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

Rachel Smith

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)	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties in 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 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 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.
	112 Commerce Street Holdings Ltd	Owner of commercial property in Commerce Street Kaitaia.
	Foy Property Management Ltd	Owner of company that manages properties owned by Foy Farms Rentals and Flick Family Trust.
	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
	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
Rachel Smith	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust.	Trustee.
	Mid North Family Support.	Trustee.
	Property Owner.	Kerikeri.
	Friends who work at Far North District Council.
	Kerikeri Cruising Club.	Subscription Member and Treasurer.
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner.	Kerikeri.
	Friends who work at Far North District Council.
	Kerikeri Cruising Club.	Subscription Member.
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
	Town and General Groundcare Limited	Director, Shareholder
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

5 May 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Infrastructure Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Wednesday, 24 March 2021 AT 9.30 am

PRESENT: Mayor John Carter (via Microsoft TEAM’s), Cr Dave Collard, Cr Rachel Smith, Cr John Vujcich, Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson Mike Edmonds, Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson Adele Gardner

IN ATTENDANCE:

STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke (Chief Executive Officer), 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), Jamie Dyhrberg (General Manager Corporate Services - Acting)

1 Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Member Smith opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Resolution 2021/5

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That apologies from Cr Felicity Foy, Deputy Mayor Ann Court and Cr Kelly Stratford be received and accepted.

Carried

Appointment of Chairperson

Resolution 2021/6

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Infrastructure Committee agree to Councillor Rachel Smith appointed as Chair for this meeting in the absence of Cr Felicity Foy and Deputy Mayor Court.

Carried

3 Deputation

Carmen Zielinski spoke to the Committee in regards to Item 5.1 - Kaikohe Waste Water Treatment Plant - Access Safety Assessment and Action Report.

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 2021-03-24 Tabled Document Photos of Trees provided by Carmen

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A3110047, pages 14 - 18 refers.

Resolution 2021/7

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson Adele Gardner

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

Carried

5 Reports

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

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3111463, pages 19 - 43 refers.

motion

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

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.

Amendment

Moved: Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson Mike Edmonds

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

d) approve the payment of $30.00 to Carmen Zielinski for her costs and $70 an hour for ongoing time in relation to the refund of $30.00.

CARRIED

Against: Cr Rachel Smith

Resolution 2021/8

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

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, Kaikohe.

b) approve the removal of all the 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.

d) approve the payment of $30.00 to Carmen Zielinski for her costs and $70 an hour for ongoing time in relation to the refund of $30.00.

Carried

Note: The Infrastructure Committee members are disappointed that this issue was not addressed in a timely manner.

Note: The Infrastructure Committee request that the Committee are provided with a timeline for the work to be undertaken and request a report be provided back to the Committee on the final costs for this project and the income generated.

5.2 Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Works Business Case

Agenda item 5.2 document number A3110125, pages 44 - 50 refers.

Resolution 2021/9

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

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.

Carried

6 Information Reports

6.1 Infrastructure and Asset Management (IAM) Monthly Business report for January 2021

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3111480, pages 51 - 236 refers.

Resolution 2021/10

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Infrastructure and Asset Management (IAM) Monthly Business report for January 2021.

Carried

7 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Member Smith closed the meeting with a karakia.

8 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 10.48 am.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Infrastructure Committee meeting to be held on 5 May 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

5 May 2021

5 Reports

5.1 Economic and Practicability Assessment for Disposal of Treated Wastewater to Land from Kaikohe and Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plants

File Number: A3155862

Author: Jaye Michalick, Senior Three Waters Planner

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek a decision from Council, via the Infrastructure Committee, regarding the economic viability of disposing treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) to land.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The resource consents that authorise discharge of treated wastewater (to water) from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) both expire on 30 November 2021. Replacement resource consent applications must be lodged with Northland Regional Council (NRC) prior to 31 August 2021.

· The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland sets out that an application for resource consent to discharge municipal wastewater to water will generally not be granted unless a discharge to land has been found, among other things, to not be economically or practicably viable.

· This report seeks a decision from Council regarding the economic viability of disposing treated wastewater to land. This report:

o Demonstrates, based on a high-level assessment, that disposal of treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP sites (the subject WWTP sites) to land is considered practicably viable.

o Discusses the cost estimate of $17.1M (-35% to +50%) to establish a wastewater to land disposal scheme for the community of Kaikohe, and discusses cost estimates to upgrade the existing WWTPs at Kaikohe ($7.28M) and Kaitāia ($5.27M).

o Combines the total cost estimates for each community ($24.38M for Kaikohe and $22.37M) to consider the rating impact of implementing wastewater to land disposal schemes, including upgrading the WWTPs, on the communities of Kaikohe and Kaitāia.

o Discusses the cost estimates informing this report, including that the level and cost of WWTP upgrades will be influenced by the disposal options progressed (i.e. to land or to water or a mix of both).

o Discusses rates affordability in the Far North, as analysed by Business and Economic Research Ltd (BERL).

o Finds that, in support of obtaining replacement discharge resource consents for the subject WWTP sites, disposal of treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP sites to land is not considered to be economically viable.

o Requests that Council decides whether the estimated land disposal costs are considered economically viable within the context of Council’s purpose under the Local Government Act 2002 to provide for the wellbeing of its communities.

· Disposal of treated wastewater to land is recognised as an option that Far North communities are likely to want considered in more detail. Staff propose that such investigations are undertaken at a district wide level, carried out as part of future Long Term Plan (LTP) process(es).

· The implications resulting from the recommendations contained in this report are also discussed.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee recommend to Council that:

a) the option of disposing treated wastewater from the Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant to land is not pursued as part of the application to replace the resource consent authorising discharge of contaminants from the Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant on the basis that the costs associated with that activity are not economically viable; and,

b) the option of disposing treated wastewater from the Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plant to land is not pursued as part of the application to replace the resource consent authorising discharge of contaminants from the Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plant on the basis that the costs associated with that activity are not economically viable.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Resource consents held by FNDC authorising the discharge of treated wastewater to water from the subject WWTP sites expire on 30 November 2021.

Operative policy D.4.3. of the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (PRP) sets out that an application to discharge treated wastewater to water will generally not be granted unless a discharge to land has been considered and found to be not economically or practicably viable.

Staff have undertaken desktop assessments to determine the practicable viability of disposing treated wastewater to land for the subject WWTP sites, finding that the activity is considered practicably viable. A high-level estimate of costs to establish a land disposal scheme for the Kaikohe WWTP has also been prepared by external consultants, and the estimated costs are significant at $17.1M, with an accuracy range of between -35% and +50% (between $11.12M and $25.65M).

In accordance with Policy D.4.3 of the PRP, for staff to proceed with an application for resource consent to discharge treated wastewater to water, the application must demonstrate that land disposal has been considered and found to be either practicably or economically unviable. The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Infrastructure Committee that supports the economic and practicable viability findings discussed in this report. For the purpose of this determination, “economic viability” should be read within the context of Council’s purpose under the Local Government Act 2002; that is: to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. The recommendation is being sought to support the resource consent applications for the subject WWTPs, due to be lodged in August 2021, and it should be noted that this recommendation does not rule out consideration of wastewater disposal to land options as part of future Long-Term Plans (LTP).

The high-level cost estimates for establishing a land disposal scheme for Kaikohe have been used to estimate the rating impact of establishing disposal to land schemes for the communities of both Kaitāia and Kaikohe, and the BERL report issued in July 2020 titled Rates Affordability in the Far North has been used to frame considerations regarding the affordability of establishing disposal to land schemes for those two communities.

To reduce the margin of error associated with the high-level estimate of costs (between -35% and +50%), disposal to land options will need to be progressed to Preliminary Design stage, resulting in a reduced margin of error between -15% and +20%. An initial price indication of approximately $150,000 per WWTP has been obtained by Beca, to progress disposal to land investigations to preliminary design stage. A decision on whether to progress with that work will be dependent on Council’s decision as to the economic viability of the high-level costs presented in this report.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

a) Assessment of practicable viability to dispose treated wastewater to land from the subject WWTP sites

Desktop assessments of land within a 10km radius of each of the subject WWTP sites identified numerous potential land disposal sites for Kaitāia and Kaikohe. These sites were then scored and ranked using multi criteria analysis (MCA) to arrive at a shortlist of potentially suitable land disposal sites for each WWTP. Based on these findings, land disposal is considered practicable for Kaikohe and Kaitāia. The assessments were peer-reviewed by Beca engineering staff. The details of the investigation work are provided in the reports titled Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Disposal Options Assessment (December 2020), and Kaitāia Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Disposal Options Assessment (March 2021), attached as Attachments 1 and 2.

The site within 10km of the Kaikohe WWTP that achieved the highest score is owned by Far North Holdings Ltd (FNHL), intended for development with water storage and an industrial park, therefore it is considered unlikely that this site would be made available to FNDC for the purpose of land disposal. The desktop assessments were conducted to rank numerous potential sites, and therefore if a high-ranking site is found to be unsuitable for any reason, the next highest ranked site can be investigated.

b) High-level cost estimate and rating impact to establish land disposal schemes for the communities of Kaikohe and Kaitāia

The high-level cost estimate to establish disposal of treated wastewater to land for the community of Kaikohe is approximately $17.1M, with an accuracy range of between -35% and +50% (between $11.12M and $25.65M). The estimate is indicative only, based off a series of high-level assumptions and no specific land sites have been identified for this economic analysis. A copy of the cost estimate is attached to this report as Attachment 3.

Using the high-level cost estimate for Kaikohe, staff have estimated the rating impact of establishing disposal to land schemes for each of the subject WWTP sites. Three separate rating impact options have been prepared for each WWTP, using the cost estimate value, and the upper and lower margin of error cost values. A copy of each rating impact assessment for the subject WWTP sites is attached to this report as Attachments 4 and 5. Given the high-level nature of the cost estimate prepared for Kaikohe (which is not site-specific), and the relative similarities between the subject WWTP sites, staff consider that there are enough similarities between the sites to use the cost estimate established for land disposal at Kaikohe to also estimate the rating impact of establishing land disposal for the community of Kaitāia.

Consultants Harrison Grierson Ltd (H&G) were engaged in 2020 to assess upgrade options for each WWTP, to support the replacement resource consent applications that are anticipated to result in resource consents that authorise discharge of wastewater to water, and which include conditions requiring higher treated effluent quality than currently being discharged from both WWTP. H&G developed a short list of upgrade options, which were workshopped with staff via an MCA process to arrive at a preferred upgrade option for each WWTP. High level costs were also developed for each preferred WWTP upgrade option (Kaikohe total upgrade cost of $7.28M and Kaitāia total upgrade cost of $5.27M). Details for the upgrade options assessments, and costs, for the Kaitāia and Kaikohe WWTP sites are set out in the reports titled Kaikohe WWTP Options Assessment (November 2020), and Kaitāia WWTP Options Assessment (November 2020), attached to this report as Attachments 6 and 7. The preferred options have been incorporated into the 2021-2031 LTP, but have not yet been consulted on as part of the resource consent application process, therefore the preferred option for each site is currently still considered a draft option.

To enable establishment of land disposal schemes for the Kaitāia and Kaikohe WWTP sites, upgrades to each WWTP are also required, however, the extent to which upgrades are required is dependent on the design of a land disposal scheme, and there is the potential to require only minimal WWTP upgrades if large areas of land can be obtained to result in discharge to water only being required for short time periods, or not at all (i.e. 100% land disposal).
For the purpose of this report, staff have assumed that land disposal will not be achieved 100% of the time and therefore assumed the WWTP sites will need to be upgraded to achieve effluent discharge quality that is consistent with a discharge to water consent. However, if further investigations into land disposal are carried out, the WWTP upgrade costs could be significantly lower (perhaps as much as 50% in the case of Kaikohe) if we can achieve disposal to land 100% of the time. The WWTP upgrade component of the rating impact may therefore be an overestimate.

Table 1 sets out the estimated total rating impact of upgrading the existing Kaikohe WWTP using the H&G preferred option and establishing a disposal to land scheme for the community of Kaikohe (using the estimated value of $17.1M). Table 2 sets out the estimated total rating impact for the same activities in the Kaitāia community. Expenditure has been assumed to occur in financial years 3 (WWTP upgrade) and 4 (establish land disposal schemes), with rating impacts commencing in the following years (4 and 5). Copies of the rating impact assessment to upgrade each WWTP site are attached to this report as Attachments 8 and 9.

Table 1: Total estimated targeted rating impact of WWTP disposal to land activities in Kaikohe:

Option	FY24/25 (Y4)	FY25/26 (Y5)	FY26/27 (Y6)	FY27/28 (Y7)	FY28/29 (Y8)	FY29/30 (Y9)	FY30/31 (Y10)
Land Disposal	-	$404.39	$397.80	$391.20	$384.61	$378.02	$371.43
WWTP Upgrade	$256.00	$253.35	$250.71	$248.06	$245.42	$242.77	$240.13
Total	$256.00	$657.74	$648.51	$639.26	$630.03	$620.79	$611.56

Table 2: Total estimated targeted rating impact of WWTP disposal to land activities in Kaitāia:

Option	FY24/25 (Y4)	FY25/26 (Y5)	FY26/27 (Y6)	FY27/28 (Y7)	FY28/29 (Y8)	FY29/30 (Y9)	FY30/31 (Y10)
Land Disposal	-	$281.69	$277.10	$272.51	$267.92	$263.33	$258.74
WWTP Upgrade	$103.50	$102.33	$101.16	$99.99	$98.82	$97.65	$96.48
Total	$103.50	$384.02	$378.26	$372.50	$366.74	$360.98	$355.22

Should the option of establishing disposal of treated wastewater to land schemes be pursued for either community, the total value of the estimated rating impact of WWTP disposal to land activities would be added to the current adopted connected rates for the relevant community. Table 3 sets out the current adopted connect rates for FY20/21 in Kaitāia and Kaikohe.

Table 3: Adopted WWTP Connected Rates for Kaitāia and Kaikohe FY 2020/2021

Community	WWTP Connected Rate FY 20/21
Kaikohe	$148.69
Kaitāia	$189.43

Staff acknowledge that Council is giving consideration to the options of a district wide rating scheme for water and wastewater as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. This decision has not yet been taken, but to enable Council to understand the rating impact under a possible district wide rating scheme, the district wide rating impact of upgrading each WWTP and establishing land disposal for the communities of Kaitāia and Kaikohe has also been calculated, using the same high level costs used for calculating the targeted rating impacts set out above. The estimated district wide rating impacts are set out in Tables 4 and 5. Copies of the district wide rating impact assessment for each subject WWTP site are attached to this report as Attachment 10 and 11.

Table 4: Total estimated district wide rating impact of WWTP disposal to land activities in Kaikohe:

Option	FY24/25 (Y4)	FY25/26 (Y5)	FY26/27 (Y6)	FY27/28 (Y7)	FY28/29 (Y8)	FY29/30 (Y9)	FY30/31 (Y10)
Land Disposal	-	$70.89	$69.74	$68.58	$67.42	$66.27	$65.11
WWTP Upgrade	$44.88	$44.41	$43.95	$43.94	$43.02	$42.56	$42.10
Total	$44.88	$115.30	$113.69	$112.52	$110.44	$108.83	$107.21

Table 5: Total estimated district wide rating impact of WWTP disposal to land activities in Kaitāia:

Option	FY24/25 (Y4)	FY25/26 (Y5)	FY26/27 (Y6)	FY27/28 (Y7)	FY28/29 (Y8)	FY29/30 (Y9)	FY30/31 (Y10)
Land Disposal	-	$70.89	$69.74	$68.58	$67.42	$66.27	$65.11
WWTP Upgrade	$26.05	$25.75	$25.46	$25.16	$24.87	$24.57	$24.28
Total	$26.05	96.64	$95.20	$93.74	$92.29	$90.84	$89.39

c) Consideration of rates affordability

The BERL report issued in July 2020 titled Rates Affordability in the Far North (the BERL Report), establishes that affordability, in the context of rates has two aspects:

i) the cost relative to income (and wealth);

ii) the ability of ratepayers to earn greater income in the future from the spending of rates, e.g. investment in infrastructure. It also sets out an approximate benchmark for affordability, whereby affordability concerns will arise where rates exceed 5% of gross household income.

The BERL report assesses rates affordability at three levels: district wide level, ward level (Te Hiku, Bay of Islands and Kaikohe-Hokianga), and at several specified smaller areas including Kaitāia and Kaikohe. Within the BERL report, rates affordability is assessed by

i. establishing an average lower quartile, average median, and average upper quartile total rates payable value at district level, ward level, and smaller area level (the total includes both NRC and FNDC rates)

ii. determining an average gross household income for eight typical household types also defined at district, ward, and smaller area level, and 3) calculating the cost of total rates as a percentage of the gross income for each household type for the lower quartile, median and upper quartile average total rates values. The results of the affordability assessments are depicted in Tables 16 and 17 (Kaikohe), and Tables 20 and 21 (Kaitāia) of the BERL report. In both communities, the current estimated total cost of rates exceeds 5% in 6 out of 8 typical households. Taking into account the findings of the BERL report, it is assumed that 6 out of 8 typical households currently experience the issue of rates affordability in Kaikohe and Kaitāia. A copy of the BERL report is attached to this report as Attachment 12.

The BERL report establishes that rates in Kaikohe and Kaitāia are already predominantly unaffordable. Taking this into account, staff do not consider land disposal to be affordable, and therefore currently not economically viable.

d) Implications

Option 1 (preferred option) - Determining that disposal of treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP sites to land is not pursued as part of the replacement resource consent applications

Should Council decide that disposal of treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP sites to land is not economically viable in the context of the required replacement resource consent applications, then this decision will be used to demonstrate to NRC that (as per the requirement of Policy D.4.3.2) the economic viability of land disposal has been sufficiently considered, and that a discharge of treated wastewater to land has been found to be practicably viable, but not economically viable. It is anticipated that this will result in a resource consent authorising discharge to water being approved for the subject WWTP sites, subject to conditions requiring a substantive upgrade to the treatment plants.

This outcome does not prevent FNDC from continuing to investigate the option of wastewater disposal to land and a proposed method to undertake such investigations is outlined below.

Option 2 - Deferring a decision on the economic viability of land disposal from the Kaitāia and Kaikohe wastewater treatment plants.

Should Council decide to defer a decision on the economic viability of land disposal, staff will still be required to lodge applications with NRC for replacement resource consents authorising discharge of treated wastewater to water prior to 31 August 2021. These applications would include the assessments carried out to date on disposal to land feasibility and costs but will be absent a council decision in respect of the economic viability of the land disposal. The consequence of not including a council decision on the matter is that staff will be required to make a determination on the matter and present this in the application. A determination by staff may not carry sufficient weight to be accepted either by the community or NRC.

Option 3 - Deciding that discharge to land is economically viable

A decision that disposal to land is economically viable will require a staged consenting process. Staff will be required to lodge a consent application for discharge to water to cover the ongoing discharge whilst the site selection, land purchase, consenting, design, delivery and LTP requirements are covered. It can be expected that a short-term consent would not be inconsistent with Policy D.4.3 because it can be demonstrated that it is not practicably viable to deliver a land disposal scheme within the time constraints associated with the above. An upgrade to the treatment plant is likely to be required to meet the discharge standards set out within the PRP despite the temporary nature of the resource consent.

e) Development of a long-term district wide strategic approach for investigating treated wastewater disposal to land options

While this report recommends that wastewater disposal to land is considered not economically viable in the context of the resource consent applications that must be submitted to NRC later this year, staff propose that the option of disposing treated wastewater to land should be methodically investigated at a district wide level. Such investigations are recommended to consider the following: disposal to land methods; potentially suitable sites for land disposal (including where possible combining flows, such as from Kaitāia and Ahipara, to a single site); analysis of potential end-use options for the disposal sites (such as cut and carry bales, or as disposal sites for end-use sludge generated by WWTPs across the district and processed to an acceptable quality prior to disposal); costs associated with establishing land disposal schemes (based on preliminary design level information); potential revenue streams from end-use scenarios; and prioritisation across the Far North’s WWTP sites to determine the order in which WWTP site(s) are investigated for land disposal viability.

f) Relevant Legislation and/or Policies

Section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) establishes that discharge of contaminants into the environment must be either expressly allowed in a regulation or regional plan or approved by a resource consent. FNDC must hold resource consent for discharge of treated wastewater (to land or water) for each WWTP.

Staff are currently preparing resource consent applications to renew discharge of treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP’s. In accordance with s124 of the RMA, these applications will need to be lodged no later than 31 August 2021, in order for FNDC to be allowed by NRC to continue to operate under the current discharge consents, until a decision is made on each renewal application.

Policy D.4.3.2) of the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (which is not subject to appeals and is therefore operative), sets out that an application for resource consent to discharge municipal wastewater to water will generally not be granted unless a discharge to land has been found to not be economically or practicably viable.

g) Significance and Engagement

Establishing a wastewater disposal to land scheme for a community is identified as a significant decision under FNDC’s current and proposed Significance and Engagement Policies (2018 and 2021). Specific consultation for any proposed land disposal scheme proposal is recommended via future LTP engagement processes.

h) Implications for Māori

A decision to not pursue the option of disposing treated wastewater from the Kaikohe and Kaitāia WWTP sites to land will have implications for Māori. Specifically, the concept of discharging treated wastewater to water is generally considered to be culturally offensive and is typically opposed by tangāta whenua. Staff are commencing engagement with tangata whenua and it is expected that the effects (on tangata whenua) will be further articulated by way of a CIA or similar assessment approach.

It is also anticipated that mana whenua engagement will occur where appropriate as part of any future land disposal scheme investigations, however the level of engagement would need to be determined at such time as suitable sites are being investigated in greater detail.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Staff acknowledged that disposal of treated wastewater to land may be a long-term goal for Council because it generally results in better environmental and cultural outcomes, and with the potential for some cost recovery through the establishment of appropriate end-use practices. However, costs and rating impacts associated with establishing disposal to land schemes are significant. A long-term strategic approach to delivering land disposal at a district wide level is considered necessary to attempt to achieve the objective of land disposal at the lowest possible cost to the district. Implementing disposal to land schemes across a district in an ad-hoc manner, which is dictated not by a district wide strategy, but instead by the priority in which resource consents expire, has the potential for lost opportunities that would otherwise be expected to result from a coordinated and methodical district wide consideration of the activity.

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

Currently there are no funds allocated for the establishment of land disposal schemes for any of FNDCs WWTP sites.

Unallocated budget of approximately $330,000 is necessary to fund Preliminary Design stage wastewater disposal to land for the communities of Kaitāia and Kaikohe. Funds and resources have not been allocated for the development of a district wide disposal to land strategy.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Kaikohe Waste Water Treatement Plant Land Disposal Report - A3060982 (under separate cover)

2. Kaitāia Waste Water Treatment Plant Land Disposal Report - A3134756 (under separate cover)

3. FNDC Kaikohe Waste Water Treatment Plant Land Disposal Cost Estimate - A3060290 ⇩

4. Kaikohe Disposal to Land Rating Impact - A3134831 ⇩

5. Kaitāia Disposal to Land Rating Impact - A3134830 ⇩

6. HG Final Kaikohe Waste Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Options Report - A2975696 (under separate cover)

7. HG Final Kaitāia Waste Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Options Report - A2975695 (under separate cover)

8. Kaikohe Waste Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Rating Impact - A3134837 ⇩

9. Kaitāia Waste Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Rating Impact - A3134839 ⇩

10. Kaikohe Disposal to Land District Wide Rating Impact - A3134836 ⇩

11. Kaitāia Disposal to Land District Wide Rating Impact - A3134838 ⇩

12. Far North Rates Affordability Report - A3002966 (under separate cover)

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	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	Deciding that it is economically viable to establish wastewater disposal to land schemes for the communities of Kaitāia and Kaikohe has a high level of significance, which meets a number of criteria (for high significance) set out in the policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Resource Management Act requires FNDC to hold resource consent to discharge contaminants into the environment. Replacement resource consents are being sought which include proposed upgrades to the WWTP to achieve a higher quality effluent discharge. This approach is viewed as more affordable than establishing disposal to land schemes for the subject communities and is considered consistent with the community outcome of: Prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy.
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 of establishing disposal to land schemes is considered to be a district wide issue, which has been focused via this report on the communities of Kaitāia and Kaikohe, as a result of the need to replace discharge resource consents for these communities.
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.	A decision that land disposal is not economically viable will have implications for Māori, being the continued discharge of treated effluent to water. Consultation with tangata whenua regarding this matter is currently being commenced, to enable tangata whenua to contribute to the resource consent application decision making process.
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).	All rate payers that are connected to, or have the ability to connect to, a public wastewater scheme will be affected by this matter. Consideration of the economic impact of establishing land disposal schemes has been considered via the rating impact of the activity.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	A decision that finds the activity (of land disposal) to be economically viable will have significant financial implications, which may in turn require decisions by Council to transfer funding from other areas within the organisation, or otherwise fund establishment of land disposal schemes. No budgetary provisions have yet been made either to establish land disposal schemes, or to undertake further investigation to preliminary design stage for either community.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.