Agenda of Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

12 February 2020

INFRASTRUCTURE 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 Program
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Felicity Foy (Chair)	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. Property owner of Commerce Street, Kaitaia		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 2 dwelling on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
Felicity Foy - Partner	Employed by Justaplumber Taipa
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Deputy Mayor Ann Court (Deputy)	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	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 lighting.	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potential 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	Financial interest	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	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.
	Warren Patteinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	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 materialise but would absent myself from any process as would Ann.
	Property 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.
David Collard	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
Mate Radich	No form received
Kelly Stratford	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Maori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Wil not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Maori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest, I would step aside from decision making
John Vujcich	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

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

12 February 2020

3 Reports

3.1 Riverview School - Parking and Access Options Update

File Number: A2823938

Author: Sandi Morris, Road Safety and Traffic Planning Engineer

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

Purpose of the Report

To revoke an earlier decision made at a previous Infrastructure Network Committee meeting and to provide the updated programme delivery.

Executive Summary

· Council’s previous recommendation to construct a central raised median along the centreline of the road near the drop off bay of Riverview School has been reviewed by the Northland Transport Alliance (NTA) Road Safety and Traffic Planning Engineer and the Principal of Riverview School. This report proposes to revoke the previous decision made.

· The NTA Road Safety and Traffic Planning Engineer has met with the Principal of Riverview School and discussed driver behaviour at the school gate, noting that the current practise is exemplary.

· Any infrastructure changes at the Riverview School main gate could undermine the good transport operational management being undertaken by the school and should be carefully considered before implementation.

· Minor infrastructure enhancement (such as markings and signs) can be undertaken by existing maintenance programmes.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) Revokes the following resolution of the Infrastructure Network Committee - 18 July 2019 7.2 Riverview School Road – Parking and Access Options

“That the Infrastructure Network Committee approves a central raised median align the centreline of the road near the drop off bay of Riverview School”.

b) approves Riverview School and Northland Transport Alliance discussions to amend operational management requirements at the school gate with minor changes to signs and markings within existing budgets.

c) Note that Riverview School are undertaking responsible operating practise with managing children’s behaviour at the school gate and will remind parents of the schools’ obligations under the Health & Safety at Work Act 2015.

1) Background

Council records show a repetitive nature of reporting from the Riverview School community with regards to parent wait times, traffic congestion and parking on yellow no stopping lines. This reporting extends back to 2010 and does appear to be a cyclic issue as new families join the school community.

In June 2018, the school responded to these unsubstantiated issues and an external consultant was engaged by the school to:

“observe and report on the safety and operation of the existing access and parking arrangements at Riverview School and advise on possible solutions to how these can be best managed for ongoing roll growth”. Mike Sullivan, Northern Civil Consulting Engineers Limited (NCC)

In July 2019, Council Officer’s reported to the Infrastructure Network Committee Meeting “Parking and Access Options” for Riverview School front gate. A copy of the NCC findings accompanied the Officer’s report.

The report issued to Council by the school community was that there was significant congestion at the school gate and that parents were parking on yellow no stopping lines to wait for their children.

From the optioneering undertaken in July 2019, the Committee Resolution 2019/21 a) 7.2 was redacted to read:

From October to December 2019, roadside data has been collected and analysed by the Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA) Road Safety and Traffic Planning Engineer. Refer Appendix A.

2) Discussion and Options

It is now recognised that the proposed infrastructure changes to the existing road environment risk current operating practise, increase risk to the children and reduce the safety benefits. Any infrastructure changes should also consider growth in the community as a result of land developments occurring within the school zone.

Council Officer’s will continue to work with the Ministry of Education to ensure they assess and carefully plan for traffic impacts when responding to roll growth.

The Issue:

The issues are reportedly unchanged and are cyclic in nature, often being reported by new parents to the school. They note that they have observed others parked on yellow lines, have had to wait too long to collect their child and are concerned about children’s safety at the school gate because of the traffic congestion during drop-off & pickup times.

Data Summary:

Site observations were undertaken on two separate days, 5 November and 19 November 2019. The five-day average (AADT) was recorded as 962 vehicles/day. The following is a brief summary of our findings:

Item	Morning	Afternoon
Peak Time	8.10 to 9.00	2.30 to 3.30
Average Pickup/Dropoff Time	1.10 minutes	1.41 minutes
Number of Vehicles Observed	121	53
Parents who Park across road	4	14
Bus movements observed	10-12	14
Total Vehicle Count (Peak)	378	158
85^th Percentile Speed at peak	48	49

General Comments from parents

During the site surveys, some parents were approached for feedback due to various standout behaviours. Those behaviours included (but not limited to) parking on the opposite site of the road and calling their child to the car, walking over the road and walking the child back to the car (under supervision), or simply following the intended circulating pickup/drop off process.

A few comments were recorded, as follows:

o … they always park over the road and will continue to do so because it easier for them.

o … they always do drop off and/or pickup because they see it as a very safe and convenient operation for them.

o … they will always park in a designated park and walk into the school if they have a meeting with the teacher.

General observation

During the afternoon survey on 5 November 2019, Constable Robert Drummond (NZ Police) attended site (covertly) to observe driver behaviour. Const. Drummond spoke with several parents during the site inspection.

It was noted that some queue lengths over the yellow no stopping lines were long, and that it was because of the odd parent blocking access by parking inconsiderately of others. It was also noted that some drivers blocked access to neighbouring driveways when queuing.

Const. Drummond is satisfied that the queuing movement is safe at the school gate. NZ Police will not be issuing stationary vehicle offence notices for any vehicle that is safely queuing to collect their child from the school.

Some parents are impatient with wait/collection times and they can be observed parking opposite the school access and encouraging their child to run across. These actions are contrary to the school’s instruction and these parents are unknowingly increasing risk for their own child.

In addition:

· The Principal will be issuing front access operating reminders in the school newsletter early 2020.

· Parent blocked circulating traffic by parking where circulating vehicles were queuing, this will be resolved through the Principal’s messaging in 2020 term one. This is also the cause of significant wait times in the queue space over yellow no-stopping lines.

· The Principal noted that the Board of Trustees would require a summary report to be presented to them in the new year. Both NZ Police and the NTA will work collaboratively with Riverview School to support and deliver this request.

Option One – Support existing operation – Signs/Markings Only

To re-paint the roadmaking’s and update/renew some signs to be consistent with school gate best practise and suitable for Riverview School.

Estimated cost is in the order of $11,000.00 and can be accommodated within existing operating programmes. This option considers and resolves the following site issues:

· On street parking is provided for parents opting to “park” and enter the school grounds before and after school.

· The existing road markings have faded and have been overlapped, which creates variable parking behaviour which ultimately reduces the number of parking spaces available.

· Parents are currently stationary over existing yellow no stopping lines which queuing to collect their child at the end of the school day. This is an accepted and supported practise by Riverview School Principal, NTA and NZ Police.

· Some additional signage may encourage better compliance over vehicle crossing accesses.

· Stationary vehicles in the drop-off and pickup zone will have improved signs and markings to encourage better compliance.

Option Two – Change existing operation – raised Central Median (Current resolution)

This is the current resolution by Council.

A previous council resolution has been provided to undertake physical infrastructure works to the value of $30,000.00 within existing budgets.

This resolution does not consider costs to implement roadside drainage requirements to permit traffic flows in the traffic lane with a raised central median. It should be noted that if the island is installed as proposed, vehicles would not be able to use the residual traffic lane. Any road widening requires drainage infill which would incur significant unbudgeted expense.

This option has been revised to now include roadside drainage requirements for pricing purposes. The estimate is now considered to be in the order of $283,000.00 and is an unbudgeted item.

Summary

The intrinsic value of reducing parent wait times and/or removing congestion, does not outweigh the children’s safety or the school’s obligations under the Health and Safety Act to provide a good and safe operation at its school gate.

Congestion at the school gate can be a safety issue when children are encouraged to weave in and out of parked and moving vehicles. As a result of the low traffic speeds; any resulting injury from a vehicle vs child incident, is likely to result in a minor injury. This is not the case at Riverview School.

The current minor congestion at the school access is contributing to a safer environment for the children. The drop-off and pickup activity at this school should be the envy of other schools, due to the existing turning facilities allowing separate car and bus turning movements. The school can also hold the children behind the school gate, securely in all-weather until collected by a guardian.

Reason for the recommendation

Option one is the safer option for any treatment at this school gate. It is also the least cost option.

Further infrastructure proposals may be necessary as a result of community growth. If this occurs, a relevant programme and project estimate will be prepared for consideration during Council’s Annual Plan process.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Current maintenance and operating budgets allow for road marking and sign maintenance. The costs to implement improvements at the school gate for Option One, are anticipated to be less than $11,000.00 and are based on the proposal as shown in Appendix B.

Attachments

1. Northland Transport Alliance Technical Memo - Riverview School - A2825142 ⇩

2. Updated Proposal for Riverview School - A2825151 ⇩

3. Approved Proposal from Committee Resolution 2019 - A2825169 ⇩

4. Revised Estimate to Current Proposal Including Drainage estimate - A2825170 ⇩

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.	By engaging with the school and wider community they will have a better understanding of safe practise in the road network. The recommendation supports a healthy, safe, connected and sustainable community.
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.	Not applicable
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	Stakeholders as mentioned in this report are The Principal at Riverview School and its wider school community. In addition, any operational management at the school form part of the National Policing Programme and directly impact on the Kerikeri Police Education Officer, Robert Drummond.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As mentioned in this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report