Te Kaunihera o Tai Tokerau ki te Raki
AGENDA
Infrastructure Committee Meeting
Wednesday, 4 May 2022
Time: |
9:30 am |
Location: |
Council Chamber Memorial Avenue Kaikohe |
Membership:
Chairperson Felicity Foy
Mayor John Carter
Deputy Mayor Ann Court
Cr Dave Collard
Cr Rachel Smith
Cr Kelly Stratford
Cr John Vujcich
Member Adele Gardner
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 |
Rachel Smith |
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 e.g 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
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 bookkeeping, 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 |
|
He Puna Aroha Putea Whakapapa |
Trustee |
May be perceived conflicts |
Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds |
|
Kawakawa Returned Services Association |
Member |
May be perceived conflicts |
Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds |
|
Whangaroa Returned Services Association |
Member |
May be perceived conflicts |
Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds |
|
National Emergency Management Advisor Committee |
Member |
|
Case by case basis |
|
Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi |
Tribal affiliate member |
As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations |
Declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one |
|
Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāti Hine |
Tribal affiliate member |
Could have a perceived conflict of interest |
Declare a perceived conflict should I determine there is a conflict |
|
Kawakawa Business and Community Association |
Member |
|
Will declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one |
|
Kelly Stratford - Partner |
Chef and Barista |
Opua Store |
None perceived |
|
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 |
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 |
4 May 2022 |
Infrastructure Committee Meeting
will be held in the Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe on:
Wednesday 4 May 2022 at 9:30 am
Te Paeroa Mahi / Order of Business
1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer
2 Nga Whakapāha Me Ngā Pānga Mema / Apologies and Declarations of Interest
4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
5.1 Boat Ramp Study Delivery Plan
6.1 Bridge Programme, Strategy & Condition Update
6.2 Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant
6.4 Infrastructure and Asset Management (IAM) Monthly Business Report for February 2022
6.5 FNDC Submissions to Taumata Arowai Proposed Drinking Water Standards and Rules
6.6 Infrastructure Committee Action Sheet Update April 2022
7 Te Wāhanga Tūmataiti / Public Excluded
7.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded.
7.2 Far North Cycle Trail Route Development
8 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer
6 Te Kapinga Hui / Meeting Close
2 Nga Whakapāha Me Ngā Pānga Mema / Apologies and Declarations of Interest
Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Committee and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.
If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Democracy Support (preferably before the meeting).
It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
3 Te Tono Kōrero / Deputation
No requests for deputations were received at the time of the Agenda going to print.
4 May 2022 |
4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
File Number: A3670131
Author: Rhonda-May Whiu, Democracy Advisor
Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services
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.
That the Infrastructure Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 23 March 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record. |
1) Background
Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.
2) Discussion and Options
The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.
Reason for the recommendation
The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.
1. 2022-03-23 Infrastructure Committee Minutes - A3641051 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
This 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. |
4 May 2022 |
5.1 Boat Ramp Study Delivery Plan
File Number: A3666234
Author: David Clamp, Manager - Major and Recovery Projects
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report
· To present a Delivery Plan for the recommendations outlined in the FNDC Boat Ramp Study as requested by the FNDC Infrastructure Committee at its meeting on 5th May 2021;
· To seek approval for $ 25,000 of operational expenditure in the Annual Plan for FY2023/2024 for an engineering feasibility study at Russell car park and for supporting the scoping and;
· To seek approval for $ 34,650 capital expenditure for 2023/2024 for FNDC local share for a TIF funding application for boat ramp safety guides
· To recommend to Council the approval of $5m annually for strategic property purchases related to maritime infrastructure to be included in the capital programme commencing 2022/2023.
WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary
A successful application was made to the MBIE Funding Board to fund a feasibility study to determine solutions for increasing boat trailer parking capacity at boat-ramps across the district to meet demand and mitigate environmental safety and local community issues.
The study was carried out, being completed in March 2021 and received by the FNDC Infrastructure Committee at its meeting on 5th May 2021. At that meeting Resolution 2021/14 was passed, requiring a Delivery Plan to be prepared for consideration by the Infrastructure Committee.
The delivery plan final draft was delayed in order to allow for the MBIE decision on the future of the Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF) to be released as TIF funding is integral to the delivery plan. MBIE have since confirmed the continuation of the program.
In the interim progress has been made on the following recommendations:
· Boat ramp information available online via the FNDC website has been updated and now includes a comprehensive information package for each ramp.
· Proposed TIF Round 6 applications were presented to the FNDC Infrastructure Committee in March 2022 including:
§ Waipapa Landing carpark upgrade (Approved)
§ Rangiputa boat trailer parking enhancement (Approved)
§ Installation of boat ramp safety guides (Not Approved)
· TIF Round 6 applications have been submitted to MBIE for the fourt approved items including Waipapa Landing carpark upgrade and Rangiputa boat trailer parking enhancement. A decision from MBIE is anticipated in May 2022.
That the Infrastructure Committee: a) Receives the report “Boat Ramp Study Delivery Plan” dated January 2022 (Revised March 2022). b) Approves $ 25,000 of operational expenditure for 2023/2024 for an engineering feasibility study at Russell car park and for supporting the scoping and costing of Floating Jetties c) Approves $ 34,650 capital expenditure for 2023/2024 for FNDC local share for a future TIF funding application for boat ramp safety guides d) Recommends to Council that the sum of $5m annually to be approved for strategic property purchases related to maritime infrastructure to be included in the capital programme commencing 2022/2023.
|
1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background
A successful application was made to the MBIE Funding Board to fund a feasibility study to determine solutions for increasing boat trailer parking capacity at boat-ramps across the district to meet demand and mitigate environmental safety and local community issues.
The scope of the study was to:
1. Identify where trailer-boat parking does not meet current or future demand.
2. Identify the root cause of boat-ramp trailer parking capacity issues.
3. Look at solutions for upgrading/expanding existing parking and boat launching facilities.
4. Consideration for implementing new facilities.
The study was carried out, being completed in March 2021 and received by the FNDC Infrastructure Committee at its meeting on 5th May 2021. At that meeting Resolution 2021/14 was passed, requiring a Delivery Plan to be prepared for consideration by the Infrastructure Committee.
2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options
The document will be used to support infrastructure planning and budget planning for implementation of the Boat Ramp study recommendations.
Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation
To provide Elected Members with details of the boat ramp study delivery plan and to seek approval for the next steps in the implementation of recommendations. To ensure that the TIF local share funding is available to support recommended bids and operational funding is budgeted to enable engineering feasibility to develop future bids.
3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Due to the nature of the projects and their locations operational funding is required for engineering feasibility/scoping to finalise options at Russell car park and costings and consenting for floating jetties. Capital budget is required to deliver the ramp safety guides through a TIF project application.
· Project |
· Detail |
· Operational Budget |
· Capital Budget |
· FY |
· Russell Car Park |
· Engineering feasibility study and costing, Iwi consultation |
· $ 20,000 |
· $ 0 |
· 23/24 |
· Floating Jetties |
· Be scoped for TIF consideration in financial years 23/24 and 24/25 subject to consent and cost estimates |
· $ 5,000 |
· $ 0 |
· 23/24 |
· Ramp Guides |
· TIF Application FY23/24 |
· |
· $ 34,650 |
· 23/24 |
· |
· $ 25,000 |
· $ 34,650 |
· 23/24 |
Additionally, this report seeks approval for an annual capital budget of $5m to support strategic property purchases related to maritime infrastructure.
1. Boat Ramp Study Delivery Plan - Revised March 22 - A3658117 ⇩
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 |
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. |
N/A |
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. |
Local significance for individual projects – District wide significance for programme. |
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. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi. |
Not yet identified. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities). |
N/A |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
As detailed in report. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |
4 May 2022 |
6.1 Bridge Programme, Strategy & Condition Update
File Number: A3649891
Author: Calvin Thomas, General Manager - Northland Transportation Alliance
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this paper is to provide Council with an update on the three-year 2021-24 bridge programme and a summary of the bridge strategy.
WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY
This report (Attachment 1) presents progress on various work components relating to the Bridge structures:
· Bridge inspections
· Scour Protection Works
· General Bridge Repairs
· Bridge Structure Component Replacement
· Bridge Renewals
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Bridge Programme, Strategy & Condition Update.
|
tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background
As per report (Attachment 1).
MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps
The status or progress on each of the various work components relating to the Bridge structures is given in the report (Attachment 1).
PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Nil
1. NTA - FNDC Bridge Update - April 2022 - A3666711 ⇩
2. FNDC Bridging Programme Dec 2021 - 215 - A3666710 ⇩
3. FNDC Bridging Programme Dec 2021 - 216 - A3666712 ⇩
4. 21-22 Structures PVEoL Analysis - Kahikatoa M35 (APPROVED) - A3666709 ⇩
5. 21-22 Structures PVEoL Analysis - Puhata Rd D50 (APPROVED) - A3666713 ⇩
6. 21-22 Structures PVEoL Analysis - Kaitaia-Awaroa D41 (APPROVED) - A3666714 ⇩
4 May 2022 |
6.2 Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant
File Number: A3660381
Author: Mary Moore, Business Case Specialist
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report
To provide the Infrastructure Committee with an update as to the actions taken and proposed next steps to advance the capital renewals project to upgrade the Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant.
WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY
As directed by Council staff have consulted with hapū and community on the most sustainable and affordable future focused solutions. Further, staff have commissioned technical investigations to better inform decisions about the suitability of private wastewater treatment, geotechnical condition assessment of the wetlands, infiltration and inflow within the network, structural condition assessment of the aeration tank, disposal to land, and short-term and long-term treatment plant upgrade options.
This report summarises the results of these investigations and suggests next steps for implementing a solution that mitigates known risk and progresses towards a long-term solution while maintaining current levels of service.
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant.
|
tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background
A detailed business case for the replacement of the Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant was presented to the 24 March 2021 Infrastructure Committee meeting which resolved:
The 8 April 2021 Council meeting received the report and resolved:
Council has received periodic updates on progress made towards items b) and c) via the Council Action Sheet.
This information report provides an update on risk, engagement and affordability as well as a comparison of the short term and long-term recommendations.
MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps
Engagement with mana whenua and the Hihi community has been positive, and there is general agreement about location, treatment and the wetlands.
Consultation with hapū for the renewal of the treatment plant discharge consent has commenced with technical and cultural inductions scheduled to occur in April 2022. Terms of Engagement for the consent and treatment plant upgrade are to be drafted and agreed between hapū and Council.
Engagement with the Hihi community has resulted in the community advising that a solution costing $6m is unaffordable to them. There has been no general agreement as to what, if any, capital rate increase would be affordable to this community based on the current rating approach.
Engagement with the Hihi community has largely been via the Ratepayers Association which has been a key representative body over the years. While information has been shared with this body, several recent reports and recommendations have not yet been shared after the Association lodged a review request with the Auditor General in November 2021.
At the same time as notification of the request being lodged with the Auditor General was received, a structural condition assessment of the aeration tank was successfully completed. This inspection provides evidence that: the condition of the tank has deteriorated since the last assessment in November 2019; the risk of failure of this tank remains high but not critical; and supports undertaking immediate preventative works also outlined in the Short-term Options report (Sept 2021).
The immediate preventative works are only designed to mitigate the existing risk of failure that will allow additional time to implement further short or long-term options that might be agreed.
Below is a summary of the assessment findings for immediate repair:
The Short-term Options report estimates the cost of the immediate preventative work at $562k, with an estimated construction timeframe of 4 weeks. This work is unbudgeted and, as the work is temporary to allow time for the implementation of approved short/long-term options, are unlikely to be capitalisable.
The report identifies several short-term options that reflect replacement of the aeration tank only. These options have similar estimated construction timeframe (up to 6 months) and vary based on tank material – concrete, plastic, steel – and available sizing. High level costings, that only estimate the cost of supply, delivery and installation of tanks, range from $250k to $470k. These estimated costs do not reflect whole of life costs and any additional capital costs of demolition, potential new fittings/infrastructure, project costs and operational costs are not included.
While these short-term options would result in assets with lives of 10-15 years, none of these options would be integrated into any long-term option. The impact of this is that the full capital cost of any one of these options would only be spread over this 10-15 year period or less if a long-term option is constructed within this timeframe.
The report does identify a modular stainless steel tank option, suitable for either Activated Sludge Plant (ASP) or Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) treatment options, which can be relocated and therefore considered a long-term option. This option has an estimated (supply/delivery/installation only) cost of $550k, a comparable construction period of up to 6 months, and would result in an asset with a useful life of about 40 years. This is recommended as being the better, more affordable option that will meet the short-term needs of the community and provides a degree of flexibility leading into a long-term solution.
Long-term solutions for the upgrade of the treatment plant based on proposals considered since 2011 have been re-evaluated using a multi-criteria analysis with the following key criteria: environmental needs; whether the solution fits within the legal boundaries of the site; flexibility to meet future needs; cost; and ability to resolve known treatment issues. The following table summarises the result, along with concept costings for those options returning a positive score excluding “New plant, new location” which is excluded due to expected significant cost.
Determination of a long-term solution will require detailed design with full project costing. Renewal of the existing treatment plant discharge consent provides the opportunity to inform the full development of an affordable long-term solution. This solution is likely to be considered a programme of work rather than a single project, delivering a total replacement plant over a number of years, thereby minimising the rates impact in any one year.
Further information gathered to inform both short and long-term solutions was from an Infiltration and Inflow iTracker Investigation (I/I) during July and August 2021. The results of the monitoring identify that all the mini catchments show levels of surface water inflows (SWI) well above the threshold levels for intervention. The recommendations are to start inflow mitigation throughout the catchment moving from North to South. A further recommendation is to investigate and rectify the upstream surcharging of the pump station on Marchant Road. Once the SWI throughout the catchment is rectified then a further investigation can be conducted to better assess the possibility of ground water infiltration.
Additional reports commissioned consider (1) the option of private septic tank, and (2) a geotechnical appraisal of the wetlands. The outcome of these reports is that the catchment is not suitable for septic tanks while the wetlands require slope stabilisation works to arrest continued regression of the embankment and drainage improvements.
Consideration of engagement responses together with the various technical recommendations suggests that completion of the immediate preventative repairs, investigating and rectifying SWI, while designing, procuring and constructing a short-term solution is considered a sustainable, affordable, short-term mitigation that allows time to develop a long-term solution to meet technical, cultural and environmental requirements.
Next steps will be to:
· implement this short-term mitigation
· prepare a phased programme of work to deliver the full plan replacement over several years
PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Work has commenced on the renewal of the Treatment Plant discharge consent which expires in November 2022, for which the LTP budgetary provision of $205k remains unchanged.
Budgetary provision within the LTP 2021-31 for the upgrade of the entire Hihi Wastewater Treatment Plant totals $6m, timed $2.5m for FY21/22 and $3.5m for FY22/23. In conjunction with this, there is budgetary provision of $150k in FY21/22 and $55k in FY23/24 for the Resource Consent renewal noted above.
The immediate repairs recommended to mitigate the high risk of failure of the aeration tank would be unbudgeted operational expenditure, estimated at $562k. This option will not be exercised.
Instead, as the community has indicated the recommended upgrade works are not affordable, the LTP budgetary provision has been retimed to $1.5m in FY22/23 for the permanent replacement of the aeration tank only with $667k in FY23/24 for the design of the remainder of the new plant with that construction to commence in FY24/25.
This represents a significant reduction in the capital rating impact for Hihi ratepayers in the short-term, awaiting final design of a new plant, costings and construction.
Additional operational costs will be determined as each element of the programme of work is planned and established.
Nil
4 May 2022 |
File Number: A3664082
Author: Helen Ronaldson, Manager - Asset Management and Infrastructure
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report
To provide an update to the Infrastructure Committee of the planned and proposed activities on the topic of capacity and service area for each of the reticulated water and wastewater systems in the district.
In the Council meeting of 16 December 2021, a resolution was passed requesting a timeline of milestones be provided about latent capacity and area of benefit review for each of our wastewater and water treatment plants and reticulations in each township be provided by February 2022.
That information was provided by email to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee 11 February 2022. A subsequent request was received to have the information formally submitted to the Infrastructure Committee and this report fulfils that request.
WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY
Understanding a scheme’s capacity is the first step to understanding the ability of a scheme to service its area of benefit (AOB) (service area), and to inform any potential extension to that service area. To achieve a current and reliable understanding of the capacity of each scheme’s plant and reticulation systems in our district, several layers of activity and analysis are necessary.
To that end a Capacity Activity matrix was established in 2021 to ensure all elements were captured and those systems or locations of highest priority could be considered first. This matrix is included in the discussion section below with timings where activity is planned or underway.
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Capacity Modelling Update.
|
tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background
While much of the analysis can be done in-house, there is consultant resource needed for assistance with both the quantum of work and some of the technical aspects.
In March 2019, funding was awarded to Council from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund for feasibility projects around Paihia water and wastewater. Network models for both waters were established by consultants and completed and calibrated in late 2021.
In October 2020, Council was able to access a significant amount of funding for the establishment or update of network models across all three waters. Learnings from the Paihia model projects were leveraged in this project with a collaborative approach taken with a group of consultants to achieve as much modelling work as possible across the remaining networks. Internal resources have been trained on the structure and use of these models to ensure we now have inhouse capability for the continued use of these.
Internally progress has been and continues to be made within the Development Engineering team and the Infrastructure Planning team for the order of magnitude models (which in large part are expected to be superseded by the hydraulic models), demand forecasting, and network capacity analysis as hydraulic models become available. iTrackers will continue to be deployed as part of the condition assessment programme currently underway. Some capacity analysis is also available from treatment plant activity in recent years.
MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps
As noted above this is a multi-layered activity to fully understand the capacity of the systems within the 3Waters portfolio.
These layers include:
1. The development of a capacity network model of each of our water, wastewater and stormwater networks. This will preferably be calibrated hydraulic models
2. The analysis of projected growth for each of the networks. Updated population forecasts out to 2073 were received in March 2022 from Infometrics which will support this along with information regarding latent development capacity of land use zones in the proposed District Plan
3. Manipulation and analysis of each of the reticulation networks to identify current latent capacity and future demand – it is estimated that this will take approximately 3 months following receipt of the network model. Please note there is insufficient resource to run this element for all networks concurrently (realistically to get round all networks will total some 18 months and priorities will be applied)
4. Review a scheme’s capacity to service its area of benefit, suggest changes to the service area and/or recommend funding to increase capacity of the scheme, consult and publish – suggest a further six months and should be connected to an LTP process
5. Prepare a connections policy (could be different for different networks)
6. Develop a future investment profile for water and wastewater
As noted in the matrix, work on several of the elements is complete or underway. For each location as the capacity information becomes available the next stages of analysis and assessment can begin.
The priority of activity and capacity for completion will be assessed prior to June 2022. Funding options that become available will be made use of to expedite this work where possible.
PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Financial requirements for each activity will be managed through existing operating budgets or where funding options become available that could be applied for to expedite this work, that option will be explored.
1. Capacity Activity Matrix 310322 - A3666266 ⇩
4 May 2022 |
6.4 Infrastructure and Asset Management (IAM) Monthly Business Report for February 2022
File Number: A3664130
Author: Tania George, EA to GM - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report
To present a summary of Infrastructure and Asset Management activity and information items.
WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY
The Infrastructure and Asset Management Update provides an overview of Infrastructure and Asset Management activity for the period of February 2022.
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Infrastructure and Asset Management (IAM) Monthly Business Report for February 2022.
|
tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background
This report presents a range of performance and interest items focussed around Council Infrastructure.
MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps
This Business Report covers the month of February. Due to Committee report writing timescales, and the publishing of financial information, March’s report was not finalised at the time of writing.
However, detailed below are number of more current activities.
The DIA have issued a guidance document outlining the application process for “Better off Funding” Support Package funding as part of Three Waters Reforms. The funding will be allocated in two tranches, the first on July this year (up to $8.79m), with balance in July 2024 ($26.38m). The underlying DIA assumption being that any Council that takes up the funding will actively participate in preparing for reform.
Staff are considering what projects might be considered by Elected Members for the use of the Tranche 1 funding. The immediate priorities will be those projects that were flagged at the October 2021 workshop as likely candidates, to reduce the potential impact of rate increases. The NTA have also been requested to identify potential projects that relate to the unsealed road network and placemaking.
Staff will engage with Elected Members on this list prior to seeking formal approval at either Committee or Council.
There will be a separate transition funding mechanism to provide financial support for Council staff engaged in reform activities. The details of this have yet to be published. However, it should be noted that there is an increasing number of requests for Council staff to support transition activities.
Staff are working with Carrington Estate to agree a Waste Water Development Agreement for a sub-division of 140 residential lots in Whatuwhiwhi. Once negotiated this will fund the additional capacity at the plant and reticulation to accommodate the increased demand.
Staff have established steering groups for the retendering of the Solid Waste Contracts and for Programme Darwin.
PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
None.
1. IAM Business Report as at 28 February 2022 FINAL - A3664134 ⇩
4 May 2022 |
6.5 FNDC Submissions to Taumata Arowai Proposed Drinking Water Standards and Rules
File Number: A3666148
Author: Helen Ronaldson, Manager - Asset Management and Infrastructure
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report
To provide an update to the Infrastructure Committee on the FNDC submissions to Taumata Arowai on the proposed Drinking Water Standards and Rules.
WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY
In January 2022 Taumata Arowai, the drinking water regulator, issued seven documents for comment by interested parties. These documents were:
· Drinking Water Standards
· Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules
· Drinking Water Aesthetic Values
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Roof Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Measures
Submissions to these proposed Drinking Water Standards and Rules closed on Monday 28 March 2022. FNDC liaised with Whangarei and Kaipara District Councils to identify province wide feedback and concerns. Each Council then submitted independently on the discussion documents.
All three Councils raised concerns about implementation costs and capacity constraints. Of particular concern was the struggle small rural suppliers will have to meet the new asset management, monitoring, and administration requirements.
Taumata Arowai has previously indicated that for some categories of water supplier the standards and rules will be enforceable from 1 July 2022. The timely confirmation of standards and rules will influence a supplier’s ability to meet compliance timeframes.
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report ‘FNDC Submissions to Taumata Arowai Proposed Drinking Water Standards and Rules’.
|
tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background
In 2021 the Water Services Act disestablished Ministry of Health Drinking Water Assessors and a new entity, Taumata Arowai became the drinking water regulator. Taumata Arowai has been liaising with stakeholders to revise the 2018 Drinking Water Standards and Rules. The following discussion documents were released in January 2022.
· Drinking Water Standards
· Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules
· Drinking Water Aesthetic Values
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Roof Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Water Supplies
· Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Measures
Further information and copies of discussion documents can be found at New rules and standards | Taumata Arowai.
The proposed Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules categorise water suppliers by the number of people supplied and the type of supply.
A modular approach has been taken to the rules with rules established as:
· General (applicable for all suppliers)
· Source water
· Treatment
· Distribution
Within those modules, rules are assigned as requirements based on the category of supplier.
For example, FNDC is a large supplier (>500) of on demand water. FNDC is deemed to be Level 3 supplier and must therefore comply with the level 3 general rules, source water rules, treatment rules and distribution rules. This is expressed as G S3 T3 D3.
A very small supplier (<50) would need to comply with the level 1 rules G + S1 + T1 + D).
See New rules and standards | Taumata Arowai.
MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps
The discussion below summarises each submission.
Drinking Water Standards Submission
· The Councils are in support of using the amended World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for the majority of Maximum Acceptable Values (MAVS).
· There is an overall concern about the large number of elements to test for and the range of frequencies.
· There are significant questions on the additional laboratory capacity required across the country to undertake the tests, some of which are quite specific.
· There are potentially significant costs for large supplier such as Councils, and smaller supplies within the community will not have the capacity or funding to undertake the level of testing required.
· There are issues where in many cases the laboratory’s control the delivery and testing frameworks; these may not meet the specified frequencies and testing timeframes specified in the rules and guidelines.
· The Councils are concerned that some of the elements such as disinfection by-products should be controlled via rolling averages report rather than one off reports.
Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules Submission
· The Councils support the categorisation of water supplier by type and size. The associated modular layout of the rules makes it easy to determine which rules apply. For example, FNDC is a large drinking water supplier (>500) so must comply with modules G S3 T3 D3.
· There has been a significant increase in the number of suppliers proposed to be regulated by these rules and an increase in the complexity of rules for existing suppliers. There are 95 T3 rules that will apply to FNDC.
· The Councils supported the majority of the rules. However, compliance will involve costs that small suppliers in particular will struggle to fund. Some types of small supply have the option use an Acceptable Solution instead of reporting on compliance.
· The Councils recommend deferring compliance reporting until the new entities are formed to provide consistency on reporting and operations. Alternatively, the compliance date should be 12 months after the finalisation of the rules to allow for procurement of equipment and training.
· The Councils request guidance on the process for managing transgressions and non-compliance. Guidance should be available before penalties are enforced.
Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Submission
· Taumata Arowai will require a “Network Report” from July 2022. The content of this report is similar to the voluntary Water NZ survey that FNDC has previously completed intermittently.
· The Councils would like further information on how the environmental performance measures will interact with resource consent conditions for water takes and discharges.
· The Councils request the ability to review and comment on the Network Report before it is publicly released.
· The Councils would like further information on the review process for the performance measures.
· The Councils would like Taumata Arowai to align their reporting requirements with other reform processes to reduce the reporting burden.
· The Councils ask that Taumata Arowai provide tools for reporting and clarify how the Network Report aligns with Hinekorako and Water Safety Planning.
Drinking Water Aesthetic Values Submission
· The Councils generally agreed with the aesthetic values.
· The Councils sought agreement that water safety standards should have priority over aesthetic standards where there was a conflict e.g., chlorine for safety affecting aesthetics of odour or taste.
· The Councils sought clarification on how aesthetic values would be monitored and reported and the consequences for non-compliance.
Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Roof Water Supplies Submission
· This acceptable solution can be used by roof water suppliers as an alternative to meeting the G S1 T1 D1 rule modules.
· There are a limited number of Roof Water Supplies. However, the requirements of the acceptable solution will require considerable capital outlay as first flush diverters, raw water tanks, cartridge filters, UV and isolation valves are required for compliance. This may cause considerable financial concern.
· The monitoring, record keeping and training requirements are a significant new administrative burden. It is unclear how this will be monitored and enforced, whether there will be adequate professional capacity to meet the requirements.
Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Drinking Water Supplies Submission
· This acceptable solution can be used by spring and bore water suppliers as an alternative to meeting the G S1 T1 D1 rule modules.
· Taumata Arowai is uncertain how many supplies are affected by this standard.
· The water supplier could have significant costs to establish the required systems (filter cartridges, UV, chlorination, backflow prevention etc). If there is no support from Central or Local Government or Water Entities, there is a risk that costly and complex requirements will negatively impact small users such as campgrounds and papakainga.
· There is concern around levels of competency of water suppliers to manage systems and costs required to provide professional support. Professional capacity is limited in rural areas.
· The acceptable solution is more onerous than the G S1 T1 D1 rules – which defeats the purpose of having an acceptable solution.
Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Drinking Water Supplies Submission
· This acceptable solution can be used where supplies are primarily for stock or irrigation water but is also provided to households or buildings as an alternative to meeting the G S1 T1 D1 rule modules.
· Taumata Arowai estimates there could be 300-500 such supplies nationally but there is no reliable register.
· This may have implications for Kerikeri Irrigation Company and similar future schemes. There are multiple small farm supply schemes in the district.
· The water supplier is likely to incur significant costs to meet the requirement for backflow, storage tank, pumps, cartridge filtration and UV disinfection. Especially at remote locations without mains power.
· The monitoring, training and audit requirements represent a considerable administrative burden which communities may not have capacity for.
PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
This report is only to inform on the submission we have made regarding these proposed rules.
The expected Opex impacts have already been considered in the Annual Plan for FY2022/2023.
Nil
4 May 2022 |
6.6 Infrastructure Committee Action Sheet Update April 2022
File Number: A3672100
Author: Rhonda-May Whiu, Democracy Advisor
Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services
Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report
To provide the Infrastructure Committee with an overview of outstanding decisions from 1 January 2020.
WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary
· Council staff have reintroduced action sheets as a mechanism to communicate progress against decisions/resolutions and confirm when decisions have been implemented.
· The focus of this paper is on decisions made by the Infrastructure Committee.
· Action sheets are also in place for Council and Community Boards.
That the Infrastructure Committee receive the report Action Sheet Update April 2022. |
1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background
The Democracy Services Team have been working on a solution to ensure that elected members can receive regular updates on progress against decisions made at meetings, in alignment with a Chief Executive Officer key performance indicator.
Action sheets have been designed as a way to close the loop and communicate with elected members on the decisions made by way of resolution at formal meetings.
Action sheets are not intended to be public information but will provide updates to elected members, who, when appropriate can report back to their communities and constituents.
2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options
The outstanding tasks are multi-facet projects that take longer to fully complete.
The Democracy Services staff are working with staff to ensure that the project completion times are updated so that action sheets provided to members differentiate between work outstanding and work in progress.
Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation
To provide the Infrastructure Committee with an overview of outstanding committee decisions from 1 January 2020.
3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provision in receiving this report.
1. Action Sheet April 2022 - A3678058 ⇩
4 May 2022 |
7 Te Wāhanga Tūmataiti / Public Excluded
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|