Agenda of Infrastructure Committee Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Infrastructure Committee Terms of Reference
	Approval Date	7 May 2020
	Responsible Officer	Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of the Infrastructure Committee (the Committee) is to ensure cost effective, quality and sustainable infrastructure decisions are made to meet the current and future needs of Far North communities and that Councils infrastructure assets are effectively maintained and operated.

The Committee will review the effectiveness of the following aspects:

· Affordable core infrastructure to support healthy and sustainable living;

· Operational performance including monitoring and reporting on significant infrastructure projects

· Delivery of quality infrastructure and district facilities

· Financial spend and reprogramming of capital works

· Property and other assets

To perform his or her role effectively, each Committee member must develop and maintain

his or her skills and knowledge, including an understanding of the Committee’s responsibilities, Councils’ infrastructure assets such as roading, three waters and district facilities.

Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Infrastructure Committee.

The Infrastructure Committee will comprise of at least six elected members (one of which will be the chairperson).

Mayor Carter

Felicity Foy – Chairperson

Ann Court – Deputy Chairperson

Dave Collard

Kelly Stratford

John Vujcich

Mate Radich

Mike Edmonds

Adele Gardner

Non-appointed councillors may attend meetings with speaking rights, but not voting rights.

Quorum

The quorum at a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee is 5 members.

Frequency of Meetings

The Infrastructure Committee shall meet every 6 weeks, but may be cancelled if there is no business.

Power to Delegate

The Infrastructure Committee may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers.

Committees Responsibilities

The Committees responsibilities are described below:

Quality infrastructure and Facilities

· Assess and provide advice to Council on strategic issues relating to the provision of Council’s infrastructural activities and district facilities

· Review, and recommend to Council, policy and strategies for the delivery of infrastructural asset services

· Monitor achievement of outcomes included in the Infrastructure Strategy and other infrastructure strategies eg District Transport Strategy

· Ensure that Council protects its investment in its infrastructural assets in accordance with accepted professional standards

· Monitor the risks, financial and operational performance of the Council's infrastructural activities and facilities

· Monitor major contract performance measures/key result areas (KRAs)

Significant Projects – spend, monitoring and reporting

· Monitor significant projects

· Approve budget overspend (above tolerance levels in the CE delegations) and any reprogramming of capex for a project or programme provided that:

o The overall budget is met from savings

o The overall budget for capex is not exceeded. Where this is not the case, the Committee must either:

§ Recommend to Council that additional funding is approved (outside the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process), or

§ Recommend as part of the next round of Long Term Plan or Annual Plan process that the funding is considered for inclusion.

· Approve tenders and contracts provided they are:

o Up to $3 million,

o in accordance with the current year’s plan, whether that be Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, and

o deemed low by the Significance and Engagement Policy

Compliance

· Ensure that operational functions comply with legislative requirements and Council policy

· Ensure that consents associated with Council's infrastructure are being met and renewals are planned for

Service levels (non regulatory)

· Recommend service level changes and new initiatives to the Long Term and Annual Plan processes.

Relationships

· Monitoring Council’s relationship with the Northland Transportation Alliance

o Receive quarterly performance reports

· Monitoring Council’s relationship with the Far North Waters Alliance Partner

Property

· Recommend to Council the acquisition or disposal of assets.

· Approve new leases and lease renewals (of non-reserve land), in accordance with the current years’ plan, whether that be Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

Receive updates on changes to national and regional policies that impact on Council provision of infrastructure and where appropriate make recommendation to Council.

Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct apply to all the committee’s meetings.

Annual reporting

The Chair of the Committee will submit a written report to the Chief Executive on an annual basis. The review will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. The Chief Executive will place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

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 Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	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 on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	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
	Shareholder of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
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 Pattinson	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
	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
	Māori 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			Will 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
	Taumarere Counselling Services	Advisory Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	Sport Northland	Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori 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
Mike Edmonds	Chair	Kaikohe Mechanical and Historic Trust	Council Funding	Decide at the time
Mike Edmonds	Committee member	Kaikohe Rugby Football and Sports Club	Council Funding	Withdraw and abstain
Adele Gardner	N/A - FNDC Honorarium
	Te Hiku Education Trust	Trustee
	Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Trustee
	ST Johns Kaitaia Branch	Trustee/ Committee Member
	Te Hiku Sports Hub Committee	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

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

24 March 2021

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A3110047

Author: Kim Hammond, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

Te Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

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

ngĀ tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 10 February 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

1) te TĀhuhu kŌrero / 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) Te matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / 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.

Te Take Tūtohunga / 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) NgĀ PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

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

ngĀ Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. 2021-02-10 Infrastructure Committee Unconfimed Minutes - A3077215 ⇩

Te Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / 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.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance requirement	Te Aromatawai Kaimahi / 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 is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
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.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
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.	There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
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).	This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
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 Committee Meeting Agenda

24 March 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Infrastructure Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Wednesday, 10 February 2021 AT 9.35 am

PRESENT: Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Dave Collard, Cr Rachel Smith, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr John Vujcich, Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson Adele Gardner

IN ATTENDANCE: Greame MacDonald – Group Manager Civil Defence Emergency Management

STAFF PRESENT: Andy Finch (General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management), Dean Myburgh (General Manager District Services), William J Taylor, MBE (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy - Acting), Janice Smith (General Manager Corporate Services - Acting)

1 Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Cr Smith started the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apology

Committee Resolution 2021/1

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That the apology received from His Worship the Mayor John Carter and Deputy Mayor Ann Court and Member Mike Edmonds be accepted and leave of absence granted.

Carried

3 Deputation

Nill

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A3052532, pages 14 - 17 refers.

Committee Resolution 2021/2

Moved: Cr Dave Collard

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

That the Infrastructure Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 2 December 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Information Reports

5.1 Electrocoagulation Wastewater Treatment Update

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3036914, pages 18 - 39 refers.

Committee Resolution 2021/3

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That the Infrastructure Committee notes the report Electrocoagulation Wastewater Treatment.

Carried

At 9:54 am, Cr Kelly Stratford joined the meeting.

5.2 Northland CDEM Group Drought Plan 2020-2021

Agenda item 5.2 document number A3051704, pages 40 - 56 refers.

Committee Resolution 2021/4

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Northland CDEM Group Drought Plan 2020-2021.

Carried

5.3 Infrastructure and Asset Management Monthly Business Report for December 2020

Agenda item 5.3 document number A3073355, pages 57 - 215 refers.

Committee Resolution 2021/5

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Infrastructure and Asset Management Monthly Business Report for December 2020.

Carried

6 Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Committee Resolution 2021/6

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

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:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
6.1 - Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
6.2 - Alternative Wastewater Treatment Technologies Review - Moxiepel	s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Council to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation where a right of appeal lies to any court or tribunal against the final decision of the Council in these proceedings	s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation

Carried

7 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Councilor Stratford closed the meeting with a karakia.

8 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 11.37 am.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Infrastructure Committee meeting to be held on 24 March 2021.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

24 March 2021

5 Reports

5.1 Kaikohe Waste Water Treatment Plant - Access Safety Assessment and Action Report

File Number: A3111463

Author: Troy Smith, Assistant Engineer

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

Te Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek the Infrastructure Committee’s approval to complete health & safety works associated with access to the Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ponds).

Te WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

The key points of this report are:

· A number of large pine and gum trees pose a health and safety risk to staff, visitors and neighbours of the Kaikohe WWTP surrounds.

· Clearance and trimming of the hazardous trees has been quoted to cost ~$113,000 with project management included.

· Another option has recently been presented, whereby the harvesting of pine trees, together with the removal of the hazardous trees could be combined, to result in a small net revenue opportunity of $44,000

ngĀ tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) approve the engagement of Northland Forest Managers to undertake the harvesting of the pines trees around the oxidation ponds in Cumber Road.

b) approve the removal of some hazardous gum and pine trees over the access road, as outlined in Option 4.

c) approve that the cost of replanting of an estimated $4,000 is funded from the net revenue under Option 4.

1) te TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Kaikohe WWTP is used daily by Far North Water staff and septic tank cleaning firms, to provide effective wastewater disposal for the area. The access to the treatment plant is lined with numerous large pine and gum trees, of which the majority overhang the accessway.

In June/July 2020, after a large branch fell on the road an experienced arborist was commissioned to further assess the trees and the risk that they pose to the treatment plant users. The arborist’s report (attached to this report), discusses the condition of the trees and their recommendation to fell and/or trim those that are at the point of imminent failure.

Due to the safety risk these trees pose to users, 3 quotes were sought in August/September 2020 to undertake the works. Two quotes were for felling and removal only ranging in cost of $70-75k, and 1 quote for the complete job that also included traffic management, dismantling of fencing, use of temporary fencing, re-instatement of permanent fencing, and site supervision. This quote was for $113k

Following the receipt of these quotes, the tree work has been delayed due to:

· there being insufficient funding available; and

· advice from the contractors that this work is undertaken during summer.

In recent weeks, a neighbour to the Kaikohe WWTP, in conversation with the Mayor, has suggested that Council harvest the surrounding pine trees to offset the cost of the removal of the trees nearing the end of life. A separate feasibility report was commissioned to assess this potential.

2) Te matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Removal of trees at risk

The arborist’s report outlines several key signs showing the trees decline:

· Regular heavy traffic has likely caused significant damage to the trees through root compaction

· The tree canopy is in heavy decline, with large standing dead tops above the road

· The lower branches are overloaded and show signs of bark lesions and cracking

· Almost all marked trees have a dominant lean over the access

It is stated that these factors indicate that the trees are at the end of their life span.

Nearing 7 months since the initial branch fall and arborist’s assessment, the safety risk imposed to any users of the treatment plant access remains high.

Far North Waters staff have completed a more recent survey of the trees to grasp the scale of the project. There is a total of 38 large trees marked by the arborist for removal, 11 of which have a trunk diameter less 24 inches and the remaining 27 a greater diameter. The 11 smaller trees can be put through a chipper onsite, whereas the larger trees require extensive trimming, cutting, and winching to remove them safely. In addition, there are several dead/compromised branches that will need to be removed from some of the trees not marked for removal. There is an aerial map attached to this report, showing the area of trees for remedial action. Below are 2 example pictures taken on the 19^th of February 2021.

A picture containing tree, outdoor, plant, forest

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Tree overhanging accessway Figure 2: Tree size comparison

The more significant trees highlighted for removal are approaching approximately 30 – 35 metres tall, with a trunk diameter of ~2 metres at the base. The number of trees at this size will result in a significant tonnage in wood. Brief calculations estimate there could be 450 tonnes of wood to remove for the project. Although the wood is not viable to mill into timber, hence no return in sales, there could be a significant saving in transport and preparation costs if the wood is ‘gifted’ to a local firewood supplier for division and removal at their own cost. The wood chips / mulch resulting from the smaller trees could be provided to schools or parks for landscaping.

There are several potential options for consideration as outlined below:

Option 1 – Do nothing - $0

The trees could be left standing.

· Potentially review of the works again in the future (1 – 2 years).

· Continual high risk to staff, septic tank cleaning firms and access to the plant if more branches or a tree should fall.

· No unbudgeted financial cost to Council at this stage.

Option 2 – Do minimum - ~$50k

Only the most problematic trees could be removed along with trimming of other dead/compromised branches. This also includes the removal and reinstatement of the neighbouring boundary fence.

· Potential review of the works again in the future (2 – 5 years).

· Reduced yet moderate risk to the WWTP operators, users, and plant access.

· A moderate, unbudgeted financial cost to Council.

· Financially inefficient given there will be high set up costs for minimal felling work.

· This would require further assessment to identify the priority trees.

Option 3 – Arborist recommended - $113k

Remove the arborist recommended trees (11 small and 27 large) along with trimming of other dead/compromised branches, approximately a total of 450 tonnes of wood. This also includes the removal and reinstatement of the neighbouring boundary fence.

· Potential review of the works again in the future (10+ years).

· Greatly reduced risk to the WWTP operators, users, and plant access.

· The most expensive option of the 3, with a high unbudgeted financial cost to Council.

· Financially efficient, balancing out high setup/equipment costs with a large scope of works.

Community benefit by providing a local supplier with wood and the greater community with a source of firewood, wood chips also to be donated.

Should Council choose this option, then an appropriate resolution would be:

That the Infrastructure Committee approve unbudgeted expenditure of $113,085 (GST exclusive) for clearance and trimming of the declining trees as outlined in option 3, and direct award Far North Waters to undertake this work

Revenue opportunity of harvesting pine trees

Northland Forest Managers (NFM) were asked to investigate the viability of harvesting the pines trees around the oxidation ponds in Cumber Road, and the removal of some hazardous gum and pine trees over the access road.

Option 4 - Proceed with harvesting opportunity and the removal of “at-risk” trees

The conservative nett revenue to Council is estimated to be $44,000 based on 4.8 ha of trees on Council land

This figure has been calculated based on:

I. a pre harvest inventory that indicates there is at least 2,200 tonnes of merchantable logs

II. a sales value of $280,000 (based on the 2-year average return of $135 per JASm³ for A grade, with current spot price @ $145 per JASm³)

III. costs of harvest, transport, roading, planning, crew establishment, old tree removal, fencing, regrassing etc of $236,000.

A number of factors were included in the costs of harvesting and removal, with allowances for;

· 2 stage logging due to concerns about the integrity and safety of the concrete road leading to the ponds if full logging truck and trailers were used

· Road maintenance should perimeter road deteriorate in inclement weather or not be as sturdy as anticipated

· Supervision by the lines company of felling of the trees near the transmission lines

· Archaeological approval due to burial site (NZAA website information may be incorrect)

· Allowance for removal of the old gum and pine trees along the road, some within two tree lengths of the house and power wires.

NFM have had an initial conversation with the neighbour (Zielinski) who has provided conceptual approval for use and alterations to their property to accommodate the proposed work

Removal of the trees needs to take place in dry conditions, with removal taking about 1 month

A detailed report is attached.

It is also worth noting that Council will need to replant this area within 4-years of harvesting at an estimated cost of $4,000 so there is no impact with ETS requirements.

Te Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The current risk to staff, other users, and the plant access is too great to not act. Option 1 is not recommended.

Undertaking removal and trimming of only the highest priority trees will reduce the risk for the short term, however the project will still require equipment to remove the trees safely, thus associated with a high setup cost. It is also likely that similar work may need to be reviewed in several years, making this option financially and timely inefficient.

Although the highest financial cost, Option 3 is believed to be the most effective, efficient, and considerate option in terms of staff / user safety.

Option 4 is recommended as the cost of removal (option 3) can be offset from revenue in the harvesting of pines. While Council is not in forestry as core business, with the appointment of an expert to undertake this work, it seems the best option.

3) NgĀ PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Option 3, the recommended option should Council not select a combined harvesting option, comes to a total of $113,085 excluding GST. This will be unbudgeted expenditure if undertaken this financial year.

The preferred and recommended option 4 presents an opportunity for net revenue of $40,000 ($44,000 less $4,000 for replanting), whilst still obtaining the initial objective of removing the high risk trees.

ngĀ Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Tree Removal Map 1 - A3100908 ⇩

2. Tree Removal Map 2 - A3100907 ⇩

3. Arborist's Report - A3100955 ⇩

4. Cumber Road, Kaikohe Harvest Investigation Draft - A3117720 ⇩

Te Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance requirement	Te Aromatawai Kaimahi / 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	Medium / high degree of significance due to the circumstances effect on user health and safety, and continuation of Council services.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	In interest of maintaining Council (wastewater / sewage) service continuity for the community: · Local Government Act 2002 · Public Works Act 1981 The work relates to a number of external legislations: · Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 · Health and Safety at Work General Risk and Workplace Management Regulations 2016 · Electricity Hazards from Trees Regulations 2003 · CoP (Code of Practise) for Safety and Health in Forestry Operations · CoP – Part 2: Maintenance of trees around power lines · Best Practise Guidelines – Worksafe – Safe Manual Tree Felling Also relevant to the accessway / road are: · Land Transport Act CoP for Temporary Traffic Management
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 proposal pertains to the Kaikohe community and their wastewater services. It requires review from the Infrastructure Committee as it seeks approval of unbudgeted expenditure for operational work.
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.	There are no foreseen 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 (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Those affected directly are: · Council / Far North Waters staff · Septage service trucks (Private firms) · Users of the Kaikohe WWTP The owners of 76 Cumber Road, Kaikohe (Zielinski Holdings Limited).
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	This is covered under section 3 of the report, where a proposed unbudgeted expenditure of $113,085 GST exclusive is recommended.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This has been reviewed by the CFO.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

24 March 2021

5.2 Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Works Business Case

File Number: A3110125

Author: Mary Moore, Business Case Specialist

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

Te Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To present the detailed business case for the replacement of the Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant and progress the planning of this capital works by approving the advancement of the preferred option identified, Option 3 - Membrane Bio Reactor, to detailed design.

Te WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

Replacement of the Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant has been the subject of investigation, discussion, and consultation without success for the last 20 years. The plant is currently in such poor condition that it is at risk of complete failure, with periodic breaches of consent conditions occurring and the risk of injury to operators is high. The plant is unable to meet seasonal demand and replacement is now the only option due to asset conditions beyond repair.

This project is required to meet Council’s strategic priority - Affordable core infrastructure - and Community Outcome - Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable.

The detailed business case demonstrates a similar capital cost for Options 2 – Activated Sludge Plant (ASP) and 3 – Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) with a slightly higher Whole of Life cost for MBR. However, after factoring in quality and time. MBR is the preferred option as it will deliver the required level of service. This compares to ASP which will deliver the required level of service most of the time.

The budget included in the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 is insufficient to undertake the minimum required remedial works without replacing the treatment plant. Revised budget forecasts are currently included in Years 1 and 2 of the proposed Long-Term Plan 2021-2031. Additional budget may be required in Year 3, but this would be quantified in detailed design.

The Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 public consultation phase provides the opportunity for the district to answer the following questions:

- Do we need it?

- Is it the timing correct?

- Is the budget provision appropriate?

As affordability and the impact on rates continues to be a critical constraint in reaching an acceptable solution, further community consultation will provide them the opportunity to agree:

- Are the options relevant?

- Is the preferred option likely to achieve the best outcomes?

- Does the preferred option represent value for money?

Given the advanced deterioration of the plant, implementation of an acceptable solution is now regarded as a matter of urgency in order to avoid this community completely losing this service. While affordability continues to impede efforts to resolve the situation, it is acknowledged that this remains a critical issue for this community due to application of the current funding model.

ngĀ tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee recommend that Council:

a) approves the detailed business case preferred Option 3 – Membrane Bio Reactor, to be located on the existing Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant site, to be advanced to detailed design and community consultation

b) notes the potential cost of the preferred option and the impact upon rates.

1) te TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The small coastal township of Hihi is located within the Doubtless Bay area of the Te Hiku ward, a short distant across the harbour from the Mangonui township. A popular retirement and holiday spot, Hihi’s residential population numbers 200 during the winter months, growing to 400 during summer and peaking during the Christmas holiday period (24 Dec – 7 Jan) to 600+. All properties are served by roof tank water supply, so water usage is low for the catchment and connectors to the wastewater scheme include a campground operation.

Originally a temporary installation constructed circa 1975, the Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed using a ‘least expense’ approach with capacity to meet the needs of approximately 200 people. The treatment plant is located within the residential area with discharge of treated water to the harbour is via a wetlands system located a short distance outside of town. The consent for the plant expires in November 2022.

From early 2001, Council records have indicated the plant is structurally at the end of its life and unsafe. If it is not replaced the risks of injury to onsite personnel and of catastrophic failure is high. Periodic breaches of consent conditions are occurring due to insufficient flow and load treatment capacity to meet seasonal and peak population demand.

Relocation of the plant outside the residential area (adjacent to the wetlands) using the MBR option was investigated and widely supported by the community (79%) but was eventually (2011) discounted as viable on a cost/benefit basis.

In March 2019 a Conceptual Design Options report was prepared by WSP Opus. The options considered were:

- Conventional Activated Sludge

- Fixed Film Treatment

- Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

- Other (Low energy treatment, Storm storage, relocation of treatment plant, and other discharge location)

The first three options were compared with the recommendation being to progress the MBR option for the purpose of setting a project budget. A peer review was also commissioned which raised several concerns about the disadvantages of the MBR option and further investigation was undertaken.

A structural condition assessment of the treatment plant was undertaken in the presence of the maintenance operator during October/November 2019 to confirm previously observed issues (2014) and assess if any further damage had occurred. While the assessment confirmed multiple issues and recommended substantial remedial works, the overall condition of the plant remained poor and at risk of failure.

In November 2019 an indicative business case highlighted several issues requiring resolution to enable a detailed business case to be completed. This prompted a Business Risk Assessment Workshop (Dec 2019) followed by an Options Workshop (Jan 2020). Both workshops were attended by FNDC (asset management & planning and project delivery), Far North Waters & Broadspectrum (operations & maintenance), as well as external engineering consultants.

The Options Workshop considered a long list of options:

Option 1 - Do minimum (refurbish aeration tank only)

Option 2 - Activated Sludge Plant (ASP)

Option 3 - Pump to Mangonui

Option 4 - Moving Bed Bioreactor

Option 5 - Membrane Bioreactor

From this long list, the following short list was determined with Option 3 – MBR identified as the preferred option based on estimated costings v. benefits:

Option 1 - Do minimum (tank refurbishment)

Option 2 - Activated Sludge Plant (ASP)

Option 3 - Membrane Bioreactor Plant (MBR)

The March 2020 Hihi Options Review report summarises these workshops and the Business Risk Assessment Workshop report (Appendix F) provides a comprehensive assessment of the issues and the associated risks.

The final steps to completing the detailed business case was to peer review the estimated costings and include a Whole of Life (WOL) analysis and a Rating Impact comparison.

Note: Attachments to this report have been abridged to those principal reports referenced in the Detailed Business Case. All other reports and appendices are available upon request.

2) Te matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The detailed business case (Attachment 1) considers the following three options using a Whole of Life approach:

Option 1 - Do Nothing

Option 2 - Activated Sludge Plant (ASP)

Option 3 - Membrane Bioreactor Plant (MBR)

The outcome of this approach using the Options Workshop cost estimates reveals Option 3 - MBR as the recommended option as summarised below.

Do Nothing

This option will not address the existing problems and this plant is not expected to meet future consent requirements once the consent is replaced in 2022.

The significant risks of this option include the increasing risk of injury to operators and the catastrophic failure of the plant leaving the community with no wastewater treatment and negative environmental consequences, the consequential needs to manually dispose of waste daily and a high risk of enforcement action being taken against Council.

Emergency measures (24/7) will be required to provide interim services to the community until such time as a replacement plant is commissioned.

This option is not recommended.

Activated Sludge Plant (ASP)

A conventional solution known to operators, will achieve likely consent conditions for renewal in 2022, benefit the environment through improved effluent quality, be designed for future growth and peak loads and enable efficient operating and asset maintenance.

Performance is expected to drop during seasonal increases in load, particularly on ammonia and suspended solids, the overall rating of an ASP for this community is that it will deliver required levels of service most of the time.

Additional known risks associated with the site and process limitations will require ongoing monitoring and active management. The decommissioning and installation phase will also require close management to minimise plant downtime and control of these costs. Until a detailed design is completed it cannot be confirmed that this type of plant will fit or allow construction within the allowable footprint and additional funding may be required to accommodate this.

As ASPs are more susceptible to variable flows, repairs to the network are considered essential to the success of this project to reduce/eliminate irregular influx from stormwater.

Wetlands - the long-term deferral of maintenance and the impact of the most recent weather events indicates both the connective pipe network and wetlands need remedial work. The condition of the rising main between the treatment plant and the wetlands is currently unknown but may well require renewal.

While the condition of the wetlands does not directly impact the operation of the treatment plant and it is not an interdependency for replacement of the treatment plant, the business case includes this work is for transparency and completeness.

This option is not recommended.

Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR)

This option will ensure levels of service are maintained, will achieve likely future consent requirements, can be designed for future growth and peak loads (no drop in performance) and the need for the wetlands may be eliminated. Staged construction could minimise plant downtime and the plant’s modular nature may enable relocation. The ability of an MBR to cope with seasonal loads may mean that the repair work to the network (required by ASP) is not imperative for the success of the treatment plant replacement.

MBR is a new system for FNDC and FNW Alliance which introduces the risk of recruitment and retention of suitably trained personnel as well as on-going operational costs. Membranes require a high level of maintenance and regular replacement (5-10 years) to ensure the plant operates efficiently and, being a more technical plant to manage, there will be a need for highly trained personnel including an on-site full-time operator. Increased energy usage and the need for regular chemical cleaning also contribute to higher running costs.

The slightly higher capital and Whole of Life costs of an MBR system returns better outcomes through the plant delivering a very high quality of effluent regardless of changes in load and is not susceptible to poor settlement due to Nocardia. These outcomes are particularly desirable for this community given the plant’s location within the residential area and coastal proximity. A shorter construction timeframe also represents a desirable outcome for both the community and Council.

While there is the possibility of the MBR not requiring the wetlands, the existing wetlands would require decommissioning to ensure it did not pose an on-going environmental risk. The business case includes this work is for transparency and completeness.

Community consultation will be required to ensure the relevant options have been considered, and whether the preferred option will result in the best outcomes and represents value for money.

This option is recommended.

Other alternative options that could be considered to mitigate the overall cost of the project would include amendments to District Plan zoning to increase the number of potential residential properties connected or moving to individual on-site disposal. Both of these alternative options would have challenges, particularly in relation to climate change and sea level rise. Staff have not undertaken any diligence on these options.

Te Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The detailed business case recommends Option 3 – MBR as the preferred option to achieve the Community Outcome and required levels of service based on an overall analysis of quality, time and whole of life cost analysis.

3) NgĀ PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Due to the age and low-cost nature of the original plant, combined with a reactive maintenance approach, replacement of the plant will require a significant level of “new” capital investment.

The Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 includes a budget of $1.89m for refurbishment of the treatment plant which was scheduled for delivery in FY 2019 - 2020.

Considerable effort has been invested since 2018 in specifying requirements and identifying possible options through structural assessments, design options, community consultation, and various stakeholder workshops to assess business risk and options. All of this, including the detailed business case, demonstrates current budget provision as inadequate, with timely solutions expected to cost upwards of $6m.

The draft Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 currently has a budget provision of $6m for the capital replacement of the treatment plant which is scheduled for delivery in FY 2022 and 2023. The detailed business case indicates a budgetary requirement of $6.3m, including network renewal, excluding wetlands works to be funded through Sludge Management budgets.

These costings will be updated as part of the detailed design phase.

The attached detailed business case estimates the capital costs of each of the three options as follows (these figures exclude contingency and professional fees):

Option 1 – Unknown

The cost of emergency measures required in the event of failure will be a full operational cost and as this is expected to be a 24/7 service for which the daily cost is estimated at $15k - $20k. This cost would continue until such time as a new plant is commissioned which is could take anywhere from 12 – 24 months for which the capital cost would be like Options 2 or 3.

If successfully prosecuted, the Court may impose a fine which the RMA specifies a maximum fine of $300k for a natural person and $600k for any other person.

Option 2 - $6,215,951

Option 3 - $6,970,973 (including $600k for network repairs)

Council’s approach to funding the provision and availability of wastewater services is that each scheme will pay its own interest and depreciation costs using a separate targeted capital rate, whereas operating costs are funded based on a districtwide operating rate.

The above costs result in a new capital rate per SUIP (connection) of $1,458.59 (Option 2 – ASP) and $1,851.01 or $1,677.48 (Option 3 including and excluding network repairs respectively). The capital rate is on-going but does not commence until the financial year after the project is completed which is forecast as November 2023. These new rate value represents an increase of $1,000 - $1,400 per SUIP.

Operating costs

The total direct operating cost of the existing treatment plant increased 62% from 2018 ($112k) to 2020 ($183k). Current year direct operating costs are already tracking towards a 20% increase ($220k) on the 2020 FY. The additional costs reflect the additional input required by the plant’s operator to keep the plant functioning.

No additional operational rate impact has been calculated as the detailed business case whole of life analysis has used operational costs for both options like the actual total direct operating costs. The detailed design will provide accurate operating costs that will be used to better inform the impact on the on-going operational rate but at this point

While the impact of Options 2 and 3 on the Hihi community’s rates is significant this must be weighed up against the unknown cost of ‘Do Nothing’.

ngĀ Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Capital Works Business Case Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant - A3068094 (under separate cover)

2. Indicative Business Case - A3071541 (under separate cover)

3. Indicative Business Case - Appendix A - Item 14 - A3071878 (under separate cover)

4. Hihi WWTP Activated Sludge Reactor - Report Only - A3071492 (under separate cover)

5. Hihi Options Review - A2894649 (under separate cover)

6. Hihi Options Review - Appendix F - Business Risk Assessment Workshop Report December 2019 - A3071520 (under separate cover)

7. Hihi Options Review - Appendix G - Minutes of Option Workshop January 2020 - A3071523 (under separate cover)

8. Hoskin Civil QS Report August 2020 - A3071535 (under separate cover)

Te Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance requirement	Te Aromatawai Kaimahi / 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 matter is of high significance as the proposal will generate considerable community interest and the should the plant fail the prospect of adverse national publicity is high.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The relevant community outcome is: ‘Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable’.
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 issue has specific relevance to the Hihi community. The Community Board’s views have not been sought as the issue relates to the provision of core infrastructure which is outside the scope of the Community Board.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Māori will be included as part of the community consultation process with particular regard to environmental impacts.
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).	Hihi community, ratepayers and local iwi/hapu will be included in the community consultation process.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Financial provision included within the LTP 2018-2028 has been identified as insufficient. Revised financial provision of $6m has been included in the draft LTP 2021-2031 for delivery of the capital works in financial years 2022 and 2023. Final costings would be determined in the detailed design phase. The rating impact of this is therefore contained within the rates movements of the LTP 21-31.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.