridgewater Apartment complex (Attachment 1) Refer Attached Map.
The entire carriageway is constructed within the legal road alignment.
Residents hold the view that the road was initially maintained by Council but that this stopped at some point in the past. Council records do not provide any evidence to support this view. The implication is that if Council contractors were undertaking maintenance it was not being paid for directly; rather the costs were being ‘absorbed’ in some way either by the contractor or through incorrect coding into other parts of the roading network.
Complaints about the lack of maintenance led to an internal investigation during 2018 that concluded with an internal legal opinion that there is no documentation contained in the resource consent that states the road was to be taken over by Council. For completeness it must also be noted that there is no definitive statement that the road shall be maintained as a private road.
Note that it is relatively common to see requirements for a body corporate, or similar, to take ownership of a critical asset of this nature when it is to be maintained in private ownership – that has not occurred in this case.
The road is not constructed to FNDC standards for the class of road. The Resource Consent required a 6m wide sealed carriageway. FNDC standard for the class of road would be an 8m wide sealed carriageway.
There is however, some ambiguity. Prior to construction of the current sealed road, the ‘road’ did exist in some form and was used as access to existing properties. The resource consent requires “…upgrading of the legal road…”, rather than (for instance) ‘…construction of a new road…’
During the investigation for this report, the customer who initiated the most recent investigation (Ms. R. Stent) provided a legal opinion (attached) supporting the position that the road should be taken over by Council.
2) Discussion and Options
The principal options are:
1. Status quo (i.e. confirms Te Rangi Cross Road is not included in the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads).
2. confirm the inclusion of Te Rangi Cross Road in the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads.
3. that if the residents are prepared to form the road to the appropriate council standard at no cost to Council, then Council will include it in its maintained road schedule.
Option 1: Status Quo
Description
Council confirms Te Rangi Cross Road is not maintained by FNDC
Costs
FNDC incurs no ongoing maintenance costs.
FNDC may consider it prudent to incur the relatively minor costs of installing and maintaining signage that indicates the privately maintained status.
Further costs (legal/staff time etc) may be incurred as a consequence of actions by others (see risks, below).
Risks
· Potential ongoing complaints from residents – ongoing staff time, adverse publicity for Council.
· Potential legal action by residents
· Potential claims/complaints from other road users if/when the road continues to deteriorate and creates a safety hazard.
· Risk to the general public from an unsafe road adjacent to the state highway.
· Potential costs to Council to compel maintenance of the road by ‘owners’ to avoid safety risks noted above
Option 2: Accept Te Rangi Cross Road as part of the FNDC Roading Network
Description
Council confirms Te Rangi Cross Road as part of the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads.
Costs
FNDC incurs ongoing maintenance costs.
Risks
The most substantial risk is that of precedent. Where other ‘private roads’ have been developed the question might quite justifiably asked why they would be treated differently.
Option 3: Residents to upgrade Te Rangi Cross Road to Council standards prior to Council accepting as part of the FNDC Roading Network
Description
Council confirms Te Rangi Cross Road as part of the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads, providing the residents upgrade the road to meet Council standards.
Costs
FNDC incurs ongoing maintenance costs.
Council may also consider a cost-share arrangement in the upgrade of the road to meet our standards.
Risks
Residents feel aggrieved that they have to pay for the road upgrade.
Discussion
Council’s policies do not provide a definitive position. The road does not meet the policy standard where Council has stated it will take on responsibility for maintenance. However, the road has been formed to the standard required by Council through the resource consent. The policy allows Council to include the road in the schedule of FNDC-maintained roads at its discretion.
Council Policy #4103 states that:
2. The Council will maintain other formed roads subject to the following criteria being met:
2.1 The road is within a legally defined public road reserve;
2.2 The road connects with a road which is presently being maintained by the Council;
2.3 The road has been or will be formed to a standard appropriate to the planned use of the road to the satisfaction of, and, unless otherwise resolved by Council, at no cost to the Council; and
2.4 There is no alternative access to the properties which the road serves.
In relation to the above;
§ The formed carriageway is entirely within legal road reserve
§ Clause 2.2 would seem to ignore the possibility of connection to state highway rather than other local road. Te Rangi Cross Road joins the state highway.
§ Clause 2.3 is where the principal ambiguity arises. The carriageway is not formed to meet the FNDC engineering standards of the time; however, it has been formed to a standard the Council of the day deemed “…appropriate to the planned use…”, as required by the resource consent.
§ There is no alternative access to the properties on Te Rangi Cross Road.
In consideration of all the information available, Option 2 is the most practical option.
Reason for the recommendation
Based on the information available Option 2 is the preferred and lowest risk option. Furthermore, Option 2 makes the most practical sense because to any and all road users this looks and feels like a public road. It is accessed directly from the State Highway in an area that has high visitor and tourist numbers. There is significant use of the road by the general public. Note that the general public has the right to access legal roads regardless of their formation or who maintains them.
The lessons from this case should be used to inform clearer drafting of future resource consent conditions; and the review of the abovementioned roading policies will be similarly informed. In the present, the weight of evidence suggests that on balance Option 2 is the appropriate course of action.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
A typical sealed residential road with low volumes of heavy vehicles will incur minimal annual maintenance costs – less than $1,000/year over the long run.
Resealing can be expected approximately every 10 – 15 years at a rough order cost of less than $10,000.
Reconstruction may be required at some point in the next 25-30 years at a rough order cost of $65,000. At that time FNDC may elect to carry out additional upgrades (e.g. widen the carriageway).
If the road were part of the FNDC road network these costs would not be separately budgeted for. The road would simply be part of the overall optimisation of available funds to deliver the agreed level of service.
Note that road maintenance and renewal costs would attract NZTA subsidy which is currently 66%.
1. Te Rangi Cross Road - Service Map - A2418580 ⇩
2. Letter BE Brill (Barrister) to R.Stent (Resident) - A2418591 ⇩
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 matter has ‘low significance’ in the context of the policy. It is a localised matter directly affecting a small number of residents and a greater number of visitors/tourists |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Council policies in order of relevance are: 4103 – Limits of Council responsibility for formation / maintenance of roads 4105 – Private Roads and Right of Ways 4112 – Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy It is noted that all of the above policies are designated as ‘under review’. |
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 roading network…” is a specific exclusion to the delegations to community boards. Specific community board views on this issue have not been sought. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
The decision is of low significance (see above), does not relate to land use, water use, or any change to land or water use. The decision relates solely to funding of maintenance to an existing asset. Specific advice has not been sought regarding implications for Māori. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
The principal affected parties are residents of Te Rangi Cross Road. Those persons have initiated the process that has led to this report. Discussions have been held with the initiator to ensure her position is understood and fairly conveyed. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
Sporadic maintenance activity on the road and ‘renewal’ activity over the life of the asset. Refer to financial implications section of the report. Any financial implications would be incorporated into overall roading budgets. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer (Acting) has reviewed this report |
23 May 2019 |
4.2 Paua Fertiliser Shed - Asbestos Demolition
File Number: A2443642
Author: Gordon Dellar, Assets Manager - Facilities
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To seek approval to demolish an abandoned shed on Far North District Council (FNDC) property, roofed and clad in Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and approve the required budget.
Executive Summary
· The Paua Building is an abandoned fertiliser shed, owned by FNDC, and situated at the end of Te Pua Road in the Te Hiku ward.
· Worksafe have inspected the shed confirming the presence of ACM in the roofing and cladding which is a health and safety risk to persons in the vicinity.
· An asbestos demolition report has been completed confirming the shed consists of non-friable cladding with soil contamination to the perimeter of the building.
· This report seeks approval for the demolition of the shed through unbudgeted OPEX funding estimated to be $150,000.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee approves $150,000 OPEX for the demolition and removal of the entire shed including contaminated soil surrounds and imports fill material as required for levelling the site.
|
1) Background
The Paua Building is an abandoned fertiliser shed on Lot 1 DP 91881, 4047m2, fee simple, owned by FNDC. This property is situated at the end of Te Pua Road which is a metal road off Paua Road which itself is off State Highway 1F in the northern end of the Te Hiku ward. The property is isolated being approximately 1 hour’s drive north of the Kaitaia Township. Te Kao is approximately 20 minutes to the south which has a small residential settlement with a local store. Pukenui is a further 20 minutes’ drive from Te Kao.
Located across the road from the shed is the Te Pua Road Wharf, owned by FNDC which is utilised as a local fishing spot. The surrounding properties comprises the Paua Station of approximately 3017ha which is a dry stock farm except for a section to the east used for camping, all owned by Parengarenga Incorporated.
Lot 1 DP 91881 was formerly owned by 116 Maori owners being Parengarenga 5A1 Block. In 1970, the Northland Fertiliser Company was determined to construct a bulk fertiliser store near the Parengarenga Wharf to fertilise farms which formed part of the Parengarenga farm development scheme. In this development the Northland Harbour Board (NHB) agreed to receive the wharf provided they received land adjacent to the wharf. The Harbour Board also stated they would recommend a 42 year lease to the Northland Fertiliser Company (NFC) for the construction of a shed.
A Memorandum of Lease for Lot 1 has been located with NHB as the Lessor and the NFC Limited as the lessee. The lease commencement date was September 1974 for a term of 21 years. No further documentation has been found in the system by the property legalisation team or Infrastructure and Asset Management. It appears for the past 24 years the shed has been abandoned and by default became a liability to FNDC.
In 2018 an onsite inspection with FNDC asset management, Health Safety & Wellbeing and WorkSafe identified the shed cladding to be an ACM. It was also observed that the shed is in disrepair posing a safety risk. The Health and Safety at Work Act requires a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) to ensure the health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable to workers/public that may become exposed to ACM.
Momentum Services were commissioned to provide an Asbestos Demolition Survey which was carried out on 14 February 2019. A visual as well as four samples of material from the building and four soil samples suspected of Asbestos containing material were taken. Five of the eight samples tested positive for the presence of asbestos.
2) Discussion and Options
The recommendation is to demolish and remove the entire building from the existing lot by suitably qualified contractors.
The following work will be carried out:
· All asbestos cement sheets, dust and debris removed by workers holding a Class B Non-Friable Asbestos licence
· All the concrete, masonry, steel and timber building materials demolished and disposed of at approved landfills (Whangarei closest) for asbestos contaminated materials
· All visible debris around the structure up to approximately 15m collected and disposed of
· A soil scrape off of 100mm up to 3m from the face of the building carried out
· Air monitoring carried for the duration of the project
· Swab and soil sampling undertaken as part of the clearance process
The objective is to remove, so far as is reasonably practicable, all building materials and asbestos contamination to the soil. Imported fill will be required to ensure a levelled site remains on completion.
As an interim measure security fencing restricting public and signage has been put in place. This will not prevent people accessing the building; however it is a deterrent until such time a budget is approved to remediate the issue.
Relevant references/legislation:
· Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html
· Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulation 2016
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2016/0015/latest/DLM6729706.html
· Work Safe New Zealand – Asbestos – New Zealand guidelines for the management and removal of asbestos
https://worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/asbestos/management-and-removal-of-asbestos/
Reason for the recommendation
The recommendation is made to mitigate FNDC exposure to health and safety risks the public and staff may be exposed to. As a regulatory authority FNDC has an obligation to comply with all current health and safety legislation.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There is currently no budget approved for this project. The asbestos demolition survey report writers estimate the demolition cost to be approximately $120,000. The costs are difficult to establish due to the nature of the work, contractor availability, location of facility and distance to approved landfill for disposal of materials. A contingency of 25% is recommended.
Therefore an estimated budget required is $150,000
1. Paua Fertiliser shed-1_Asbestos Demolition Report - A2443422 ⇩
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 |
This issue is significant as there is no budget provision, however has been identified as a health and safety risk. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Due to the current condition of the building and contains asbestos the Health and Safety at work (Asbestos) Regulation 2016 will have relevance. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
This is a health and safety issue and a decision falls to the Infrastructure Network Committee for approval. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
This is a health and safety issue for not only Maori, but the land as well. |
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. |
Parengarenga Trust may have an interest, however FNDC is not developing but removing a building that poses a health and safety issue. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
Unbudgeted expenditure is required and is to be noted that this shed has not been recorded as an asset. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer (Acting) has reviewed this report. |
23 May 2019 |
File Number: A2447332
Author: Simon Millichamp, Solid Waste Engineer
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To provide an update on the green waste collection trial at the Opononi Refuse Transfer Station, and to determine whether or not to continue the service.
Executive Summary
· Opononi is one of seven Council Refuse Transfer Stations that isn’t contracted to accept green waste. Far North District Council (FNDC) has a total of 15 Refuse Transfer Stations.
· An initial trial from November 2016 to September 2017 resulted in a poor response to accepting green waste at Opononi.
· A request to undertake another trial was implemented with improved communication from October 2018.
· Since October 2018, a total of 18m3 of green waste equating to approximately six standard trailer loads has been received.
· It is estimated that the annual cost to Council to provide this service is $1200 based on the received quantity of 18m3. The customers would pay an additional $400 in drop off fees.
That Infrastructure Network Committee approves the discontinuation of the green waste trial at the Opononi Refuse Transfer Station. |
1) Background
Green waste is accepted for composting at 8 of the 15 FNDC Refuse Transfer Stations. Customers pay $22/m3 drop off fees. These are retained by the contractor to pay for processing the greenwaste.
Green waste is not accepted at any of FNDC’s 11 Community Recycling Centres.
Green waste services were not included in the waste contracts for some sites due to their rural nature and the resulting lack of demand for green waste services. The overwhelming majority of residents have space on their rural properties to compost green waste.
Northland Waste and Waste Management both utilise Waipapa Landscapes Ltd to process the green waste from FNDC Transfer Stations as it is more cost effective than purchasing and operating their own machinery.
2) Discussion and Options
Initial trial
In response to a submission to Council’s 2016 Annual Plan, it was agreed to trial the acceptance of green waste at the Opononi Transfer Station and to determine if there was a demand for such a service.
The trial operated from November 2016 to September 2017. During this period, less than 14m3 of green waste was received, equating to less than 5 standard trailer loads.
Part of the failure in the acceptance of this service was seen as being the lack of communication, marketing and promotion.
Overall, the green waste removal and composting resulted in an overall cost of $90.15m3 ($68.15. paid by FNDC from general rates, $22 paid by the public as drop off fees). Staff thought this cost outweighed the benefits so the trial was ended.
Second trial
Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chair expressed concern that green waste acceptance had ceased. Council staff were requested to reintroduce this service through a further trial.
The second trial period ran from 1 October 2018 until May 2019 and covered the busy summer months including accommodating residents who would return to the area and do landscaping work on their properties.
To promote this trial:
· Letters were delivered to the letter boxes at the Opononi and Omapere dairies.
· Posters were displayed at the Opononi i-SITE and local businesses.
· A notice put into the ‘Creating Great Places’ October newsletter.
· Posts in the Hokianga Environmental Protection Group, Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board, Rawene. What’s up and Opononi Area group Facebook pages.
· Signage advertising the service was placed on the green waste bin near the entrance and at the recycling area.
Council’s notice was shared 14 times from the FNDC Facebook site.
To date, a total of 18m3 of green waste has been received and it is expected volumes will drop off as winter approaches.
Methodology and costs
Trialled Method
Waste Management provided a 9m3 bin at the Opononi Refuse Transfer Station to accept green waste. Once full, the bin is taken to a composting facility in Kerikeri for disposal.
Costs to Council for the second trial are:
· Bin rental: $52.65 per month x 6 months = $315.90
· Bin empty: $161.18 each (2 empties required) = $322.36
Total cost to Council ($638.26 divided by 18m3) = $35.46/m3
Cost to the public: $22m3 (drop off fees)
Total cost $57.46/m3
Green waste drop off fees are retained by the Contractor not passed on to Council. The contractor uses these fees to contribute towards the cost to dispose of the green waste in Kerikeri.
The overall cost per m3 i.e.: $57.46/m3 was lower in the current trial as bins were not hired over the winter period when minimal green waste is received.
The annual cost to Council to provide this service is estimated to be around $1200 annually.
Bin Costs
Bin rental is the biggest proportion of the cost of providing this service.
The cost to hire one bin is $52.65 per month
The cost to purchase a 9m3 bin is approximately $3500.
If Council purchased bins, two bins would be required. The alternative is that two trips are required for each empty i.e.: drive out empty, bring back full bin, drive out again with empty bin, drive back empty resulting in another 170km round trip.
3) CONCLUSION
Taking into account the cost to operate this service in comparison to the amount of green waste received, it is believed the service does not provide value for money.
Reason for the recommendation
Accepting green waste at Opononi is relatively expensive for the size of the service provided. It is recommended that this service cease and that residents are encouraged to:
· Seek alternative options that would enable them to compost their green waste without relying on Council providing this service.
· Dispose of larger items such as branches as firewood.
The above options, although not ideal will have less of an impact on the environment than sending an 8 ton truck on a 170km trip to collect 9m3 of green waste.
4) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no provisions in the current budget for the provision of a permanent green waste service at Opononi.
The annual cost to provide this service is estimated to be around $1,200.
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 |
Low |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
2017-23 Waste Management and Minimisation plan |
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. |
Mike Edmonds asked for a second trial as he thought the initial trial was not suitably advertised. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
No specific implications to Maori |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
The trial has been well publicised to encourage locals to demonstrate their support of the trial. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
Estimated unbudgeted cost of $1,200 per annum. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer (Acting) has reviewed this report. |
23 May 2019 |
4.4 Addressing the key recommendations of the NTA Review
File Number: A2468183
Author: Jewel Eketone, Executive Officer to General Manager (Acting)
Authoriser: Glenn Rainham, General Manager - Infrastructure Asset Management (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
To update the Infrastructure Network Committee on improvements underway within the Northern Transportation Alliance (NTA) that is addressing the key recommendations identified within the recent NTA Review.
Executive Summary
The recent NTA Review identified a number of opportunities for improvement and 3 key recommendations around (i) NTA communication and reporting to FNDC elected representatives; (ii) engaging an Alliance coach to work with the NTA leadership group; and (iii) engaging an asset manager to ensure the quality of FNDC’s next AMP is adequate to secure appropriate funding.
Two new roles currently being recruited by the NTA will have as core responsibilities the task of establishing communication and reporting requirements across the business and with elected members.
In late 2018, the Alliance Leadership Group (NTALG) and Alliance General Managers completed a full day Alliance Alignment Workshop, facilitated by Kym Williams of BRS. The outputs of the workshop were captured and have identified key areas of focus to be worked through by the NTA and NTALG to ensure the objectives required to make the Alliance a success are met.
The Asset Management team within the NTA have been working together on an AMP Improvement programme for the 3 Council’s. Significant progress has been made in the areas of (i) Council being able to demonstrate effective optimisation across the programme and across the 3 year NLTP period; (ii) the NTA developing the AMP in conjunction with the NZTA; (iii) addressing data quality; and (iv) implementing the ONRC Performance Measures Reporting Tool (PMRT) that enables an assessment the investment is having on efficiency gains in the operations and maintenance of the road networks.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the report Addressing the key recommendations of the NTA Review.
|
Background
Far North District Council (FNDC) is a committed member of the Northern Transportation Alliance (NTA) and wished to run a lens over the performance of the NTA to gauge the value of return and equitability for the FNDC, against the initial outcomes identified in the Northland Transportation Opportunities Business Case, 6 April 2016, and where appropriate, identify recommendations and opportunities for improvement.
The review undertaken by LGNZ Equip took a two staged approach by firstly undertaking a desktop document review to establish the review’s criteria and NTA performance to date. This was followed by a structured interview process using a standard questionnaire based on the desktop review to gauge the perceptions of performance across NTA and FNDC personnel.
While it is still early days, the review noted that the NTA has produced benefits for FNDC. It also identified a number of opportunities for improvement and 3 key recommendations.
1. Using a collaborative workshop process with the NTA Leadership Team, to improve NTA communication and reporting to FNDC elected representatives thereby assisting FNDC oversight of the NTA through establishing mutually agreed expectations and a reporting regime against delivery of these expectations.
2. Engaging an Alliance coach experienced in the international best practice principles of collaborative working to assist the NTA Leadership Team develop the NTA into a true alliance with a strong collaborative culture and systems and process to embed this culture and make it enduring, thereby maximising NTA business case opportunities.
3. The urgent appointment, or if need be temporary engagement, of a suitably qualified asset manager to ensure the quality of FNDC’s next AMP that is currently being developed and to access the additional NZTA funding for forestry roads.
Discussion and Next Steps
Summary of the NTA Current State
There is a significant level of continued under resourcing across the NTA, resulting in the resources available working primarily in a reactive mode (currently 18 of 64 total positions are vacant and are in the process of being recruited). While the NTA remains significantly understaffed during the recruitment period, there is no capacity for focus on improvements, embedding required changes associated with maintenance contract changes or working on activities required to enable full benefit realisation.
While under resourcing has been an issue since the inception of the NTA, the impact of this on the NTA’s ability to structure itself to enable delivery of the identified transportation benefits has only recently been fully appreciated.
1. Improving communication and reporting to FNDC Elected members:
The NTA are presently in the process of recruiting both a Business Performance Manager and Transformational Change Manager, with the primary purpose of these roles being:
Business Performance and Change Manager:
• Complete a full stakeholder engagement and requirements gathering exercise across all NTA partnering groups to determine consistent communication and reporting requirements across the discrete business levels (General Managers, Chief Executives, Infrastructure Committees and Elected Members).
• As an outcome of this exercise the NTA will develop a single source reporting tool with functionality to report to level of granularity required by each stakeholder group. The source data for reporting will remain as the individual council financial, safety and customer management systems.
• Further work will be completed with the incoming Maintenance and Operations Manager to define and implement fully transparent performance reporting related to delivery of the Maintenance Contract requirements.
Transformational Change Manager:
• Within the original 2016 Northland Transportation Alliance Business Case, a number of people, culture, system and process pre-requisite activities were identified as required to support any move to a functional based structure.
• While the functional based structure has been put in place, the identified pre-requisite activities have either yet to start or not yet been fully completed and embedded.
• The NTA Manager and Alliance Leadership group have recognised that to complete these activities, and bring the NTA to a fully functioning “business as usual” state, requires an investment in temporary appropriately skilled and dedicated resource as the vehicle to accelerate and initiate the programme of work required to create an NTA identity and support organisation change leading to improved customer outcomes and the successful delivery.
The fundamental principles and objectives for the NTA as an organisation remain consistent with those outlined in the original approved Business Case. It is envisaged that with the engagement of this specialist and dedicated resource, the NTA Manager can successfully work on the business and focus on the identify areas that will best delivery capability to improve the value achieved with the available transportation funding.
2. Engage coaching/training to develop NTA leadership team into true Alliance
In late 2018, the Alliance Leadership Group (NTALG) and Alliance General Managers completed a full day Alliance Alignment Workshop, facilitated by Kym Williams of BRS. The primary purpose of the workshop was to obtain clarity and agreement of requirements and expectations of:
• Governance structure and role
• Confirmation of Alliance purpose and objectives
• The NTA’s relationship with NZTA
• Alliance partner objectives and expectations
• Stakeholder engagement processes and expectations
• Alliance priorities – short, medium and long term
The outputs of the workshop were captured and have identified key areas of focus to be worked through by the NTA and NTALG to ensure the objectives required to make the Alliance a success are met.
These objectives and workshop outputs, in conjunction with the original 2016 Business Case objectives, have been utilised by the incoming Northland Transportation Alliance Manager as a key input to his developed 100 Day plan.
The present focus of the NTA is on recruiting and embedding a full management and leadership structure (identified as key in the Alliance alignment workshop), including the positions outlined in point 1. The embedding phase of this will include coaching and training of the NTA leadership team, not only in the aspect of effective Alliance leadership and governance, but also lifting the base leadership competencies across the organisation. The ability to invest in this area is a direct result of the Alliance structure, with training and coaching investment of the individual council partners maximised to provide benefit to all.
Further to the base training planned to be completed within the existing funding streams, additional budget has been provided through the Kaipara Kickstart PGF programme to develop the “Unsealed Roads Centre of Excellence” within the NTA, with a specific ring fenced component of this funding identified for NTA leadership development.
3. FNDC Asset Management
a. Recruitment of FNDC Asset Manager
The NTA are presently actively recruiting for both an Asset Manager Lead and an FNDC Asset Manager. While these recruitment activities take place, and until the roles are filled, the NTA are utilising existing Asset Management staff and consultant services to ensure Asset Management activities specifically related to FNDC are completed.
b. Quality of FNDC Asset Management Plan & Forestry Road additional funding
Asset Management Plan - Background
The NZTA approved the FNDC’s programme request for the 2018-21 Local roads Maintenance Programme as outlined below.
Activity Class Requested 3 year Programme (Gross$) Approved 3 year Programme
Local Roads Maintenance $78,484,480 $73,221,486
Road Safety Promotion $3,415,000 $3,415,000
The shortfall in the Local Roads Maintenance funding related to a further request for enhanced funding for the Council’s Unsealed Forestry Road Investment Programme, that Council had previously received about $10M funding for in the previous 2015-18 NLTP, (see below).
NZTA assessed the FNDC AMP as part of their moderation and funding approval process and concluded:
“We consider the AMP is approaching a good standard, but has not fully demonstrated the merits of the programme request submitted.”
The approved Local Roads Maintenance funding matched the Council request as defined in Council’s AMP, (excluding the enhanced funding request) but came with some AMP improvement requirements for Council to work on before the next AMP in 2021.
Asset Management Plan – NTA progress on NZTA identified AMP improvements
The Asset Management Group in the NTA have been working together on an AMP Improvement programme for the 3 Council’s. An overview of the identified improvements and update on the current progress for the FNDC AMP programme is outlined below.
These specific conditions were:
a) Council to demonstrate effective optimisation across the programme and across the 3 year NLTP period
Progress Update:
The NTA are now using the dTIMs modelling software to undertake optimisation of the FNDC sealed road network to develop the forward works programme. External consultants Scott Verevis and Khaldoon Azawi have been engaged to manage this modelling work and together with validation by FNDC maintenance staff helps develop the renewals and maintenance programmes as part of the forward works programme. This exercise is being completed across the whole region including the FNDC network, and the wider NTA team involvement allows for the evidence of effective optimisation and the consistency NZTA are requiring.
In 2018, the 3 Council’s engaged OPUS consultants, to develop the Unsealed Road Strategy for managing our unsealed road networks. The implementation of this strategy is currently being developed within the KDC’s PGF funded Kai for Kaipara project, where IDS have been engaged, and funded by the PGF project, to develop an optimisation processes for maintenance and renewals of the unsealed network. The PGF requirements also look to develop a “centre of excellence” in the NTA for the management of the unsealed network, the outputs of which can be exported to the other networks in the Region. The NTA has also started the development of the optimisation programme for the FNDC’s unsealed road network as part of the enhanced funding request as detailed below.
b) NTA develop with NZTA:
• an Asset/Operational Management dashboard that provides a useful tool to demonstrate progress and outcomes on;
• a RAPT tour is implemented and applied, (NZTA assistance is available for start-up);
• an improvement plan implementation programme & progress, delivering superior asset management, improved strategy, planning and procurement, and value for money
Progress Update:
i) The NTA has developed the AMP Improvement Programme Dashboard in association with REG for the three Northland Councils.
ii) As part of the development of the optimised programme for the sealed network, the wider NTA team has been involved in the development of this programme supported by the external consultants. A limited internal RAPT review was undertaken with some of these team members were involved in site visits to validate the FNDC’s renewals programme for 2018/19. However due to the shortened timelines brought about by the retendering of the maintenance contracts in 2018, external RAPT tours were not possible for this year’s programme. It is anticipated future RAPT tours will involve external parties (intended to also include NZTA representatives).
iii) The AMP Improvement Plan has been developed together with NZTA and in accordance with the REG guidelines. Regular Regional REG workshops are held 2 monthly and attended by NTA and NZTA staff, where progress on the AMP Improvement Plan is reviewed and discussed. The Dashboard as referred to above contains the improvement plan details and reports on progress.
c) A commitment addressing data quality to an acceptable standard
Progress Update:
A major part of the AMP improvement plan, and objective of the REG guidelines is improving data quality. The data Council holds in the RAMM database for the road network is the basis of all of Councils AMP, and forward works programme development and decision making. Improving data quality and increased use of the evidence to influence the outcome is part of the Improvement Plan and is reported on in the Dashboard as referred to above. REG also publish data quality reports for each Council, that allows Council to review their results and work on improvement plans.
d) Commitment to regular reporting against delivery of signalled efficiency gains.
Progress Update:
As part of REG AMP Improvement Framework, REG provide regular reports on Council’s ONRC performance measures and data quality results. REG have developed the ONRC Performance Measures Reporting Tool (PMRT), that allows Council to assess, evaluate and challenge the results and compare these with the results of other networks or Councils. Council is working closely with REG and NZTA to use these reporting tools and results as part of the Improvement Plan to improve the data quality, and the results to obtain efficiency gains in the operations and maintenance of the road networks.
Enhanced Funding Request for Unsealed Road Strengthening
At the time of funding approval for the 2018-21 programme, NZTA did not approve the FNDC’s enhanced funding request of $4M for Unsealed Forestry Road Strengthening, being a continuation of the enhanced funding programme of $10M that FNDC had received during the preceding three year programme. NZTA stated at that time that the application “…has not fully demonstrated the merits of the programme request submitted.”
FNDC are required by NZTA to:
• Provide details of the roads strengthened as part of the previous $10M enhanced funding programme.
• Identify which roads from the 2016 OPUS business case have not been strengthened.
• Provide evidence the works done achieved the intended outcomes, i.e. reduced maintenance costs.
• Provide evidence that FNDC is employing best practise for asset management, aggregate use and drainage on these works.
• Show optimisation in the programming of roads to be treated in the enhanced funded programme.
• Detail what works are to be funded from the Council’s existing core funding and provide q evidence to show what additional funds will be required to fund this work above the core funding allocation.
• Determine long term strengthening need and break-even point for when maintenance savings outweigh the investment in strengthening works
• Undertake dTIMS modelling of the unsealed road network to confirm the optimised programme of strengthening works.
• Develop a business case using the above information to show a compelling case for change based on good practise, good procurement, clear problems and sound evidence.
The NTA have formed a project team to develop the required business case and a detailed programme of works. The developed timeline for this presently has the requirements and evidence collection taking place through until June 2019, after which the full supporting business case will be developed for submission to NZTA. NZTA have advised that this Business Case needs to demonstrate a compelling case for change based on good practice, good procurement, clear problems and sound evidence.
The team is continuing to work on this project and is currently meeting to project timelines. As part of this work the NTA is working closely with local NZTA representatives to ensure NZTA requirements are being met as we progress.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The activities identified to address points 1 and 2 of the discussion section this report are to be completed within existing Council and/or NTA budgets with no additional funding required.
FNDC funding will be required to complete the Asset Management review exercise identified with this to be quantified as part of developing the scope of the review
Nil
23 May 2019 |
4.5 Northland Transport Alliance Structure Update
File Number: A2462753
Author: Glenn Rainham, Manager - Alliances
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this paper is to provide the Far North District Council Infrastructure Network Committee with an update on the recent organisational structure changes within the Northland Transport Alliance (NTA).
Executive Summary
This report provides information pertaining to recently implemented NTA structural changes, specifically:
· Roles and responsibilities
· Structure objectives
· Proposed individual Council support and escalation mechanisms
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report Northland Transport Alliance Structure Update.
|
Background
Recent structural changes have been made within the Northland Transport Alliance resulting in a change to the delivery and support to Far North District Council (FNDC).
This report has been authored to provide information associated with the recent NTA structure change and answer questions raised regarding escalation and support structures to be provided to FNDC.
Discussion and Next Steps
Functional Structure & responsibilities
Within the approved business case for the Northland Transportation Alliance it was identified that while some efficiencies could be gained through the co-location of resources (primarily in Whangarei), a key contributor to delivering the desired long term benefit outcomes was to move to a more functional based, cross council organisational structure, focussed primarily on four key streams as illustrated.
The staff consultation and confirmation process was completed in late 2018, with the final structure becoming effective (in principle) on Monday 4th March 2018. At the time of compiling this report, of the total structure is made up of 64 positions, approximately 20 are presently vacant and/or new and being recruited for. The critical gaps associated with these vacant positions are presently being covered through use of consultants and seconded resources, with it planned for the majority of the recruitment for these positions will be completed by end of June.
The key objectives of the structure change are to:
· Provide a specialised, regionally focused, highly integrated, end-to-end approach to strategy, capital projects, renewals, maintenance and operations.
· Group roles into functional areas with centralised management while enabling capability and development opportunity improvements over time.
· Local area-based customer and maintenance teams to provide consistency, build relationships with community and key stakeholders and ensure integration.
· Facilitate opportunities for potential savings on capital works, maintenance and operations programs through more consolidated and standardised approaches.
· Larger specialised team approach creates strong technical teams as centres of excellence to provide greater professional support, development opportunities and succession planning
· Structure ensures resource efficiency across functions and projects & provides support across councils to cover leave, absences and unexpected vacancies.
· Increase support resources and alignment of support services facilitating greater consistency and enables a regional approach to working
· Widen recruitment interest through provision of greater range of work scope, challenge and opportunities combined with flexibility of location within the Northland Region.
Individual Council Liaison & Escalation
On finalising the recruitment and appointment of the “Maintenance and Operations Manager”, each Alliance Council will be assigned a primary lead, noting that the primary lead may not necessarily be directly employed by that council, with each lead tasked with:
· Key contact for respective Council Infrastructure General Manager’s
· Provision of support to elected members at forums such as Regional Transport Committee meetings
· Lead representation at respective Council Infrastructure Committee / Council meetings.
· Facilitating response and resolution of escalated issues
Based on the current assumption that FNDC will be the hiring council for the Maintenance & Operations Manager role, the indicative primary contact points are:
Council |
Primary Escalation & Support Manager |
Maintenance Contract Delivery & Contractor performance management |
||
Position |
Position Holder |
Position |
Position Holder |
|
FNDC |
Maintenance & Operations Manager |
TBC – Under offer |
FNDC Maintenance Lead |
TBC – Recruitment process underway |
KDC |
Capital Works & Procurement Manager |
Greg Monteith |
KDC Maintenance Lead |
Bernard Peterson |
WDC |
Strategy & Planning Manager |
Jeff Devine |
WDC Maintenance Lead |
Mike Batchelor |
NRC |
Senior Transport Manager |
Chris Powell |
Not Applicable |
In addition to the primary lead, the three district Councils each have a Maintenance Lead responsible for delivery and contractor performance for maintenance contract work.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
This is an information only report and accordingly there are no additional financial implications
Nil
23 May 2019 |
4.6 Paihia Water Treatment Plant Status Report
File Number: A2437073
Author: Barry Somers, Assets Manager - 3 Waters
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To provide an overview of the status and issues associated with the Paihia Water Treatment Plant
Executive Summary
Due to the Paihia water treatment plant being near the end of its useful life, there are multiple issues that are affecting or could affect the production of sufficient water for Paihia. Individually each of the issues is potentially solvable; however collectively it is indicating the treatment plant is reaching the end of its useful life.
Tourist Infrastructure Funding has been obtained to both develop a business case and investigate options to overcome these issues.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receives the report Paihia Water Treatment Plant Status Report.
|
Background
The Paihia water treatment plant is located next to the Haruru Bridge and extracts water from the Waitangi River for treatment.
Risks and Issues associated with this plant are;
1. Site. The treatment plant is located on a confined site with minimal room for expansion. Over the years there have been modifications and additions to the treatment process which have used most of the available footprint and have led to a somewhat haphazard development of the site.
2. Flooding. Being a critical lifeline asset, the treatment plant should be functional in at least a 1:50 year event. In 2007 there was a 1:40 year flood and 2011 a 1:32 year flood. Both these floods went up the side of the building and caused electrical damage. While effort has been made to waterproof the walls, a 1:50 year flood would result in possible further damage taking the treatment plant out of service for an extended period of time.
3. Storage of Hazardous Substances. Due to changes in the regulations in 2017, the current storage arrangement no longer complies. The compactness of the site makes full compliance very difficult.
4. Taste and Odour. Paihia water has taste issues with complaints regularly received. During the summer of 2017/2018, microbes in the Waitangi River created elevated levels of geosmin. At very low concentrations geosmin give a strong earthy taste and are noticeable at between 7 and 15 parts per trillion. Tests at that time showed levels as high as 59 parts per trillion resulting in additional taste and odour complaints.
5. Intake Screen. The intake screen has both back wash and air scour facilities. However the filamentous algae found in the river cause blockages of the screen and require routine diver attendance to clear the algae off the screen.
6. Raw Water Quality. With the lack of raw water storage, whatever the water quality is in the river has to be treated. This results in variable turbidity, pH and alkalinity making the water difficult to treat. During a storm the treatment plant often struggles to treat the water requiring either turning off, or significantly slowing down the process. This has led to situations where operators have had to be continuously present and continually adjusting the treatment process to ensure the treatment plant is able to treat water.
7. Treatment Capacity. Peak day capacity has been continually increasing since 2010. Peak day is dependent on time of year and weather conditions. The day peak demands have now reached, and slightly exceed, peak production capacity. However, Paihia does have a very high level of unaccounted for water and some spare headroom could be obtained by reducing the amount of unaccounted for water.
8. Contaminant Risk. The Waitangi River is a modified catchment and as such there is an increased risk of an upstream pollution event. With no raw water storage, production would have to stop until the risk abated.
9. THM’s. Trihalomethanes (THM’s) are a by-product of the treatment process when chlorine reacts with dissolved organics left in the water after treatment. The levels of THM’s in the treated water reservoirs have on occasions exceeded the trigger level of 50% of the NZ Drinking water standard.
Discussion and Next Steps
Individually, each of these issues are potentially resolvable. Collectively they are indicating the Paihia water treatment plant is nearing the end of its useful life.
Tourist Infrastructure Funds have been obtained to formalise the business case as to why a change is needed, and to investigate potential solutions. This report is due in December 2019 and will provide the basis for further discussions around the best way forward.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Currently the LTP 2018/2028 contains $6.8M in total in the years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 for a new water treatment plant. Once the options investigations have been completed, it is likely this figure will have to be revised higher.
Nil
23 May 2019 |
4.7 Kaitaia, Reducing Non Revenue Water
File Number: A2453748
Author: Barry Somers, Assets Manager - 3 Waters
Authoriser: Glenn Rainham, General Manager - Infrastructure Asset Management (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
To advise Council around the level of non- revenue water in the Kaitaia reticulation, and a process to reduce the currently very high level of non-revenue water.
Executive Summary
A recent investigation has found the level of unaccounted (non-revenue) for water in the Kaitaia reticulation has progressively increased from 150 Litres / property / day in 2010 to 375 Litres / property / day in 2018. The current level of non-revenue water is very high and Council is now in breach of a resource consent condition relating to leakage. The investigation concluded leakage is the likely major cause of the unaccounted for water.
During the last decade, water reticulation maintenance has been largely reactive i.e. responding to water breaks when reported, along with some mains replacements and some water meter replacements. During this time the situation has got progressively worse. To change this worsening trend will require a change from how the Kaitaia water scheme has been traditionally managed. A key part of a proposed change is the installation of zonal monitoring. Zonal monitoring will provide multiple benefits including; real time flow information, early warning of new breaks and quantifying any improvements that are made. The additional information gained through zonal monitoring will enable moving from largely reactive management to an informed management programme for the Kaitaia water reticulation.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report Kaitaia, Reducing Non Revenue Water.
|
Background
This report is in response to a request made at the Infrastructure Network Committee on the 21 March 2019 for further information on reducing water losses in the Kaitaia reticulation. It should be noted that the investigation that was undertaken in Kaitaia which provides the basis for this report, is currently being repeated for the Paihia and Kaikohe water schemes.
In March 2019, an independent Consultant undertook a detailed investigation into the level of non-revenue water in Kaitaia. This review looked at;
· the accuracy of the bulk water meters
· the accuracy of the domestic water meters
· water production and sales since 2010 and the amount of non-revenue water over that period.
A review of the Kaitaia population shown in Fig 1 shows a steady growth until the mid 1990’s with a static population. From this it was concluded that population growth was not a factor in increasing water production.
Fig 1; Population Growth
Since 2010 annual water production has been increasing at around 1.8% p.a. This growth trend is detailed in Fig 2. This growth trend doesn’t align with population changes shown in Fig 1.
Fig 2; Annual Average Water Production
For the period 2010 to January 2019, water production water sales to the JNL Kaitaia Mill and other water sales were plotted. This is detailed in Fig. 3. This showed that the general water sales have been relatively static to slightly decreasing, the JNL water usage slowly decreasing and the volume of non-revenue water progressively increasing.
Fig 3; Water Sales and Non-revenue water
When considering just non-revenue water, the report determined the volume of non-revenue water has progressively increased from 180 Litres / connection / day in 2010 to 375 Litres / connection / day in 2018. The current level of non-revenue water puts Council in breach of a resource consent condition relating the water extracted from the Awanui River.
The report considered possible reasons for the increasing amounts of non-revenue water. An assessment of meter accuracy determined overall the water meters were in an acceptable range of accuracy and that unauthorised consumption was unlikely. The most likely cause of the increasing volume of non-revenue water was a progressive increase in undetected water leaks. Being a progressive increase indicate there are multiple undetected leaks.
Discussion and Next Steps
There are three broad areas to reduce non-revenue water;
· Mains replacement
· Water meter replacement
· Leak detection.
Mains replacement
As the asbestos cement water mains age, their failure rate increases. Kaitaia has an annual mains replacement programme and it is proposed to continue with this programme. In addition to failure of asbestos cement mains, Kaitaia has some fitting on the longer life PVC mains that are failing early. In this situation a targeted replacement of the fittings will be required. Until better information is available, it is proposed to maintain the current level of water main replacement.
Water Meter replacement
Water meters have a defined accuracy life. Typically domestic meters start running slow after 3,000 m3, therefore an average life of around 15 to 20 years is normal. Historically water meters were replaced on failure resulting in a period when they were under reading before failure occurred. Until better information is available, it is proposed to maintain the current level of water meter replacement.
The installation of universal smart water meters could provide better information around customer water usage and usage patterns however, they come with their own set of operational challenges. For this reason the installation of universal smart water meters is not proposed.
Leak Detection
Council has a very good response time to water leaks and breaks when they are reported. The issue in Kaitaia is the number of unreported leaks has continued to grow. These leaks tend not to appear in the surface and can discharge into the ground water or find their way into the stormwater or sanitary sewer networks. Locating these leaks can be time consuming and problematic. To enable better detection it is proposed to introduce zonal monitoring into Kaitaia.
Zonal monitoring has the following advantages.
1) It helps pinpoint the areas where the leakage occurs and prioritise work areas; and
2) It provides for sub areas where water sales and water supplied can be cross checked; and
3) It allows minimum night flows to be measured showing when new leaks occur; and
4) It allows the effectiveness of any leak repair work to be quantified.
Each zonal meter will be connected to our Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (Scada) system enabling continual flow monitoring. Essentially, zonal monitoring will enable;
· smart network management
· early leak detection
· easier pin pointing of leaks and losses
· quantifying improvements and changes
The report recommends that zonal monitoring is installed before leak detection works are undertaken. This way the effectiveness of any works can be quantified.
Zonal Monitoring Kaitaia
The report recommended 5 separate water supply zones be established. This is done through utilising the existing mains configuration without needing to install special trunk mains. A plan of the proposed zonal monitoring is included in the Attachments. The estimated cost to install zonal monitoring is $146,000.
Funding has been included as part of the current Annual Plan process. If approved, it will take approximately 4 months to procure and install the meters to enable zonal monitoring.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
$150,000 has been requested as part of the Annual Plan for 2019/20 to fund the installation of the zonal meters. The finding and repair of the leaks will be OPEX cost.
Nil
Plan of Proposed Zonal Monitoring for Kaitaia
23 May 2019 |
4.8 3 Waters Benchmarking 2017- 2018
File Number: A2457308
Author: Barry Somers, Assets Manager - 3 Waters
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To provide a summary of the 2017 to 2018 3 Waters benchmarking outcomes.
Executive Summary
Similar to the benchmarking undertaken two years ago, FNDC is doing well in some areas with other areas being highlighted where improvements are possible. Both the previous and recent benchmarking exercises show the cost of 3 water services in the Far North is very high relative to the average of similar sized Councils.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report 3 Waters Benchmarking 2017- 2018.
|
Background
Water New Zealand annually run a national 3 Water benchmarking exercise known as the National Performance Review (NPR). The benchmarking enables Council to compare their 3 Waters activities outputs with other Councils. This is the second time the Far North District Council has taken part in the NPR. This year 48 Councils took part.
The findings of the NPR cover two broad areas:
1. A view of the industry as a whole
2. Relative performance of each participating Council.
The National findings were presented in a booklet form, whereas results of individual Councils were viewable in an online data set.
Key findings at a national level:
· There is a high level of staff vacancies in the water industry
· Efficiencies of scale are apparent
· Wastewater wet weather overflows need improvement
· There is a large number of resource consents coming due for wastewater treatment plants
· On average wastewater discharge consents take two to four years to obtain and the processing cost is on average around $500,000
· Affordability of water and wastewater services for small communities is an issue
· Overall water is costing more
· Electricity used in water and wastewater accounts for 0.3% of greenhouse emissions
· Few Councils are compliant with the Fire Fighting Code of Practice.
A summary of FNDC results are detailed in Table 1.
Shown are the last benchmarking results, the current benchmarking results and the variance between the current and the average for similar sized Councils. 2015/16 was the first time benchmarking was undertaken. Since then recording systems have been improved providing a higher degree of confident in the results.
A brief summary of the FNDC results are:
· Public Health
Wet weather overflows are higher than average. While the rate of dry weather overflows appears low, this is due to FNDC only reporting on number of large wastewater overflows that occured. Generally there is room for improvement with regards to reducing wastewater overflows.
· Customer Focus
FNDC is providing good customer focus with response times similar to other Councils.
· Economic Sustainability
The cost to ratepayers is roughly double that of the average of similar size Councils. This is in line with the previous benchmarking that was undertaken. Other Councils with high cost per ratepayers are;
Water: Tasman, Waipa, Clutha, Kaipara, Rangitikei
Wastewater: Western Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Selwyn and Kaipara.
· Reliability
Fault rates are on par with other Councils. Typically pipes are slightly younger than for most Councils.
· Resource efficiency
Water consumption per person is lower than for most Councils. This is probably due to universal metering and the high cost of water per cubic metre. Energy use is on par and fire hydrant testing is well below average.
Detailed FNDC comparison with the average of similar sized Councils.
|
|
FNDC 2015/16 |
FNDC 2017/18 |
Average Other Councils |
Variance 2017/18 to Average |
Comments |
Public Health |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Wastewater; Wet weather overflows per 1000 connections |
1.100 |
3.944 |
1.288 |
+2.656 |
High value primarily driven by the overflows in the Kaitaia network |
2 |
Wastewater; Dry Weather Overflows per 1,000 connections (Note 1) |
7.800 (data uncertain) |
1.288 |
1.288 |
0 |
The value used by FNDC was for large overflows only, i.e. >1,000 Litres. If total overflows used FNDC values would be much higher per 1,000 properties |
Customer Focus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Water Supply; Resolution of urgent fault callouts in hours |
0.300 (data uncertain) |
2.700 |
2.500 |
+0.2 |
On par with other Councils |
4 |
Wastewater; fault resolution time hours |
3.000 |
2.900 |
2.808 |
+0.092 |
On par with other Councils |
5 |
Water Supply; Average Annual Residential Cost Water Based on 200m3/year |
$845.00 |
$899.88 |
$389.00 |
+$510.88 |
Determined assuming 200m3 per annum water usage. Significantly higher than other Councils |
6 |
Average Annual Residential Wastewater Charge |
$930.00 |
$973.49 |
$476.00 |
+$497.49 |
Determined assuming a 200m3 annual discharge. Significantly higher than other Councils. |
Economic Sustainability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
Water Supply; Revenue per Property: |
$749.00 |
$850.34 |
$502.90 |
+$347.44 |
Determined by total revenue divided by properties supplied |
8 |
Wastewater; Revenue per Property: |
$932.00 |
$1,255.92 |
$614.30 |
+$641.62 |
Determined by total revenue divided by properties supplied |
9 |
Stormwater; Total Revenue per Property |
$174.00 |
$213.77 |
$125.40 |
+$88.37 |
Determined by total revenue divided by properties supplied |
10 |
Water Supply; Operating Cost per Property |
$548.35 |
$449.92 |
$268.20 |
+$181.72 |
Significantly higher than other Councils |
11 |
Wastewater; Operating Cost per Property |
$382.00 |
$533.42 |
$251.10 |
+$282.32 |
Significantly higher than other Councils |
12 |
Stormwater; Operating Cost per Property |
$57.00 |
$96.55 |
$72.32 |
+$24.23 |
Higher than other Councils |
Reliability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
Water Supply; Unplanned interruptions per 1000 properties |
43.1 (data uncertain) |
1.071 |
5.409 |
-4.338 |
Significantly lower than other Councils |
14 |
Wastewater; Weighted average peak wet to average dry weather ratio |
Not measured |
2.632 |
3.548 |
-0.916 |
Slightly lower than other Councils |
15 |
Wastewater; Maximum peak wet to average weather ration |
Not Measured |
4.200 |
5.567 |
-1.367 |
Slightly lower than other Councils |
16 |
Water Supply; Average Age of Pipelines in Years |
31 |
32.50 |
34.00 |
-1.5 |
Network slightly younger than average |
17 |
Wastewater Average Age of Pipelines in Years |
28 |
29.00 |
37.90 |
-8.9 |
Network younger than average |
18 |
Stormwater; Average Age Pipelines in years |
31 |
30.00 |
34.44 |
-4.44 |
Network slightly younger than average |
Resource Efficiency |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
Water Supply; Average Daily residential water consumed litres/person/day |
213.00 |
238.00 |
268.50 |
-30.5 |
Lower water consumption than average. Probably due to cost of water. |
20 |
Water Supply; Energy Intensity Gj/m3 |
0.001391 |
0.001260 |
0.001412 |
-0.000152 |
Energy demand similar to other Councils |
21 |
Wastewater; Energy Intensity Gj/m3 |
0.001931 |
0.001551 |
0.001443 |
+0.000108 |
Energy demand similar to other Councils |
22 |
Water Supply; ILI (Infrastructure leakage Index) |
3 |
3.400 |
3.230 |
+0.17 |
Slightly worse than other Councils |
23 |
Water Supply; CARL (current annual real loss)Litres/property/day |
209
|
264.1 |
224.80 |
+39.3 |
Moderately higher than other Councils |
Resilience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
Water Supply; Fire hydrants tested in the previous five years |
Not Measured |
10% |
41% |
-0.31 |
Substantially fewer hydrants tested than the average. |
25 |
Water Supply; Days of treated water storage in reservoirs on average |
3.1 |
2.518 |
1.208
|
+1.31 |
Treated water storage double the average. |
Table 1 Results
Discussion and Next Steps
Benchmarking provides valuable information as to relative performance and shows area where operations are satisfactory, and areas in need of improvement. It is proposed to continue with the annual benchmarking so longer term trends can be established.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
No financial implications
Nil
23 May 2019 |
4.9 Water Supply; Smart Water Meters
File Number: A2460620
Author: Barry Somers, Assets Manager - 3 Waters
Authoriser: Glenn Rainham, General Manager - Infrastructure Asset Management (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
To provide Council with an overview around the opportunities, benefits, risks and costs associated with Smart Water Meters
Executive Summary
The installation of universal Smart Water Meters (SWM) will involve a significant additional cost with no significant savings. SWMs do have their place in the water industry, but this needs to be clearly defined and the benefits clearly quantified before SWMs are installed. Indications are that unless the whole SWM system is property assessed and tested to ensure full compatibility across all council systems, the installation of SWMs could become an expensive and problematic exercise.
That the Infrastructure Network Committee receive the report Water Supply; Smart Water Meters.
|
Background
Overview;
Far North District Council has 10,300 water meters in 8 communities. The majority are 20mm Class C mechanical meters which are manually read twice per year. In addition, there are around 30 high use meters that are read monthly plus 2,000 special or re-reads and 1,000 final meter readings annually.
SWMs refer to water meters that can be read remotely. There are multiple forms of SWMs and the way in which SWMs are read. This includes; drive by readings and the use of cellular signals and radio signal. The SWM unit can either be built into a purpose built SWM, or strapped onto a compatible mechanical meter.
SWMs need a power supply to operate which is normally supplied by an internally located battery. The physical meters have a typical life of 15 years, whereas, depending on the frequency of data collection and transmittal, the inbuilt batteries have a life between 5 to 7 years. This means there is likely the need of at least 2 battery changes over the life of the smart meter.
Data collection can vary from daily reading through to very frequent readings that can tell which appliances are being used.
SWMs can add value to a water supply network in multiple ways including;
· Reduced meter reading costs
· More frequent billing cycles
· Used to change usage behaviour through either fairer charging or deferring capital expenditure
· Reduce health and safety risks associated with some water meters
· Enable a higher degree of network management
· Enable consumers to better manage their water use.
Issues;
Rating
With regards to universal metering, Council is legally limited in how it charges for water. It is doubtful whether either seasonal or time of use charging can legally be implemented. Should Council wish to consider these rate options, separate legal advice should be obtained to clearly understand what can be done.
Data management
SWMs generate a lot of data. The more frequently they record data the higher the volume of data generated. Before SWMs are installed, the frequency of data collection and how it is stored needs to be clearly defined.
Privacy
SWMs can provide a lot of information around the activities within a household. If it is chosen to collect detailed information, how this information is accessed, used or shared, should be consulted on and documented before the data is collected. To avoid privacy issues and only a low level of data is collected; some of the benefits of the SWMs would be lost.
Data compatibility of different brands of meters
The different brands of SWMs have different communication protocols. This means once one particular brand is installed; changing to a different brand is likely to require duplication of communication systems and associated software programmes.
Data compatibility with FNDC systems
To comply with Councils financial requirements, any SWM software must be compatible with Councils core financial management system. This would need to be checked case by case.
General comment
In a water metering guideline by Water NZ, there was a comment that communication systems incompatibility and data storage are typically issues with SWMs.
New Zealand experience with SWMs
There is limited information on the use of SWMs in New Zealand. None of the other Councils have installed universal SWMs. SWMs are installed successfully in compact areas, where meter access can be difficult. This includes places like airports, commercial buildings, apartment buildings and dense development areas. There have been two known trials by other Councils. One using a drive by system, which failed through the number of miss reads that were occurring. The other used a SIM type communication which proved an expensive form of communication.
Internationally, a Google search quickly found cities having teething problems installing their SWM networks.
Cost estimate
As there are multiple iterations for the installation of SWMs, the following criteria has been used as a basis to provide a rough order cost estimate. The majority of the existing water meters are Kent PSM’s. The Kent PSM is capable of having a SWM unit attached externally to it to convert it to a SWM. This system would use a radio communication device with receivers strategically placed in each community. The receivers would have a nominal range of 50m to 2 km depending on the terrain or other activities that could limit the signal. The data from the receivers would be relayed to a central collection point, and then transferred to Council in the same format as the existing meter reader’s use.
It is unknown how many non-PSM meters are in use. It is assumed 25% of the existing meters would need to be upgraded, either through age, or being non-PSM meters.
It is unknown how many existing water meter boxes will need adjusting to accommodate the strap on smart unit.
It is unknown how may meters will experience communication difficulties and require some form of improvement to their communication.
Item |
Rough Cost Estimate |
Capital |
|
Update 25% of meters to PSM meters |
$625,000 |
Purchase communication unit/meter |
$2,250,000 |
Install communication units |
$260,000 |
Purchase area wide communications |
$75,000 |
Install area wide communication |
$300,000 |
Set up costs |
$250,000 |
Contingency 30% |
$1,128,000 |
TOTAL Capital |
$4,888,000 |
|
|
Operating |
|
Battery Change |
$72,000p.a. |
Data acquisition |
$126,000 p.a. |
Data management and storage related |
unknown |
Extra billing costs |
unknown |
Potential Savings
The most tangible saving is the reduction in the cost of a meter reader. This is estimated at a saving of $60,000 pa. With the majority of the FNDC communities served, there is no growth, so potential savings through behavioural changes, or asset deferral are unlikely to provide any financial benefits.
Discussion and Next Steps
SWMs have their place, but typically it is when they are being used in a smart way. Based on current information, it is likely that just changing to SWMs to save on meter reading costs will result in additional costs and no savings.
Technology around SWMs is still evolving and it is likely other Councils will conduct trials. As better information comes available then the need for SWMs should be reassessed.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
None
Nil
23 May 2019 |
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|