Agenda of Performance and Monitoring Meeting

Performance and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

2 February 2021

9.5 Western Bay Museum

File Number: A3965687

Author: David Pearce, Community Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Elected Members about the Western Bay Museum’s ten-year strategic plan, and that it be referred as a submission to the Long Term Plan, with a focus on the employment of a Collections Curator and the acquiring of suitable storage and workspace facilities.

Recommendation

1. That the Community Manager’s report dated 2 February 2021, titled ‘Western Bay Museum’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That the Western Bay Museum Strategic Plan, as attached, be referred as a submission to the Long Term Plan.

Background

Council provides funding to the Western Bay Museum to the value of $70,000 per annum, through a Service Delivery contract. Council provides 37% of the Museums operational funding. The remainder, generated by the Museum, consists of sponsorship, donations, activities, grants and exhibition funding.

The Western Bay Museum continues to meet or exceed their targets, managing a professional Museum for local residents and visitors to the region.

The Western Bay Museum, in Katikati, is the only nearby Museum for Western Bay residents and visitors, with no Museum in Tauranga and the Rotorua Museum currently shut for building repairs.

The Western Bay Museum’s Development Plan, over the next 10 years, aims to:

· Employ a Museum qualified Collections Curator, to manage the collection, within the first year;

· Construct a purpose built storage facility within the first three years;

· Return locally significant Taonga and European artefacts;

· Construct an extension to the Museum to display Maori history and artefacts;

· Create a strong focus on Te Puke school visits; and

· Secure facility compliant exhibition space in Te Puke.

The Museum’s responsibility begins, ends and revolves around the collection and its management. Up until now, the main objective has been to interpret the history of the District through the collection objects in exhibition and permanent displays. The Museum has not, however, been able to achieve best practice due to two things:

1. Lacking the expertise of a Museum qualified Collections Curator; and

2. Adequate storage and workspace facilities.

This report focuses on the first two points of their 10 year Development Plan.

Improving storage and workspace facilities and establishing best practice curation are closely interrelated. The employment of a Collections Curator will allow the Museum to leverage additional support from the community. Having a full time Museum qualified Collections Curator will strengthen future proposals for grants and funding to build the purpose built storage facility.

The appointment of a Curator will assist with:

· Collection Development

Helping to rationalise and develop the Museum’s collection. This will reduce storage costs and make the Museum’s collection more historically relevant.

· Return of Taonga

Having a qualified Collections Curator and facility compliant storage will secure the return of the large collections of Ngai Te Rangi’s Taonga that is held in the Waikato and Auckland Museums’. The return of local European artefacts, held at other Museums will also be sought. These collections will not be returned without Museum best practice underpinning their care.

· Training

Staff and volunteers and interns could work towards Museum qualifications, under the Museum qualified Collections Curator.

· Professional Support

Te Papa National Services Te Paerangi see the Western Bay Museum as a leader in the Museum sector in what small regional Museums can achieve whilst maintaining the Code of Ethics and the highest sector standards. The continuation of this special relationship is vital.

In consultation with Council’s Property team, the Western Bay Museum, the Menz Shed, Community Van and Community Response have put together a concept plan for a new community building on Council owned land opposite Moore Park, on Middlebrook Road.

The Museum section of the facility will primarily be a storage facility of approximately 380m2, to house the collection.

The Museum would raise the funds needed to build the facility and are not seeking Council funding for the build. A community lease of the Council land, for the facility build, would be sought.

Significance and Engagement

The Local Government Act 2002 requires a formal assessment of the significance of matters and decision in this report, against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, in order to guide decision on approaches of engagement and degree of options analysis. In making this formal assessment, it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions.

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy, this decision is considered to be of low significance because community interest at this point is minimal and no community engagement is required. The financial implications associated with the decision are low.

Funding/Budget Implications

The draft LTP has funding of $70,000 per annum for the existing Service Delivery Contract.

The Western Bay Museum is seeking funding to implement the strategic plan.

Collections Curator

2021/22

$35,000 (6 months)

2022/23

$70,000 (for 9 years)

Storage Facility

Community lease on Middlebrook Road

Attachments

1. Western Bay Museum Strategic Plan ⇩

2. Western Bay Museum Development Plan ⇩

Performance and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

2 February 2021

9.6 Waihi Beach Rock Revetment - Council Landowner Consented Coastal Protection Works

File Number: A3968271

Author: Kelvin Hill, Utilities Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

A request has been made by private landowners to seek Council’s permission to extend the existing northern sea wall at Waihi Beach further north for a distance of approximately 300m to finish north of the Flat White Café. This is in accordance with the direction provided by the Operations & Monitoring Committee on 14 February 2017, Resolution OP1.2. Attachment 1.

They are seeking Council Landowner approval to construct the works largely at their own expense and partially on Council land.

It is recommended that Council provide landowner approval for the implementation / construction of consented coastal erosion protection works (potentially rock revetment extension) within the Council beachfront reserve land between 21 and 41 Shaw Road.

The exact nature of the works is subject to the design and consenting process. The landowners’ preference is for a rock revetment extension.

Recommendation TO COUNCIL

1. That the Utilities Manager’s Report dated 2 February 2021 titled ‘Waihi Beach Rock Revetment - Council Landowner Consented Coastal Protection Works’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of medium significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That Council notes that assessment against its Coastal Erosion Response Policy indicates no need to protect Council’s Elizabeth Street Reserve asset with a hard structure.

4. That Council, as administering authority and landowner, approves the private construction of consented coastal works on Council reserve, Lot 125 DP35465 Waihi Beach, subject to the conditions, including:

· A resource consent being granted by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC);

· Consent and construction fully funded by owners;

· Agreement with Council on operational cost and responsibilities; and

· Council funding construction, but not design, and consenting costs for the Elizabeth Street Reserve Section.

5. That Council declines private construction of a rock revetment extension or other consented works on the Waihi Beach reserve, Lot 125 DP35465.

Background

Waihi Beach Sea Wall or ‘rock revetment’ forms part of a coastal erosion protection system and was constructed in 2011. It consists of two lengths of rock revetments separated by Two Mile Creek.

The northern section is approximately 600m long and the southern section approximately 400m long. Sand dune enhancement was also included in the system in adjacent areas.

The key design goals of the system were developed based on discussions with recognised consultant experts, Council, and from consultation with local community stakeholder groups and beachfront residents.

The goals included important aspects such as (note, this is not an exhaustive list):

· The wall is to provide erosion protection to the landward assets, but not to provide protection

from inundation and flooding;

· Public access to the beach to be maintained; and

· Access to be provided along Council reserve landward of the wall where possible.

Other specific goals were included to limit the location and extent of a sea wall on the frontage along approximately one kilometre of the beach.

Funding for the capital cost and maintenance of the protection system is covered by a targeted rate.

Over the past few years, the rock revetment has been monitored and has generally performed in accordance with the design and consent requirements.

However, dune enhancement at the northern end of the seawall, which was part of the erosion protection system, has failed, with severe erosion occurring due to the enhancement being located within the active beach (below the high tide zone).

This has become apparent to nearby owners who have noticed the substandard performance and engaged with Council on revised options for protection.

Waihi Beach Coastal Structures Review – BECA 5 JULY 2019

As part of 2008 consenting requirements, Council was required to develop a long-term strategy for the coast. Council engaged Beca Consultants, who delivered a report in February 2019 on Waihi Beach Coastal Structures Review, which was received by Council. Attachment 2

The Beca report addressed condition 13 and included a review of physical options for management of the coastal hazard risk.

The review was received by Council on 15 August 2019. It has been accepted by BOPRC as meeting the consent condition.

In the Beca review, the report observed: “the coastline between Flat White Café and the northern seawall termination appears to be actively receding, resulting in a future loss of the dune and seafront property”. (Section 4.2.2) Attachment 3 (MAP) sets out the area being considered under this proposal.

To date, the property owners along Shaw Road have been undertaking various activities in relation to progressing a hard structure solution for the failed soft option solution.

The residents have funded a report by John Lumsden, a recognised Coastal Engineer who provided a review of the current performance of the works and suggested accommodations for managing the current erosion issues to the foreshore. Attachment 4

The property owners have attended a number of Council meetings over the last five years seeking support and action by Council to solving the matter.

Currently, these property owners consider they are paying for a “failed soft option” dune structure, and recognise that funding of any alternative options would be an issue for Council.

The property owners have publicly stated that, if Council grants permission for a hard structure to be built in the Council reserve area, then the property owners’ group are prepared to undertake the following activities:

1. Prepare and fund applications to BOPRC for a Resource Consent to cover the extent of these works.

2. Prepare and execute necessary documentation for the construction of these works.

3. Provide the financial capacity to meet the costs associated with the resource consent application and the physical construction of the works.

Council staff would continue to provide technical overview and guidance in this process to ensure Councils interests are protected.

The finished works would need to be vested in Council and form part of the existing maintenance regime currently undertaken on the existing rock revetment and dune enhancement works each year.

As part of the vesting of these works to Council, the resource consent would need to be transferred to Council to ensure ongoing compliance is maintained and that a consistent approach is maintained with the current coastal protection works undertaken by Council.

lANDOWNER APPROVAL

The residents request that Council provide landowner approval for the construction of consented works. This approval is from Council as landowner and does not imply that any regulatory approval will be granted. Consent for the work will be required from BOPRC and possibly this Council.

Council land

Council own the reserve section Lot 125 DP35465, adjacent to the Flat White Café, which provides a grassed recreational area, car parking and access to the beachfront by way of timber steps.

Funding for this reserve section will need to be included as part contribution to the overall costs of the total project. This funding would be from the annual erosion protection budget in the Reserves & Facilities activity.

Significance and Engagement

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is considered to be of medium significance as the decision on the coastal works will be made through the BOPRC Resource Consent process.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

Interested/Affected Parties	Completed/Planned Engagement/Consultation/Communication
Name of interested parties/groups	Shaw Road beachfront residents between 21-41 Shaw Road support the proposal.	Planned	Completed
Tangata Whenua	Not yet consulted but would form part of the application process for resource consent by the property owners.
General Public	The consent notification status would determine the consultation process.

Assessment against the Coastal Erosion Response Policy

The BOPRC has jurisdiction to determine whether coastal structures are appropriate. As a result, WBOPDC’s Coastal Erosion Response Policy is designed to guide decisions about Council’s own assets i.e. Council’s activities as a landowner or infrastructure provider, not as a regulator. Attachment 5

PRIVATE ASSETS PERSPECTIVE

Despite the policy not being intended for the purpose, three options from the Beca Report were chosen for comparison and assessment. Attachment 6.

· Option 1. No 4 Dune Enhancement;

· Option 2. No 3 Extend the sea wall north to the Flat White Café; and

· Option 3. No 7 Build backstop wall north from the existing sea wall to the Flat White Café.

When considering the options from a private owner perspective, beneficiaries of any erosion protection system, holding the line is likely the appropriate action to take. This would assume there is an appropriate and consent approvable option that would fit between the houses and the sea.

It is important to note that, due to existing building locations, there is insufficient space to locate the rock revetment fully on private land.

Council ASSETS

The policy essentially focusses on WBOPDC’s own assets and lists three approaches:

· Hold the line;

· Adaptive approach; or

· Let nature take its course.

In this location, apart from the beach and dune system and the reserve, there are no Council recreational/amenity/infrastructure assets to protect.

The outcome of the Coastal Erosion Response Policy Assessment concluded that as Council assets were limited to sand dunes and a reserve, protection of this asset could not be justified.

Conclusion and Recommendation – cOASTAL pROECTION oPTIONS

When considering the options, which address the erosion issues between the north end of the existing sea wall and the Flat White Cafe, the most viable option for private landowners is Beca Report No 6 – extend the existing wall. While its construction creates additional issues such as lowering the sand level and removing a beach above high water, its construction results in the lowest risk profile and is understood to have the most support from benefitting owners.

It would be located on Council land and would be maintained in a similar manner to the existing wall. Council now has the option to agree to its construction, or not, on Council reserve.

The recommendations relate to whether Council provides approval to construct a coastal protection works on Council land, subject to conditions and a Resource Consent application to the BOPRC being approved.

In granting approval, Council needs to be satisfied that the consultation on the proposal will occur through the resource consent process and BOPRC decision making.

Recommendation 3

That Council as administrating authority and landowner, approves the private construction of consented coastal works on Council reserve, Lot 125 DP35465 Waihi Beach, subject to the conditions, including:

· A resource consent being granted by BOPRC;

· Consent and construction fully funded by owners;

· Agreement with Council on operational cost and responsibilities; and

· Council funding construction but not design and consenting costs for the Elizabeth Street Reserve Section.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings:

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Property owners along Shaw Road can provide protection to their individual properties.

The original sea wall project consenting was a lengthy undertaking and appealed to the Environment Court. Approving the sea wall extension risks raising all the same issues. While Council is not the consent applicant, it will have given landowner permission and therefore will be considered to support the proposal.

The risk profile of this option (for private landowners) will reduce from its current HH to MM with a significant risk of loss of beach amenity i.e. no sand visible at high tide. This is a similar social, cultural and environmental outcome as the existing sea wall.

The property owners need certainty around the ability to construct if the consent is approved and that is why this decision is required ahead of the consenting process.

The community will have an interest in the proposal and may consider that Council should have consulted direct rather than via the consent process.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

Capital costs (apart from the reserve proportion) are privately funded. Ongoing maintenance costs are estimated at $2,000 p.a. with a ten yearly storm restoration cost estimated at $20,000 for each major storm. The reserve is 1/12^th of the proposed works.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option.

Assuming Council grants permission to construct coastal protection works on the reserve, properties would remain essentially untouched. At the end of the works, Council would own both the consent and the consented works.

Key activities that will be managed by private property owners include:

1. Obtaining resource consent from BOPRC including consultation.

2. A signed document confirming that property owners will be fully funding both the consent process and contracting for physical works.

3. An agreement between property owners and council regarding the operational costs and responsibilities.

The risk profile of this option will reduce from its current HH to MM with a significant risk of loss of beach amenity i.e. no sand visible at high tide. This is a similar social, cultural and environmental outcome as the existing sea wall.

Recommendation 4

That Council declines private construction of a rock revetment extension or other consented works on the Waihi Beach reserve, Lot 125 DP35465.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings:

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

The community will have an interest in the proposal and may consider that Council should have consulted direct rather than via the consent process.

Disadvantages beach front owners who wish to protect their properties. The properties remain more at risk to coastal processes.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

The dune enhancement costs will continue. The property owners will consider that these costs are contributing to a failed situation and may take action against Council.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option.

Statutory Compliance

The recommendations meet:

· Legislative requirements/legal requirements;

· Current council plans/policies/bylaws; and

· Regional/national policies/plans.

A change to the Waihi Beach Coastal Protection Funding Policy maybe required if the project proceeds.

Funding/Budget Implications

For the sea wall extension, it is recommended that all consent and construction costs are privately funded, and maintenance and operational costs are recovered through a targeted rate.

The Consent process and if successful the construction, will be fully funded by the property owners.

The following is to be included in the next LTP.

Budget Funding Information

Relevant Detail

Capex: $1.2M – private landowners

$100,000

Extend the sea wall north from the existing rock revetment sea wall to the Flat Café. Consents, Design and Construct.

Annual Maintenance costs. May require a review of the Revenue and Financing Policy for the coastal works if the consent is approved.

Estimated Council cost for the Elizabeth Street Reserve section based on a 1/12^th share, funded from the Reserves Erosion Protection budget.

Attachments

1. OP1.2 - Operations & Monitoring Resolution - Waihi Beach Dune Enhancement Works Coastal Management Options ⇩

2. Beca Report - Waihi Beach Coastal Structures Review - July 2019 ⇩

3. Waihi Beach Sea Wall Map - Area to be Considered ⇩

4. John Lumsden Report - Review of Coastal Management Options at Northern End of Waihi Beach ⇩

5. WBOPDC Coastal Erosion Responses Policy 2017 ⇩

6. Waihi Beach Rock Revetment Approval for an Extension located on Esplanade Reserve July 2020 ⇩

Performance and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

2 February 2021

9.7 Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme Connection Costs

File Number: A3959447

Author: Coral-Lee Ertel, Asset and Capital Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

In undertaking initial consultation with Te Rereatukahia Marae to implement a CIP funded wastewater scheme, a number of concerns were raised and requested to be presented unedited to Council. They have requested the Mayor attend their next Hui (late February or March) to report on Council’s decisions. Council has clear direction and policy to respond to a number of the concerns raised at the meeting. One key concern was the costs to landowners for the connection charge for the proposed wastewater scheme. Council has discretion over the setting of the connection charge in Council’s Fees and Charges.

It is clear that the current connection charge of $6,144 will reduce the number that will connect. A charge of $0 such as was applied in Maketu would encourage connection and enable environmental and social benefits to be realised.

Recommendation

1. That the Asset and Capital Manger’s report dated 2 February 2021 titled ‘Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme Connection Costs’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That it is recommended to Council that no connection charge is to be applied to the Te Rereatukahia wastewater scheme.

4. That it is recommended to Council that Council consults on the introduction of a new targeted rate for the Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme through the 2022/23 Annual Plan that enables landowners to pay the equivalent of a FINCO (currently $6,144.00 +GST) over a 15-year term at an estimated annual cost of $552.60 +GST.

5. That it is recommended to Council that Council treats Te Rereatukahia as a Papakainga development and consults on the introduction of a new targeted rate for the Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme through the 2022/23 Annual Plan that enables landowners to pay the equivalent of a 50% FINCO (currently $3077 +GST) over a 15-year term at an estimated annual cost of $276.75 +GST.

Background

In 2004 - 2005 Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) commissioned CPG Global Consultants to carry out a wastewater investigation, including the design and the associated costs to install a wastewater scheme for Te Rereatukahia Marae. This investigation was to coincide with the installation of the new sewer main from the Resort Pacifica golf course leading to the existing pump station in Wills Road.

The design included reticulating the upper residential development surrounding the Marae and club rooms. The costs were modelled and the resulting Uniform Targeted Rate (UTR) per property was calculated to be between $1,400 and $2,000 per annum (this cost included the pump station repayment of the capital costs).

There was considerable consultation with members from the local Hapu in relation to the alignment of the new sewer and rising main. Council offered to pay for the pump station and rising main to reduce the financial burden on the Marae community. The negotiations were not successful.

Further discussions held with Council’s Utilities team and local Kaumatua Pae Wanakore in 2009 suggested that Iwi regret that a wastewater scheme was not installed in 2005 and would appreciate if Council would reconsider a wastewater scheme for the Marae. A scheme was considered and a project was included in the 2012 - 2022 Long Term Plan (LTP). The project was to be 100 percent externally funded.

Council has now secured funding through the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) ‘shovel ready’ funding programme to reticulate the Marae and surrounding house lots (approximately 40). All approved funding must be spent and projects completed by March 2022. A draft design has been completed and a pressure sewer scheme is proposed. Attachment 1 shows a draft layout for the scheme. The available funding will cover costs of the reticulation, including connection into Council’s wastewater pipe, installation of all onsite grinder pumps, decommissioning of existing systems and connection to the household power including any necessary upgrading (the same model that was implemented at Maketu).

Council will retain ownership of the onsite grinder pumps and will be responsible for all ongoing maintenance and renewal works. This is a similar model to the Maketu and Te Puna West schemes. Each property that would like to connect to the scheme could be required to pay a connection charge and the ongoing UTR.

A meeting was held with Te Rereatukahia Marae on 21 December 2020. Attachment 3 outlines the questions and answers provided at the meeting. The total impact for landowners, as proposed at the meeting, is outlined in the table below:

Marae
Onsite Installation Costs	Nil, if done as part of subsidised work.
Ongoing Power Costs	Typically $75 - $150 per year for a Marae, depending on flows.
Wastewater UTR	Likely to be in the order of 5 - 6 times the residential dwelling annual charge (approximately $5,000 - $6,000 plus GST per annum. Initial actual water meter usage data indicates 5.4 household equivalents). Note that the Council policy on multiple pan charges is currently under review.
Community Capital Contribution	Nil, as the Marae is a community facility.
Residential Lots
Onsite Installation Costs	Nil, if done as part of subsidised work.
Ongoing Power Costs	Typically $25 - $35 per year for a dwelling* * Based on 37 cents per kilowatt hour, pump runs for 20 minutes a day and minor current draw for telemetry box).
Wastewater UTR	$944.09 plus GST per year (for Katikati) for connected properties. $472.05 plus GST per year (half of UTR) for properties where a connection is available (but house not connected).
Wastewater Capital Contribution (equivalent to FINCO cost)	Katikati Wastewater Capital Contribution for a new connection is a one off cost of $6,144 + GST.

This wastewater capital contribution recognises that new property connections are consuming capacity from the Katikati wastewater pipeline reticulation and treatment plant. Properties that do not connect will not have to pay a capital contribution until they connect, but they will be charged half of the UTR per year as an availability charge as there will be a connection available. Council has the ability to vary the capital contribution.

Feedback given at the meeting on 21 December 2020 was that Iwi were very concerned about the cost of the scheme and held a general view that they do not receive a lot for the rates they already pay i.e. no kerb and channelling, no footpaths, no sealed road and general lack of maintenance from Council. Iwi have requested Council respond to a set of questions which have been discussed in more detail below:

1.1 Can the scheme be paid for over time and could that payment plan be interest free?

Council could decide that the connection charge be paid through rates over a 10 or 15-year period. This was the approach for the construction of the Te Puna West and Ongare Point Wastewater Schemes. Enabling landowners to pay the equivalent connection cost over time will require the introduction of a new targeted rate, which must be consulted on through Councils LTP or Annual Plan process. The earliest opportunity for consultation will be the 2022/23 Annual Plan, with a new targeted rate starting in the 2023 financial year. As scheme commissioning is planned for March 2022, consultation on the targeted rate will occur after or in conjunction with scheme construction. Council’s standard interest rate will apply (approximately 4%). Clear messaging and communication with the community should be undertaken early, to ensure all understand how this may impact their rates.

1.2 Can Council honour a commitment given 20 years ago that Council was prepared to spend $800,000 on a scheme with the connection charge being $600 per lot?

As outlined in the background section of this report, in 2005 Council proposed reticulating the Marae and surrounding housing at a cost of $1,400 - $2,000 per annum. This cost would have paid for the reticulation, pump station and connection into Council’s wastewater network. Council subsequently proposed to cover the costs for the pump station. Council has no record of a connection charge of $600 per lot.

1.3 Can Council confirm one pump station per lot is their policy?

Considered in conjunction with question 1.4 below.

1.4 Can Council confirm that there are no more connection charges for a minor dwelling?

Council’s District Plan defines a minor dwelling as “a dwelling of not more than 60m² gross floor area plus any proposed attached or detached garage or carport (for the purpose of vehicle storage, general storage and laundry facilities). The garage area shall not be used for living accommodation.”

A new minor dwelling is typically required to pay a half FINCO charge through the Resource Consent process.

With the construction of the Maketu wastewater scheme Council required all secondary dwellings to have their own pump installed. The number of UTRs applied is based on the total number of grinder pumps on the section. For example, one property that has two dwellings and two pumps is required to pay twice the UTR.

It is recommended that, in the case where a property has a secondary dwelling that meets the definition of a ‘minor dwelling’ as set out in the District Plan, one pump be installed to serve both dwellings. In this case a 1.5 times the cost of connection should apply (for the dwelling plus minor dwelling). Where there are two dwellings on the property that do not meet the definition of a minor dwelling, two pumps should be installed and twice the connection cost should apply.

1.5 Can Council confirm the costs of a second full sized dwelling on a lot with an existing dwelling?

As outlined in 1.4 it is recommended that the cost of a second full sized dwelling on a lot with an existing dwelling be equal to twice the cost of connection. This is consistent with the approach taken at Maketu.

1.6 Can Council confirm if a second pressure sewer pump station is required for a second house?

Discussed in 1.4.

1.7 Can Council consider the unfairness of typical Council policies and their effects on Iwi?

To be considered with questions below.

1.8 Can Council consider not charging 50% UTR for those that have no reason to connect now, or find a way not to penalise or impose it on them?

Council sets out in the Terms and Conditions for the Acceptance of Wastewater Drainage that:

2.5 Entitlement to Service

2.5.1 Subject to the provisions of S459(7) of the Local Government Act 1974, property owners are required to connect to a sewer within 18 months of service becoming available to a property, provided however that the owner may apply in writing to Council for exemption from such requirement when there are special circumstances. Council will consider the exemption at its sole discretion.

Council has no specific criteria to determine what special circumstances constitute, and is usually considered on a case by case basis.

Regarding the remission of the 50% UTR availability charge. Council currently has no policy in place for this.

The closest comparison as to Council’s general position, is Council’s water supply extension policy. This policy has been used to extend the water reticulation to Woodland Road and Black Road. The policy clearly outlines costs and requirements for landowners who do not connect to the scheme:

7. Costs and requirements for landowners unwilling to connect on completion of the water supply extension scheme

7.1. Landowners who, on completion of the water supply extension have the ability to connect to the water supply extension but are unwilling to do so, will be charged the applicable annual water availability charge of the relevant water supply zone until such time as they connect.

In order to waive the 50% UTR for those that have no reason to connect now, Council would be required to develop a new policy and undertake public consultation to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.9 Does Council have any idea on other funding sources that could be looked at to assist Marae and the community to minimise the FINCO connection costs?

Councils ‘Maori Relationships and Engagement Advisor’ is investigating alternative funding options.

1.10 Could Council confirm that any possible subsidies or reduced connection charges would apply to the existing and proposed houses in this scheme?

Council can consider subsidising or reducing the connection charge. It would be a Council decision to set the dollar amount for connection to the scheme. For new schemes, this has usually been equivalent to the FINCO amount. At Te Puna West the connection charge was $13,007.41 including GST (full infrastructure plus contribution to pipeline). Landowners were able to pay this cost over a 15-year period at $1,339.28 per annum including GST. This is additional to the standard UTR.

In the case of Maketu, where there was extensive external funding (MOH, BOPRC), the property owners were not required to pay any capital connection charge or financial contribution. This was for a new standalone scheme.

The variability in funding approach is caused by the availability of external funds, the environmental benefits and the social deprivation index along with Council policy and decisions.

For the purpose of FINCOs (FINCOs are only charged on resource consents), Council’s Policy allows a 50% reduction in financial contributions provided:

a) The applicant completes the Papakainga toolkit process or;

b) The application has obtained funding through the Kainga Whenua Loan Scheme or the Kainga Whenua infrastructure grant to contribute towards the costs of financial contributions.

As the properties wishing to connect are an existing Papakainga housing development, this clause would not apply. However, Council may wish to consider its intent in the setting of connection charges and FINCOS.

Council has a clear policy that provides direction in responding to a number of the queries outlined above, raised by Iwi. Council does however, have discretion over the setting of the connection charge. It is recommended that if Council requires landowners at Te Rereatukahia to pay a connection charge, Council consults on the introduction of a new targeted rate for Te Rereatukahia through the 2022/23 Annual Plan, that enables landowners to pay the connection charge over a 15-year term.

It should be noted that while BOPRC is not, at this stage, requiring Te Rereatukahia landowners to connect to a wastewater scheme, it is recommended connections be encouraged to ensure the best environmental and public health benefits for this community. It is clear following site visits from WBOPDC staff, that connection to a community scheme is encouraged due to the close proximity of houses and limited onsite land area for disposal.

It is also clear that the higher the capital connection charge the lower the number of dwellings that will connect. If only a percentage connect, then the half UTR availability charge will be an issue.

This options report considers three possible connection charges:

Option A (Lowest number of connections, least positive outcome)

Connection charge is set at $6,144+GST (FINCO equivalent) with the ability to pay over a 15-year term at 4% interest, $552.60 plus GST per annum;

Option B

Connection charge is set at $3,077+GST (half FINCO equivalent) with the ability to pay over a 15-year term at 4% interest, $276.75 plus GST per annum. This option recognises the ability for reduced FINCOS for Papakainga housing.

Option C (Highest number of connections and best overall outcome)

No connection charge to be applied to the Te Rereatukahia wastewater scheme.

Significance and Engagement

The Local Government Act 2002 requires a formal assessment of the significance of matters and decision in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

In making this formal assessment there is no intention to assess the importance of this item to individuals, groups, or agencies within the community and it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions.

The Policy requires Council and its communities to identify the degree of significance attached to particular issues, proposals, assets, decisions, and activities.

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is considered to be of low significance as the recommended direction to Council relates to a $123,080 decision which is defined as of low significance.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

Interested/Affected Parties

Consultation

Name of interested parties/groups

Te Rereatukahia Marae

Planned

Completed

Tangata Whenua

Meeting held 21 December 2020. Further meeting to be held in February.

Issues and Options Assessment

Recommendation 3

That it is recommended to Council that no connection charge is to be applied to the Te Rereatukahia

Wastewater Scheme.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages:

· Will encourage landowners to connect, resulting in the best public health and environmental outcomes for this community.

· Will enable the optimal use of CIP funding while available.

Disadvantages:

· Will result in loss of unbudgeted revenue for Katikati Wastewater Scheme.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

No funding impact for landowners.

Revenue of $246,160 would not be received on the basis that the scheme would have proceeded if full FINCOs were charged, note that this is considered to be unlikely.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option (Optional – if you want to include any information not covered above).

This option is consistent with the approach that was applied at Maketu.

Recommendation 4

That it is recommended to Council that Council consults on the introduction of a new targeted rate for the Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme through the 2022/23 Annual Plan that enables landowners to pay the equivalent of a FINCO (currently $6,144.00 +GST) over a 15-year term at an estimated annual cost of $552.60 +GST.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages:

· Enables Council to recover cost for loss of capacity within the network due to new connections.

Disadvantages:

· It is unlikely landowners will select to connect to the scheme due to the high connection costs.

Will likely result in poor environmental and public health benefits for the community.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

Introduction of a new targeted rate at $552.60 per annum over 15-years estimated at $6,144 + GST per property.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option (Optional – if you want to include any information not covered above).

This option is consistent with connection of properties to the Te Puna Wastewater scheme.

Recommendation 5

That it is recommended to Council that Council treats Te Rereatukahia as a Papakainga development and consults on the introduction of a new targeted rate for the Te Rereatukahia Wastewater Scheme through the 2022/23 Annual Plan that enables landowners to pay the equivalent of a 50% FINCO (currently $3077 +GST) over a 15-year term at an estimated annual cost of $276.75 +GST.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages:

· Enables Council to recover some costs for loss of capacity within the network due to the new connections

· More likely to encourage landowners to connect to the scheme resulting in better public health and environmental outcomes.

· Will enable optimal use of CIP funding while available.

Disadvantages:

· Results in some loss in revenue for Council

· May still deter some landowners from connection.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

Introduction of a new targeted rate at $276.75 per annum over 15-years collecting about $3,077 +GST per property.

Reduced revenue of approximately $123,080 by applying the Papakainga funding principles.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option (Optional – if you want to include any information not covered above).

This option is consistent with Councils charging of FINCOS for Papakainga housing.

Statutory Compliance

The recommendation(s) meet:

· Legislative requirements/legal requirements;

· Current council plans/policies/bylaws; and

· Regional/national policies/plans.

Funding/Budget Implications

The wastewater scheme is fully funded by the CIP Waters Funding subject to completion by March 2022.

The connection of the area to the Katikati Wastewater Scheme has not been budgeted.

The FINCO equivalent would be an unbudgeted income to the scheme.

The UTR would generate approximated $30,000 - $40,000 per annum depending on the number of connections.

Attachments

1. Wastewater Rereatukahia Marae - Pressure Sewer System ⇩

2. Wastewater Rereatukahia Marae - Gravity and SSPS System ⇩

3. 331402 Katikati Te Rereatukahia Marae - Handout for Village Hui ⇩

Performance and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

2 February 2021

9.8 Three Month Review - Opening Hours Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre.

File Number: A3966513

Author: Barbara Whitton, Customer Services and Governance Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

This report provides a summary of the rationale relating to the recent changes made to the Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre opening hours that came into effect on 19 October 2020. It includes the community’s response to the changes, as received by Council to date.

The report constitutes information gathered directly from the Waihi Beach Community through feedback forms, email communications, and a survey of the Waihi Beach School Parent Community, over a three-month period.

Council now needs to review the data and feedback and decide if any further variation is required.

Recommendation

1. That the Customer Services and Governance Manger’s report dated 2 February 2021 titled ‘Three Month Review – Opening Hours Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That the opening hours of the Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre be extended by 3 hours to 10am to 5pm on Fridays.

4. That the opening hours of the Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre……

Background

Staff carried out an analysis of the Community’s use of the Waihi Beach Library and Service Centre in August 2020. The review showed minimal growth over the last ten years. This was possibly due to a lower level of service provided both in terms of opening hours and programme offerings (in comparison to other libraries around the district). After looking at the use patterns (of the time of day most popular), staff recommended that the Centre’s opening hours be increased to enable the community to access the centre six days a week instead of two and a half. This change required reduced weekday opening hours with the Centre open between 10am and 2pm. Council passed a resolution to this effect at the Performance and Monitoring Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2020.

1. Impact of the Change – The Data

Staff have actively gathered, recorded and analysed system data and community feedback to assist Council to decide whether to continue with the new hours, revert to the original hours, or to implement a different solution. Data collected from the library’s electronic security gate/door counter, the library’s management system (issues and membership statistics) and direct community feedback has been used.

1.1 Door Count

Data shows that visitors to the library and service centre have increased by an average of 15% each week since the implementation of the change in opening hours. Feedback from customers indicates that they appreciate having the library open every day.

1.2 Library Book Issues

Data shows that, when compared with the same period in 2019, issues increased by an average of 3%. The assumption would be that not all increased use was for library issues, e.g. customers may have accessed the centre to utilise the technology, read the newspaper, or make a council transaction.

1.3 Library Membership

Data shows that the library has attracted an additional 45 members since the implementation of the change in opening hours, the most significant increase for the past 18 months.

1.4 Council Transactions

It should be noted that, as the percentage of council related transactions undertaken at the Waihi Beach office is very small, it is not possible to measure the change in a meaningful way.

2. Impact of the Change – Community Feedback

Staff provided an opportunity for the Community to record their feedback through a questionnaire. Of the combined responses from emails received and questionnaires returned, 21 respondents were ‘very positive’ about the increased days of operation; 20 respondents were ‘positive’, but asked that hours be extended to include at least one day open after school to enable families with children to visit. The 11 ‘negative’ respondents all referred to lack of availability of after school hours.

In response to the feedback received and to further define community preferences, staff sent a survey (via the school) to parents asking them to rate their preferred day of the week for extended opening hours. Of the 270 families who received the survey, just 13 responded. Friday emerged as the clear preference.

3. Impact of the change – Budget Implications

The original changes made to opening hours in October 2020 were able to be accommodated within the existing budget.

Should Council decide to acknowledge Community feedback for extended opening hours to accommodate after school access, and implement at least one extension, e.g. open until 5pm one day per week, there will be a small budget implication.

4. Recommended Direction

The following table outlines the recommendation proposed in Option 3.

Day of the week	Current	Proposed	Status
Monday	10am – 2pm	10am – 2pm	No change
Tuesday	10am – 2pm	10am – 2pm	No change
Wednesday	10am – 2pm	10am – 2pm	No change
Thursday	10am – 2pm	10am – 2pm	No change
Friday	10am – 2pm	10am – 5pm	Increase of 3 hours
Saturday	9am – 12pm	9am – 12pm	No change

Significance and Engagement

The Local Government Act 2002 requires a formal assessment of the significance of matters and decision in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy in order to guide decision on approaches of engagement and degree of options analysis. In making this formal assessment, it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions.

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy, this decision is considered to be of low significance because Community interest in this decision is primarily confined to current library users and the ’parent community’ concerned with after-school access. Staff have engaged informally with these frequent customers to assess their preferences. The financial implications associated with the decision are low.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

Interested/Affected Parties	Completed Engagement/Consultation/Communication
Name of interested parties/groups	A survey to ascertain preferred extended opening day of the week. (Parent Community from Waihi Beach Primary School).	Planned	Completed
Tangata Whenua	None at this time.
General Public	A media release advising of the change in hours. A short questionnaire available at the Library and Service Centre.

Statutory Compliance

The recommendation(s) meets:

· Legislative requirements/legal requirements;

· Current council plans/policies/bylaws; and

· Regional/national policies/plans.

Funding/Budget Implications

Budget Funding Information

Relevant Detail

$6,000 per annum

Increase in staff resources required to cover additional hours of opening, for Option 3. To be accommodated within existing budgets.

9.9 Omokoroa to Tauranga Cycle Trail - User Survey

File Number: A3972357

Author: Scott Parker, Reserves and Facilities Projects Assets Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

1. During December 2020 to January 2021, users of the Omokoroa to Tauranga cycleway were surveyed by independent consultancy Xyst Ltd. The Xyst report is included as Attachment 1 and will be linked separately through Council’s website for viewing online at: https://infogram.com/western-bop-dc-trail-survey-summary-report-1h1749vv1vegq6z

2. It is proposed to repeat this survey in two years’ time to assess the effects of recommended improvements.

Recommendation

That the Reserves and Facilities Projects Assets Manager’s report dated 2 February 2021 titled ‘Omokoroa to Tauranga Cycleway – User Survey’ be received.

Background

3. The survey was commissioned to capture data and feedback from cycle trail users to inform future decisions and Council’s corporate reporting performance measures.

4. A total of 199 surveys were undertaken from 14 December 2020 to 5 January 2021. Of these, 67 surveys were submitted online and the remaining 132 were completed as intercept surveys (face to face at various trail locations with individual users).

5. Overall satisfaction with the trail is high with 93.5% of users either satisfied or very satisfied. However, specific satisfaction scores ranged considerably.

6. The most commonly requested improvement (by 25% of all respondents) was to complete the trail from the Wairoa River Bridge to Bethlehem so that this section can be used safely.

7. Other feedback sought better trail surfaces; better trail etiquette and the slowing of speeding cyclists; more drinking water stations; better wayfinding signage; more toilets; make more of the trail off road (eg, Lochhead Road); trim overgrowing vegetation; make the narrow (foot) paths safer to use (eg, Borell & Te Puna Road).

8. Subject to LTP funding, achievable improvements for staff to focus on before the next survey (in two years time) include; better wayfinding signage; add drinking water stations; more regular vegetation trimming, trail widening and surface improvements at some locations.

9. The Wairoa Bridge to Bethlehem safety issue is clearly identified in the report. A multi-party resolution continues to be worked on behind the scenes but there is no clear timeframe on when this might conclude.

Attachments

1. Omokoroa to Tauranga Cycleway - User Survey Summary Report - January 2021 ⇩

Performance and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

2 February 2021

9.10 Operational Risk Report February 2021

File Number: A3942809

Author: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

To advise the Performance and Monitoring Committee about current items of operational risk, covering capital projects and operations.

If the risk outcome requires Committee or Council direction or approval, there will be a separate decision report for that item.

Recommendation

That the Deputy Chief Executive’s Report dated 2 February 2021 and titled ‘Operational Risk Report February 2021’ be received.

Background

This report has been developed to provide a focus on operational risk and is separate to the risk items identified in reports to the Audit and Risk Committee.

The report does not cover the strategic and litigation risk that is reported to the Audit and Risk Committee.

The operational risk table has been developed to show:

• Project or activity;

• Brief description of the risk and why it has arisen;

• Type of risk (e.g. timing, financial, service delivery); and

• Traffic light system:

Green: Operational item, for information;

Orange: Potential to escalate, Council needs to be aware; and

Red: High risk, Council direction may be required.

Where items are significant or require further explanation, a PowerPoint presentation will be undertaken at the meeting. An update will be provided on current projects at the meeting.

Topic and Description

Risk Type

Risk Level

Waihi Beach Wastewater

The SAS treatment pond liner has failed due to damage caused by a mechanical failure. The liner had to be removed and needs to be replaced.

Replacement of the liner requires de-sludging the settlement ponds and shifting the aerators and stirrers.

Constructing an additional storage pond and installing some temporary pipework and electrical cabling so that the wastewater can be continued to be treated in this temporary location. This will allow the main SAS Lagoon to be drained and repairs carried out.

The plant has been operating without a liner. Indicative cost $1M plus. Insurance claim being lodged. The insurance assessor has been appointed and meetings held. Further information is being provided.

The plant has transitioned to the temporary ponds and has been operating at a satisfactory level over December and January.

Environmental breach of consent conditions.

Financial.

2 Mile Creek

The contract was tendered in July 2020 and the responses were analysed. The tender values were significantly above budget.

An alternative design has been developed and is currently in a price negotiation process.

Project construction is on hold pending negotiations. The budget for 2021/22 will be underspent.

Timing

Cost

Land Entry

Omokoroa Industrial Road

The timing of the industrial road is subject to landowner agreement, which has now been reached. Construction is planned to occur in the 2020/21/22 construction seasons as one of the CIP projects. However, the timing is subject to land acquisition and coordination with NZTA over stormwater and intersection location.

Timing

Transportation – LCLR Work Category

The Council strategy has been to utilise the NZ Transport Agency LCLR 3-year allocation over 2 years and seek an additional allocation for year 3 (2020/2021). The application is currently under review by NZ Transport Agency. If the application is unsuccessful, the 2020/21 roading programme will be reduced and a larger portion unsubsidised.

Financial

Timing

Omokoroa to Tauranga Cycle trail

The issue of pedestrian / cyclist conflicts and cyclist / vehicles at the entranceways on Borell Road and Snodgrass Road has been raised. A safety audit has been completed and remedial options being planned. User numbers on the trail are increasing.

Refer to the separate information report “Omokoroa to Tauranga Cycle Trail – User Survey” in this agenda.

Public Reaction

Safety

Cost

Seal Extension Programme

There is a risk to the timing and delivery of the seal extension programme due to the Tangata Whenua feedback. This has the potential to affect Mountain Road and Tirohanga Road.

Correspondence has been sent to Mr Rolleston advising him of the Council decision to proceed as planned with the Tirohanga Road Seal Extension.

The current seal extension programme is expected to be completed this financial year.

A new programme will be developed for the elected members’ consideration before the end of the financial year.

Tangata Whenua Feedback

Timing

CIP and Three Waters Reform Projects

There are a significant number of new projects for delivery over the next two years. Resourcing and consenting is a risk to delivery.

Contractor, consultant and staff resources

Consenting

Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant

The plant requires upgrading to meet the consent conditions and to increase capacity for RBP and local growth. This is the first stage of a 2-stage project. Stage 1 is around $20M and will be delivered over three years.

Design Cost

Upgrade Cost

Physical Works Timing

Chairperson	Cr Don Thwaites
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Murray Grainger
Members	Mayor Garry Webber Cr Grant Dally Cr Mark Dean Cr James Denyer Cr Monique Gray Cr Anne Henry Cr Christina Humphreys Cr Kevin Marsh Cr Margaret Murray-Benge Deputy Mayor John Scrimgeour
Quorum	6
Frequency	Six weekly