KAIKŌURA DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING
Date: 28 August 2019 Time 9.00am
Location COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 96 WEST END, KAIKŌURA.
AGENDA 1. Apologies
2. Declarations of Interest
3. *Public Forum – Session for members of the public wishing to comment on items included in this agenda
4. Adjourn to hear Committee meetings
5. Delegation
6. Matters of Importance to be raised as Urgent Business
7. Minutes to be Confirmed: Council 31 July 2019 page 3
8. Financial Corporate Sustainability Report page 10 9. Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group Report page 20 10. Freedom Camping Bylaw page 49 11. Tourism Infrastructure Fund August Application Summary page 80 12. Kaikōura Community Pool Project Update page 87 13. Whale Trail page 93 14. New Road Naming page 97 15. Waste Management and Minimisation Steering Group page 99 16. Planning/Resource Consent Update page 112 17. Community Services Update page 118 18. Building and Regulatory Update page 124 19. Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Update page 128 20. Economic Development Update page 139 21. Mayors Report page 142
1
*Council Public Excluded Session
Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely
a) Confirmation of Minutes of Council Public Excluded meeting dated 31 July 2019 b) Clarence Valley Access Options Report c) Natural Hazards Update d) Human Resources Management and Health and Safety Update
The general subject 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(1) and 7(2)(i) of the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of each to Reason for passing this resolution in Grounds of the Act be considered relation to each matter under which this resolution is made
Minutes of the Council Public Section 48(1)(a) and Excluded meeting – 31 July 7(2)(b); Section 2019. The exclusion of the public from the 7(2)(g) to maintain whole or the relevant part of the legal professional Clarence Valley Options proceedings of the meeting is privilege and Section necessary to enable the Local 7(2)(i) to enable the Natural Hazards Update Authority to deliberate in private on Council to carry on, its decision or recommendation. without prejudice or Human Resources disadvantage, Management and Health and negotiations. Safety Update.
MEETING RULES: "Audio recordings will be made of this meeting for the purpose of assisting the minute taker to create accurate minutes. Audio recordings should not be taken of any confidential, public excluded or otherwise sensitive matters. The Chair of the meeting is responsible for indicating if/when recording should be stopped and restarted. While held, the audio recordings are subject to LGOIMA, they may be released in line with Councils LGOIMA processes and/or at the discretion of the meeting Chair. A copy of the guidelines and principals for the use of recordings is available on request" * Public Forum – maximum of 10 minutes.
2 MINUTES OF THE KAIKŌURA DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT 9.00AM ON WEDNESDAY 31 JULY, 2019, AT COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 96 WEST END, KAIKŌURA
PRESENT: Mayor W Gray, (Chair), Deputy Mayor J Howden, L Bond, T Blunt, C Harnett, J Howden, C Mackle, D Millton, N Pablecheque
IN ATTENDANCE: A Oosthuizen (Chief Executive), M Madden (Council Secretary)
1. APOLOGIES Nil 2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Nil
The meeting moved to public excluded at 2.44pm.
3. PUBLIC FORUM Nil
4. The meeting was adjourned to hear Works and Services at 9.05am.
5. DELEGATION Kaikōura Youth Council were heard at 1.30pm.
6. MATTERS TO BE RAISED AS URGENT GENERAL BUSINESS
6.1 RECOMMEND DEPUTY CONTROLLER Ms S Haberstock presented the report.
Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Blunt
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives recommend of Deputy Controller report and; (b) Recommends Mr C Gregory to the Joint Committee of the Canterbury Civil Defence /Emergency Management Group for the role of Deputy Controller for the Kaikōura District Council. UNANIMOUS 7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of a meeting of the Kaikōura District Council held on 26 June, 2019
Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Howden
THAT the Council:
(a) Confirms as a true and correct record, the circulated minutes of a meeting of the Kaikōura District Council held on 26 June, 2019, subject to the inclusion of the following presentation:
3 4 DELEGATION
KAIKŌURA COMMUNITY SPORT COMPLEX Mr N Sweeney and Ms Y Mackle presented.
The Kaikōura Community Sports Club is seeking use of the Scarborough Street northern site and seeking an answer from Council, requesting an agreement for its use. Council understands that the south side for the development of the pool provides for an area to expand. The group do not agree that this is suitable for the sport complex due to its gradient. The proposed facility is similar in size to the high school hall. Councillor Howden asked how two facilities on one space would be justified for a town of this size. No decision could be made until finalisation of the transfer station design. A temporary arrangement was entered into in 2001 and remains in place until the above is finalised. Once this decision is made, decisions and designations will be considered. The south site is the preferred location for the new swimming pool. Council cannot provide approval for an agreement to proceed to a feasibility study until a decision on the transfer station is made.
Council moved to provide the group with updates on the progress of the site and a response to John Diver.
UNANIMOUS
8. PENSIONER HOUSING RENTAL INCREASE Ms S Haberstock, Community Services Manager, presented the report that was taken as read.
Ms K Whitwell consulted with each of the affected pensioners. The figures shown in the report reflect the maximum increase (20%) and will be rounded to $125, $165 and $185. The policy is that housing for the elderly should always be self‐funding and no cost back to rate payers.
Moved by Councillor Pablecheque, second Councillor Mackle
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the pensioner housing rental increase report July 2019 (b) Approves an increase to charges of no more than 20% (c) Notes 90 days’ written notice will be given to current tenants UNANIMOUS 9. ADOPTION OF DRAFT ALCOHOL POLICY Mr I Shaw and Mr M Mitchell presented the report.
Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Mackle
THAT the Council:
(a) Approve the draft Local Alcohol Policy 2019 for public consultation. UNANIMOUS 10. DRAFT DANGEROUS AND INSANITARY BUILDINGS POLICY 2019 Mr M Mitchell presented the report.
4 Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Harnett
THAT the Council:
(a) Approve the draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2019 and that be accepted.
UNANIMOUS The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.30pm and reconvened at 1.00pm.
11. BUILDING AND REGULATORY UPDATE Mr M Mitchell presented the report.
Moved Mayor Gray, Seconded Councillor Harnett
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Building and Regulatory report UNANIMOUS
12. HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME UPDATE Mr P Thomson presented the report.
Bridge sequencing will follow per the report commencing with Hawthorne. Sewer upgrades are being coordinated with bridge construction. A Clarence Valley report is to be considered by Council in August. An update to residents will not be available until after the September Council meeting.
Desludging of the oxidation ponds has not been done since 2008. The build‐up is about 0.5 metre in depth. Loss of aeration in the earthquake could have contributed to the accelerated sludge build up and needs to be assessed. A review is in progress.
Moved Councillor Mackle Seconded Councillor Blunt
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Programme Update UNANIMOUS 13. KAIKŌURA COMMUNITY POOL PROJECT UPDATE Ms A Oosthuizen presented the report.
Moved Councillor Pablecheque Seconded Councillor Bond
THAT the Council: (a) Receives the Community Pool Project update and notes that the recommendation to approve the MOU is not approved due to its exclusion from the report. UNANIMOUS
14. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE REPORT
5 Ms S Haberstock, Community Services Manager, presented the report which was taken as read.
Moved Councillor Pablecheque Seconded Councillor Bond
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Community Services Update Report UNANIMOUS
15. CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CSIP) Ms S Haberstock presented the report which was taken as read.
Ms A Oosthuizen thanked staff who contributed to this report. Councillor Howden acknowledged the front desk do not always receive favourable behaviour.
Moved Councillor Bond Seconded Councillor Howden
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Customer Service Improvement Project report. UNANIMOUS
16. FAMILY VIOLENCE FREE NETWORK REPORT Ms J York and Ms S Haberstock presented the report.
Councillor Harnett asked what the challenges were. Ms York responded that it is hard to convince people and prevent behaviour beyond working with the people in front of you. We have received an extra year of funding and a signed contract with Oranga Tamariki. Our children are suffering and problems are widespread. We have a disjointed community with low morale and we need to acknowledge this. Red Cross says it is 3 years’ post‐earthquake and over time things will improve.
A safe place is needed with services provided to women and children. What is needed is more education and support for both men and women with ongoing anti‐violence promotion.
Moved Councillor Howden Seconded Mayor Gray
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Family Violence Free Network report. UNANIMOUS 17. LIBRARY REPORT Ms S Haberstock presented the report that was taken as read.
Currently working with Te Hā o Mātauranga for a careers corner. Councillor Millton added there was a student programme that took students out to the farm in Clarence for the day and is interested in reviving this. Ms York was looking at all digital detox options.
6 Moved Councillor Pablecheque Seconded Councillor Bond
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Library report. UNANIMOUS 18. KAIKŌURA YOUTH COUNCIL REPORT Ms P Jellyman and Mr O Thornton presented the report.
A verbal update to Item 9.1 of the report was received with Ms Jellyman and Mr Thornton retain co‐chair positions. Mr T Rae continues as secretary. Succession planning is taking place for next year when the positions are vacated by leaving members.
Youth awards are planned for 19 October 2019 clashes with the Mayfair Art Auction. Members attending the Top of the south forum had interesting conversations about lowering voting age to 16 years. Up to this age, there is a support system and influence from home.
Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Blunt
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Kaikōura Youth Council report for information. UNANIMOUS
19. PLANNING/RESOURCE CONSENT UPDATE REPORT Mr M Hoggard presented the report.
The draft responsible camping bylaw is under legal review and will go to consultation with Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura on the 10th of August 2019. A special meeting to adopt the bylaw will be required however the timeframe may not allow this to happen and may need to go to the new Council. Councillor Pablecheque acknowledged the amount of work contributed by Mr R Hogan and the planning team for work on the bylaw.
Whale Trail (walking /cycling track) discussions were undertaken with questions raised on easement ownership.
Ms A Oosthuizen added that Council’s set net ban submission should include three aspects, better and more robust data, the need to recognise development of existing fisherman and development of local solutions.
Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Pablecheque
THAT the Council:
(a) Receives the Planning/Resource Consent Update Report UNANIMOUS
20. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
7 Moved Mayor Gray Seconded Councillor Mackle
THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
a) Confirmation of Minutes of Council Public Excluded meeting dated 31 July 2019
c) Financial and Corporate Sustainability Update
d) Natural Hazards Update
e) Chief Executive Officer’s Report
The general subject 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(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject Reason for passing this Grounds of the Act under which this of each matter to resolution in relation to resolution is made be considered each matter Minutes of the Good reason to Refer to 29 May, 2019 agenda for Council Public withhold under section reasons. Excluded meeting 7 – 26 June 2019
That the public conduct of the Financial and Good reason to relevant part of the proceedings of Corporate withhold under section the meeting would be likely to result Sustainability 7 (2) (i) in the disclosure of information for Update. which good reason for withholding exists. Section 48(1)(a) Human Resources Good reason to That the public conduct of the Management and withhold under section relevant part of the proceedings of Health and Safety 7 (2) (a) the meeting would be likely to result Update. in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists. Section 48(1)(a) UNANIMOUS
THAT Mr Bruce Robertson (Audit Assistant Auditor‐General) be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of his knowledge of Financial and Corporate Sustainability. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matter to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because Mr Robertson is advising the Council, on the Financial and Sustainability programme.
21. CLOSED MEETING The Public Excluded portion of the meeting occurred from 2.44pm and closed at 4.00pm. The open forum did not reconvene.
8 22. NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting of the Council is at 9.00am on 28 August, 2019 in the Council Chambers.
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.00pm.
CONFIRMED
______Chairperson
______Date
9 Report to: COUNCIL Date: August 28 2019 Subject: Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project Prepared by: Angela Oosthuizen (Chief Executive) with advice from Project Director and Advisor Input sought from: Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group Authorised by: Mayor Gray
PURPOSE: This report provides an overview of the findings of the Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group’s (KRSG’s) work to assess the Financial and Corporate Sustainability of Kaikōura District Council (KDC).
It recommends THAT Council:
a) recommends to the incoming Council that it formally considers the findings and recommendations from the KRSG to the CEO by 30 November 2019; and b) Notes that an implementation plan will be developed as a priority to accompany the recommendations to the incoming Council.
The CEO will provide advice and agree with Council on how to align the CEO’s KPIs to include an implementation plan, decisions on the proposed new operating model and any other sub‐ projects. This may require additional resourcing and agreement of funding with Council and possibly the Crown, and may be subject to community engagement or consultation.
This report should be read in conjunction with the attached report from the KRSG which includes the comprehensive findings of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recovery from the earthquake of November 2016 has put additional financial pressure on the Council and required the support of Government.
The Government’s Budget 2018 allocated $1.3 million to support the Council’s return to financial and corporate sustainability. Council staff have been working closely and collaboratively with Crown colleagues under a Memorandum of Understanding to assess the status quo and identify options to ensure financial and corporate sustainability for KDC into the future.
Council agreed to a set of guiding principles for the work earlier in 2019, and provided guidance on where it believed improvements were required to service delivery across the district.
Comprehensive work was done by the KRSG which has now delivered its findings. Their full report to the CEO is attached.
10 Overall, the KRSG found that KDC is not sustainable into the future in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances, all of which were exacerbated by the 2016 earthquake.
Were the status quo to continue, even with the extraordinary aid and assistance packages subsequent to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, the long term sustainability of the Council would not be addressed, and the risk of past under‐performance and rates affordability pressures may lead to under‐investment recurring in future years. Also, there would be limited ability to cope with unplanned future events.
The KRSG therefore concluded that a new operating model is required and developed a proposal based on:
Retaining a locally elected council within its existing territorial boundaries Developing existing leadership capability to allow for management of the delivery of services (including internal support services) within a set of collaborative shared services The likelihood of service delivery through one core shared service arrangement/partner for internal support services, and possibly more bespoke partnerships with existing providers to deliver other, asset‐based services (this could be in partnership with another/other local authority/ies) Developing an investment package, estimated to cost in the range of $7.3m to $10m over a period of three to five years, to undertake the necessary development of internal services to support transition to the proposed new operating model.
Core assumptions of the proposed new operating model are:
KDC can attract and retain people with the leadership, management and technical skills to work within these collaborative parameters Crown support for this course of action and are willing to make a contribution to the estimated investment cost, ranging between $7.3m‐$10 m KDC is able to reach agreement/s with appropriate partner/s to deliver shared services.
I concur with the recommendations of the KRSG. DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION The outcome from this work may be significant and fall within the scope of KDC’s Significance and Engagement Policy and some aspects of it will likely require community and stakeholder involvement at the appropriate time. However, this report and recommendations do not fall within the policy, as it is recommending that the matters are considered by the incoming Council. The incoming Council will then have to consider the significance of any decisions it wishes to make.
Council may decide to deviate from the policy and record its reasons for doing do.
RECOMMENDATIONS That Council: 4.1. Receives the KRSG’s Project report.
11 4.2. Notes the KRSG findings:
a) That KDC is not sustainable into the future in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances resulting from the 2016 earthquake.
b) That historic under‐investment in KDC’s capital programme, systems, capacity and capability, while not uncommon for a small local authority, has been exposed and exacerbated by the earthquake.
c) That the draft 12‐year financial plan together with the implementation of the proposed new operating model produced by the KRSG demonstrates the path towards sustainability.
d) That the gap between the current KDC position and what would be required to achieve future sustainability is estimated to require funding ranging between $7.3m and possibly up to $10 million over five years.
e) That in an effort to address future sustainability and be successful in any requests for external support, KDC must ensure ongoing, robust financial discipline.
f) That priority should be given to working closely with the Crown in order to address the shortfall and capability needs of Kaikōura in the next three‐to‐five years.
g) The importance of the implementation of improved corporate and information management systems to support the proposed new operating model, at an estimated cost of up to $4.8 million.
h) That given that the local body elections are on 12 October 2019, it would be inappropriate for it at this time to make a decision to change to a new operating model supported by a recommended 12 year plan as recommended by the KRSG.
4.3 Recommends to the Incoming Council that it formally considers the findings and recommendations of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project by 30th November 2019.
4.4 Notes that the KRSG has been requested to develop an implementation plan which includes:
advice on how to manage the transition to the proposed new operating model proposed engagement with key stakeholders consideration of internal and external consultation requirements prior to decision‐ making the skills and resources required to deliver the plan.
4.5 Recommends to the incoming Council that:
a) it supports a Rating Policy Review being commenced in advance of the development of the 2021‐31 LTP (this will need resourcing and additional budget) b) it supports Council’s policy on (re)instituting a Development Contributions policy being integrated as a part of the development of the 2021/31 LTP c) it requests advice from the CEO on aligning the CEO’s KPIs to include the transition plan and decisions on the proposed new operating model.
12
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The Kaikōura District has a population of around 3,500, allowing only a small rating base from which the council can draw funds. Recovery from the earthquake of November 2016 has put additional financial pressure on the council and required the support of Government. This work has highlighted the district’s financial sustainability issues and led to the establishment of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability work underway.
KDC received strong feedback from residents about reducing rates increases during 2018/19 budgeting process – whether realistic or not. Action is clearly required to address the financial issues we face.
Post‐earthquake, Kaikōura has been fortunate to have the support of Government to address key infrastructure and natural hazards issues. Without this support, the people of Kaikōura would have been faced with significantly higher rates increases to fix what was damaged.
In addition to earthquake‐related costs, the Council is also under pressure to address the results of past under‐spending on facilities services and asset management/data and support the community as it moves on from the earthquake.
MOU with the Crown
The Government’s Budget 2018 allocated $1.3 million to support the Council’s return to financial and corporate sustainability.
In July 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between KDC and the Crown to outline how the parties would work together to ensure the Budget funding would be effectively drawn down and allocated.
Both parties agreed to a clear set of outcomes and deliverables associated with this funding. In particular, the desired outcomes included to provide:
a financially efficient Council (in relation to appropriate debt levels and new sources of revenue; commercial operations, such as the harbour and airport; possible divestment of assets; and the development of core transformational projects); and an enhanced capability for the Council, with a fit for purpose structure to meet future needs and exploration of shared servicing and other arrangements.
The MOU included reinstating a Kaikōura Earthquake Recovery ‐ Council‐Crown Governance Structure with a Steering Group reporting to the CEO and Council, and the Crown; ensure transparency in the decision‐making processes; and where appropriate joint views and agreed positions were developed.
The review of the district’s financial sustainability included:
a review of all assets, fees and charges, and current debt financing to seek savings; investigations of new revenue opportunities; a review of all the services provided across the district to find efficiencies; consideration of the council structure and ways of working; the preparation of a 12‐year financial plan for the district.
13
The aim was to find ways to ensure the financial sustainability of the district into the future – with a relatively small number of ratepayers and significant ongoing costs, the review considered a wide range of options.
Council’s Principles and Objectives
On 12 February 2019 Council adopted the following strategic objectives to guide their decisions on the Financial and Sustainability options for the future:
The Kaikōura community will have strong representation through directly elected local government representation in place; The way Kaikōura services are delivered is financially sustainable; Statutory responsibilities are met; Services meet the specific needs of the community, are delivered efficiently and sustainably and consider the long‐term needs of the district; The community is confident that robust plans are in place; The Crown is confident that Council’s plans are deliverable; and The way the Council works and is structured supports the District’s Long Term Vision and Plan.
It also adopted the following guiding principles to underpin their approach to this work:
Elected members will “do the right thing” for the communities of the present and the future in their decision making on the Council’s future; Decisions that come out of this project will guide future decisions; Kaikōura District is forward thinking, making the right decisions for present and future generations with the primary focus being sustainable service delivery to the community; Trust and credibility in Council capability and decision making will be built; The best available information and data to make common sense decisions will be used; The CEO will keep the staff well‐briefed so they are well informed as the project progresses; Trust and credibility will be built with the community and key stakeholders by informing them of progress on this strategic project; and Elected members will trust in the advice from the Chief Executive (supported by the Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group) and will take the time needed to make good decisions.
Levels of Service
On 11 March 2019 a workshop with elected members confirmed nine main current Activity Groups and identified key issues, challenges and gaps for each of these activities as covered by KDC’s Three‐Year plan. Council agreed at the workshop that the existing services require a range of interventions (in some cases significant) to improve delivery.
14 THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE KAIKŌURA RECOVERY STEERING GROUP The final report of the KRSG to the CEO has been completed and is attached.
This report provides the conclusions of the KRSG’s work to assess the Financial and Corporate Sustainability of KDC. They are as follows:
a) KDC is not sustainable into the future in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances exacerbated by the 2016 earthquake.
b) Historic under‐investment in KDC’s capital programme, systems, capacity and capability, while not uncommon for a small local authority, has been exposed by the earthquake and pressures have been exacerbated.
c) There is limited opportunity for additional or alternate sources of revenue, and therefore KDC needs to rely on its existing and future ratepayer base.
d) Significant expenditure and time would be required to address serious capability and capacity issues.
e) Council needs to address serious gaps through an Infrastructure Strategy to maintain existing and new assets and a Financial Strategy for Council commensurate with its limited balance sheet strength.
f) Expected increases in national regulatory standards, particularly in the three waters area, will put further pressure on already strained systems and capacity
g) Work required to establish future sustainability would take up to five years and cost at least $7.3m and probably closer to $10m. This is made up of a significant up‐front cost of $4.8m to bring systems up to current standards and digitise records. The remainder is for transition management, service reviews and enabling the move to full collaboration in a shared service new operating model.
h) Council should engage with the Crown on its financial position and agree on options to enable a move to the new operating model.
i) The KRSG does not consider the counter factual to its recommendation of adopting a new operating model is viable.
The primary alternative to this course of action is retention of the status quo – that KDC continue in its existing form, post rebuild, without any change. This approach amounts to returning to the pre‐earthquake operating model.
The KRSG has discounted this position on the basis that the status quo suggests there are real risks of:
An inability to maintain the required staff capacity and capability needed to meet levels of service required of a local authority.
15 An inability to maintain infrastructure‐based levels of service through the combined effects of limited staff resources and pressure on rates affordability. An inability to meet the future expectations of a fully competent local authority. The sector is subject to ongoing change and KDC’s ability to evolve and meet future expectations is uncertain. The most likely immediate challenge will be the signaled new regulatory environment for the delivery of the ‘3 waters’ An inability to cope with future unplanned issues. The need of ongoing outside support – especially from central government.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS There are significant financial implications in the recommended decisions.
The 12‐year financial plan outlines the substantial challenge ahead of KDC. Critical to executing this plan is the developing of an effective transition arrangements assessed at $7.3m, and potentially up to $10 million.
The impact on average rates (total rate requirement/total number of rateable properties was projected to be:
Year Total Rates Rates rise% Average Status ($m) Rate 2017/18 5.983 6% $2,138 Set 2018/19 6.852 14.5% $2,440 Set 2019/20 7.668 11.9% $2,721 Set 2020/21 8.596 12.1% $3,040 12 yr plan forecast Total Cumulative rates rise 52.4% 50.2%
It can be seen that this work has a substantial impact on KDC’s average rates (even with an assumed subsidy from the Crown) and that rates will continue to steadily increase by approximately 3% per annum.
It is recommended that KDC engage with the Crown to discuss the co‐funding of these implementation costs, at an appropriate level, which protects the transformation of Council’s balance sheet to a sustainable position and with sufficient strength to sustainably deliver services to its community.
16 OPTION EVALUATION Option 1: New Operating Model (Preferred)
Option 2: Status Quo
Pros Cons
Option 1 ‐ New Operating Efficient and effective Requires funding of $7.3m‐ Model service delivery $10m and Crown support
Systems capture institutional Possible challenges to find knowledge and processes willing partners for shared support efficiency service delivery
Earthquake legacy captured Costs may escalate
Enhanced capabilities, Potential for negative talent, skills and culture community perceptions
Sustainable delivery Potential staff turnover and/or instability Adaptive and compliant with new legislative changes Potential for change resistance Community support for fit for purpose local delivery Limited ability to reduce rates Potential for staff development through transition opportunities
Growth and development of local resource
Model for other small councils
Option 2 – Status quo No disruption to current services or staff Potential service delivery failures or failure to meet regulatory standards. (eg Lower debt level Havelock North situation: ongoing boil water notices)
Inability to secure capacity and capability to deliver required services
Unduly high dependence on a few key staff, and limited
17 ability to recruit and retain appropriately experienced staff.
Services not meeting community expectations
Service delivery not likely to keep pace with standards delivered by other local authorities
Risk of implosion and Central Government intervention that takes the District’s future and control out of KDC’s hands.
No likelihood of external financial support to address issues identified by KRSG
Community view Council is not addressing key challenges
There is a further option, which is a variation of Option 1, whereby Council transitions over a longer timeframe than the 3‐5 years signalled in the KRSG report. The risk with delaying implementation further is that there is no momentum in achieving the change that is needed. It would run the risk of changes never being implemented. It is not an approach I would recommend. TIMING AND ASSOCIATED RISKS Because of the timing of the local body elections, it is recommended that this Council receives and recommends that the incoming Council considers the findings and recommendations of the KRSG which effectively means the incoming Council will make the final decision. The consequences of this are that final decisions on the recommendations in the KRSG report are unlikely to be made until the end of this year. This presents a risk that the project will lose momentum and/or create further staff instability/uncertainty and that implementation will be delayed.
Our view is that the transition plan requested by the KRSG is the key strategy which will mitigate this risk. Concurrent with this, the CEO will continue to make it a priority to communicate with staff and focus on the recruitment of the two senior leaders currently advertised. There are also current projects underway on solid waste, asset management data collection and improvement in delivery of three waters by Council and contractor.
18 There is a further risk that the current CEO KPIs which guide the organisation within the parameters of the 2019/2020 annual plan are not aligned with the likely outcomes from this project
To address this, we have included a recommendation that the CEO provide advice to Council on how best to align the CEO’s KPIs to include the transition plan and decisions and timing related to the proposed new operating model. This will require approval by the incoming Council. LEGAL The Local Government Act requires any significant decisions to be subject to the provisions of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and any changes to the Council’s Annual Plan that are deemed significant would require consultation with the community as part of its refreshed Long Term Plan. This matter would be considered by the incoming Council once it had received advice about the proposed implementation plan. THE WORK IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL COMMUNITY OUTCOMES We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
19 Report to: CEO
Date: 28 August 2019
Subject: Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group (KRSG): Report on the Financial and Corporate Sustainability (FCS) Project
Prepared by: Project Director and FCS Working Group Chair Input sought from: KRSG Authorised by: KRSG Chair
CONTENTS
Page No.
1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……...….2
2 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………..……………………………………….3
2.1 Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………....3
2.2 Our Approach………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
2.3 Assessment of Kaikōura’s Sustainability……………………………...…4
2.4 Key Findings………………………………………………...………...……5
2.5 Proposed New Operating Model………………………………………….5
2.6 How We Reached Our Conclusions……………………………….……..6
2.7 Conclusions and Timing……………………………………………...……7
3 Background…………………………………………………………………….…….7
3.1 Rates Affordability………………………………………………………….7
3.2 Crown Support To Date………………………………………………..…..9
4 Summary of Work Undertaken…………………………………………………….9
4.1 Phases of Work..……………………………………………………..…….9
4.2 Project Budget…………………………………………………………….10
5 Phase One: Stocktakes……………………………………………….…………..10
5.1 Commercial Activities
5.1.1 Harbour……………………………………………………………10
20 5.1.2 Airport………………………………….…………………………..11
5.2 Other Community Projects……………………………………………….11
5.3 Other Revenue Streams………………………………………………….12
5.3.1 Funding Policies Review…………………….………………..…12
5.3.2 Investment Asset Review………………….…………………….12
5.3.3 Debt Management………………………….…………………….12
5.3.4 Visitor Levy……………..…………………………………………13
5.4 Infrastructure Assets………………...……………………………………13
5.4.1 Predicted Expenditure…………………………………...………14
5.5 Innovative Waste Kaikōura (IWK)……………………………………….16
5.6 Human Resources…………………………………………..……………16
5.6.1 Purpose of Stocktake……………………………………...…….16
5.6.2 Council Level of Service Workshop………………..…………..17
5.6.3 Work Underway…………………………………………………..17
6 Phase Two: The 12 Year Financial Model……………………………...………17
7 Phase Three: Service Delivery Options…………………………………………18
7.1 Analysis of Service Delivery Options……………………………………18
7.2 Proposed New Operating Model…………………………………..…….19
7.3 Transition Costs Of New Operating Model……………………………..20
8 Phase Four: Development of New Generation 12 Year Financial Plan
8.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………...21
8.2 Analysis…………………………………………………………………….22
8.3 Key Findings……………………………………………………………….24
9 What Happens If No Action is Taken…………………………………………....25
10 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..…….26
21 11 Next Steps………………………………………………………………………….26
12 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………27
Appendices (1‐9 separately circulated in folder for 7 August Workshop)
1(a) Council’s guiding principles………………………………………………………29
1 MOU between KDC and the Department of Internal Affairs
App 1 &2 MoU.pdf
2 Council‐Crown Governance Structure
3 Harbour Stocktake
App 3 Harbour report.pdf
4 Airport Stocktake
App 4 Airport report.pdf
5 Funding Policies Review: “Revenue Streams Health Check”
App 5 Revenue streams health check report.pdf
6 Investment Review: “Asset Review”
App 6 Asset review.pdf
7 Debt Management Report
App 7 Debt management report.pdf
8 Infrastructure Report
App 8 Infrastructure report.pdf
9 IWK: Tonkin & Taylor report
App 9 IWK ‐ Tonkin Taylor report.pdf
22
1 PURPOSE
The review of Kaikōura District Council’s (KDC’s) financial and corporate sustainability has sought firstly to determine the current status of the organisation, and secondly to consider a way forward which meets the increasingly wide‐ranging demands on local authorities both now and in the future.
In preparing this report, the Kaikōura Recovery Steering Group (KRSG) acknowledges the huge efforts and achievements of the elected Council, staff and community who have aligned their energies and worked hard to recover from the 2016 earthquake.
The event came a little over four weeks of a new Council being elected and during the first nine months of the new CEO’s tenure.
As a small council recovering from a significant event, KDC, its staff and the community, all of whom were dealing with their own personal issues, have accomplished much in a short time.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Overview
The review of KDC’s financial and corporate sustainability has been a complex process which considered a wide range of issues and information. In essence, we have:
carried out a series of stocktakes and reviewed existing commercial and internal activities and services
developed a 12 year financial model to enable us to analyse the Council’s financial and corporate sustainability – both under the status quo operating model, and with proposed changes
concluded that KDC is not sustainable into the future in its current form due to the extra pressures created by the earthquakes on top of everything else it has to do
concluded that a new operating model is required to achieve sustainability.
Our view is that without external support KDC cannot afford to implement a new operating model, but because it is not sustainable for it to continue into the future in its present form, it cannot afford not to.
2.2 Our Approach
The November 2016 earthquake put significant stress on KDC capability, capacity and finances, which were already under pressure due to KDC being one of New Zealand’s smallest local authorities. Following the earthquake the Government has provided substantial ongoing support, including this review of KDC’s financial and corporate sustainability.
As the smallest mainland TLA with just 3500 residents, KDC is in a unique position in that the ongoing challenges of maintaining in‐house capability and capacity, along with recognised past under‐ investment in systems and corporate services, have been exacerbated by earthquake response and recovery efforts and responsibilities. This has been compounded by the requirement to manage existing assets to a higher standard and meet increasing statutory requirements.
23 In approaching this problem, we acknowledged:
the huge effort and many achievements of KDC over the past three years as it responded to the earthquake
the impact of the earthquake on KDC’s capability, capacity, systems, processes and finances, particularly in light of previous acknowledged underinvestment in services
the financial support from the Crown, and the Crown’s willingness to engage with Council by means of the MoU between the two parties
the fact that KDC has already responded to the increased pressures created by the earthquake by raising rates by a nominal 36% over the past three years and should be commended for taking this course of action ‐ however, it is noted that one further significant rate increase is needed and, if initiated would mean a cumulative rates rise of 50% over four years. This is a significant burden on the community and future rate increases of this magnitude cannot be sustained.
expected increases in national regulatory standards, particularly in the three waters area, will put further pressure on already strained systems and capacity
Council’s wish that its organisation is able to sustainably meet the expectations of residents of the District and meet its statutory obligations
Council’s guiding principles (refer Appendix 1(a)) and its evaluation that existing services require a range of changes (in some cases significant) to further improve delivery
At the commencement of the project, amalgamation with another authority was discussed as a possible option. This was subsequently discounted as this is not a favoured approach nationally and Council’s own guiding principles included maintaining local democracy, which the KRSG supports.
2.3 Assessment of Kaikōura’s Sustainability
Sustainability for a local authority is primarily the combination of:
the financial ability to develop, maintain and continue to deliver services at a desired (or statutory) level the ability to attract and retain staff of sufficient calibre and capability to operate efficiently and effectively the ability of internal support systems and processes to be efficient and effective.
Supporting sustainability are factors such as capable and effective governance and decision‐making, and the concept of resilience – where there is sufficient ability to handle disruption without threatening council’s overall sustainability.
Kaikōura’s existing status quo model is not sustainable, nor will it deliver required Levels of Service for the community into the future.
Evidence includes:
24 limited revenue and revenue growth outside of rates sensitivity to rates affordability – Council has made substantial and ongoing rates increases (the current adopted three‐year plan indicated overall cumulative increases in average rates of 50% were required in the three years to 30 June 2021) inability to develop key community facilities without further external funding support ongoing limited ability to attract and retain key staff with the right skills currently ineffective and inefficient internal support systems.
2.4 Key Findings
Overall, we found that KDC is not sustainable in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances, all of which have been exacerbated by the 2016 earthquake.
Were the status quo to continue, even with the extraordinary aid and assistance packages subsequent to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, the long term sustainability of the Council would not be addressed, and the risk of past under‐performance and under‐investment recurring in future years would continue. There would also be limited ability to cope with unplanned future events.
We therefore conclude that a new operating model is required.
25 2.5 Proposed New Operating Model
We have developed a proposed new operating model which is based on:
retaining a locally elected council within its existing territorial boundaries developing existing leadership capability to allow for management of the delivery of services (including internal support services) within a set of collaborative shared services the likelihood of service delivery through one core shared service arrangement/partner for internal support services, and possibly more bespoke partnerships with existing providers to deliver other, asset‐based services (this could be in partnership with another/other local authority/ies) developing an investment package, estimated at a minimum cost of $7.3m, to undertake the necessary development of internal services and information management to support transition to the new model.
Core assumptions of the proposed new operating model are:
KDC can attract and retain people with the leadership, management and technical skills to work within these collaborative parameters An estimated minimum investment of $7.3m over three to five years, though allowing for unknowns and contingency this figure may realistically be closer to $10m over five years. External financial support and expertise will be needed.
The estimated $7.3m to $10m minimum cost of implementing the proposed new operating model includes:
$4.8m for systems improvements (the digitisation of records and introduction of technology to operate in an “e” environment) $650,000 for people resources to manage the transition $1.85m for service reviews across building and regulation, economic development, three waters, parks and recreation, commercial activities, and refuse and recycling allowance for unknowns and contingency (up to $2.7m)
2.6 How We Reached Our Conclusions (Analysis)
Our modelling compared the status quo (existing finances, funding, revenue sources, capacity to deliver services and statutory functions) with the proposed new operating model.
In summary, it showed the following:
a) The baseline 12 year financial plan (the status quo)
While the high level financial model suggests that with strict financial discipline, financial sustainability could possibly be achievable over the 12 year period, it does not:
allow for the needed redevelopment of internal support services ensure the retention of an adequate complement of staff with the right skills adequately allow for necessary resilience and future unknown costs.
If the status‐quo approach was adopted, in the KRSG’s view, over time the Council would continue to run‐down, potentially resulting in service delivery failure and the risk of implosion. It
26 would then require major intervention(s) to address the situation. The KRSG does not believe this option can be supported.
b) The 12 year financial plan (the proposed new operating model)
This model investment to:
develop the internal support services to support sustained delivery of levels of service establish the collaborative shared services necessary to support service delivery and access to adequate staff and organisational capability.
A high level financial model indicates the changes required cannot be prudently delivered within reasonable financial parameters because:
it requires continuation of anticipated rate rises of the three‐year plan it requires debt levels above the level assumed prudent it does not enable any allowance for reasonable future projects “other than the necessary”
it minimises any financial resilience available through its debt facilities.
While the proposed new operating model does show a pathway to future sustainability, it does require a level of support to be able to be implemented. Priority should be given to working closely with the Crown in order to address the shortfall and capability needs of Kaikōura in the next three‐ to‐five years. If this support is not forthcoming, KDC will still have to do the work and this will sorely test, and most likely exceed, its prudent debt levels.
2.7 Conclusions and Timing
Our recommendations are captured in Section 12 of this report. In summary, these are:
Council adopts the findings of the report
Council agrees to implement the proposed new operating model, as the status quo is not sustainable
Council engages with the Crown to explore opportunities for co‐funding and support to implement the proposed new operating model. Given that local government elections are imminent and the District will have a new Mayor and two new councillors, the KRSG consider the Chief Executive should seek overall endorsement from the current Council and recommend that it requests the incoming Council to consider and adopt its recommendations with urgency.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Rates Affordability
The Kaikōura District has a population of around 3,500, providing only a small rating base from which KDC can draw funds. The earthquake of November 2016 has placed significant additional pressure on
27 what is one of New Zealand’s smallest local authorities. Recovery and increased statutory demands arising from the earthquake have also required the ongoing support of Government.
The KDC was exempted from drafting a 2018‐28 Long Term Plan. However, it was required to prepare a Three Year Plan. This Plan for 2018‐21 anticipated substantial rate increases because KDC needed to:
“… improve our services, address deferred maintenance and infrastructure deficits and ensure Council has the expertise and capacity it needs to make good decisions and work effectively for the future of our District, Council has to meet additional annual costs of $1.7million. This means that an increase in rates is unavoidable.” (extract from the 3 year plan)
In response, rates were projected to increase successively year‐on‐year by 12.4%, 13.3% and 10%. This represented a substantial adjustment to the level of rates.
The impact on average rates (total rate requirement/total number of rateable properties was projected to be:
Year Total Rates ($m) Rates rise% Average Rate Status 2017/18 5.983 6% $2,138 Set 2018/19 6.852 14.5% $2,440 Set 2019/20 7.668 11.9% $2,721 Set 2020/21 8.596 12.1% $3,040 12 yr plan forecast Total Cumulative rates rise 52.4% 50.2%
It should be noted that the 2020/21 average rates of $3,040 assumes that the Crown agrees to a contribution to the changes required to implement the new operating model. If it was not received, the average rate would increase in a range between 15% (the average would increase to increase to $3,119) and 17% (an increase to $3,173).
When compared with average rates charges at similar regions and districts around New Zealand, Kaikoura’s average rates as set out above are higher than various similar‐sized councils around the country. The table below is based on the Department of Internal Affairs dataset for the 2018‐28 LTP and is based on a number of rateable properties. KDC’s number of rateable properties is 2,818, and there is an assumption these increase at 10 each year.
28
Average Minimum Maximum Number of rates rates rates councils Small Councils (less than 10,000 rateable properties) 2541 841 3605 18 Mid size Councils (10,000 to 30,000 rateable properties) 2638 2118 3505 32 Combination of small‐ and mid‐sized councils 2616 841 3605 50
Note – Kawerau DC has been eliminated from the comparison because of its particular and unique context would skew the results.
On this basis the set and intended average rates for Kaikoura ratepayers are above the average of small councils by 19.6%, mid‐sized councils by 15.2% and the combined grouping by 16.2%. hile regional growth in 2018 was 6.9% and above the national average of 3.7%, Kaikoura’s mean household earnings were $46,962 (before taxation). On average, rates account for over 6.5% of Kaikoura District’s household income before taxation, and potentially in the order 8% after taxation, which is significant.
This information suggests pressure on KDC to keep rates affordable within projected settings of the 12 year financial plan, and that the community has limited capacity to absorb higher rate increases.
3.2 Crown Support To Date
The Government’s Budget 2018 allocated $1.3 million to investigate the extent of KDC’s financial challenges, and support its return to financial and corporate sustainability.
In July 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) (refer to Appendix 1)) was signed between KDC and the Crown to outline how the parties would work together to ensure the Budget funding would be effectively drawn down and allocated.
Both parties agreed to a clear set of outcomes and deliverables associated with this funding. In particular, the desired outcomes included:
a financially efficient Council in relation to: appropriate debt levels and new sources of revenue; commercial operations, such as the harbour and airport; possible divestment of assets; and the development of core transformational projects an enhanced capability for the Council, with a fit for purpose structure to meet future needs and exploration of shared servicing and other arrangements.
The MOU included reinstating a Kaikōura Earthquake Recovery Council/Crown Governance Structure with a Steering Group to:
advise and report to the CEO, Council and the Crown ensure transparency in the decision‐making processes develop, where appropriate ,joint views and agreed positions.
29
The KRSG approved a package of work to assess the current financial and corporate sustainability of the Council, and to identify opportunities to make improvements for the future.
Membership of the KRSG is detailed in the Governance Structure (refer to Appendix 2).
4 SUMMARY OF WORK UNDERTAKEN
4.1 Phases of Work
The work programme was divided into four phases:
1) A series of stock takes assessing and looking for optimisation of revenue and expenditure.
In addition to commercial activities and other revenue streams, this phase included an assessment of infrastructure assets, the performance, costs and revenues associated with Council’s Council Controlled Organization, and Council’s Human Resources capability. It also included reviewing KDC’s revenue and financing policies and funding arrangements.
2) The development of a 12 year financial plan (2019‐2031) to provide a high level assessment of the baseline and financial sustainability of KDC based on the 2019/20 Annual Plan and data identified through the stocktake phase.
3) Identifying and evaluating any alternative service delivery arrangements which may allow or improve the efficiency, effectiveness and economic sustainability of KDC by improving capacity, capability and service delivery.
4) Merging of relevant alternative arrangements to develop a new generation 12 year financial plan (to align with the need to develop a 2021‐31 Long term Plan) which is the most efficient version of KDC as an independent entity.
4.2 Project Budget
The Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project was supported by the Crown, with funding of $1.3M allocated through the MOU. To date $565,931 of the first tranche of $800,000 has been spent.
The second tranche of $500,000 is earmarked for implementation.
5 PHASE ONE: STOCKTAKES
5.1 Commercial Activities
Investigations into the harbour and airport were undertaken to identify any additional revenue that may be available.
5.1.1 Harbour
The stocktake found that ownership of harbour land and assets needs confirmation to inform potential opportunities and identify any potential bottlenecks that could inhibit structural re‐organisation to enable commercial governance of the harbour. The issues are complex.
30 In the short term, the KRSG supports work on developing the harbour assets continuing alongside the implementation of the FCS recommended plan, but notes that there are no short‐term revenue benefits or opportunities.
There is an opportunity arising in the longer term for further development of the harbour which could be co‐funded commercially and through the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), leveraging the current infrastructure and enabling the development of fit‐for‐purpose infrastructure to further enhance and grow the tourism industry. Overcoming the current complications may enable future proofing the current infrastructure that is old, and will need further development to maintain the quality of tourism experience and allow for regional growth opportunities.
Two opportunities are being pursued under the PGF initiative:
The redevelopment of the Wakatu (North) wharf as part of a commercial/retail opportunity. This initiative has an indicative cost of $6‐10m.
The redevelopment of the South Harbour, which services the core boat‐based tourism activity and commercial and recreational fishing. This facility is a core contributor to the broader Kaikoura economy. The current development costs are thought to be in the vicinity of $40‐ 45m. KDC is directly interested and involved in both initiatives. However, its current and projected financial position does not allow it to necessarily be a co‐funder of either development. No provision has been made for KDC to contribute to these initiatives in the 12 year financial plan.
5.1.2 Airport
This work considered the following:
1) Current Position:
• operational compliance and H&S • Council assets, deferred maintenance and future capital requirements to maintain current service levels for users and evaluated lease conditions • financial analysis – current and forecast.
2) Growth Potential and Resilience:
• major operators’ views, plans and aspirations • growth potential and revenue capture mechanisms and charges • resilience and adequacy as a future emergency site and potential upgrade costs • financial sustainability and funding policies including possible third party contributions • steps to optimise sustainable operations and revenues.
The stocktake found that there is limited potential for growth except to make the airport cost neutral and address any CAA technical compliance risks. This work is budgeted in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.
Overall, the stocktake of these two commercial activities found limited opportunity for KDC to gather any additional revenue at least in the short‐medium term.
Refer to Appendices 3 and 4 for the full reports.
31 5.2 Other Community Projects
There is naturally a demand within the community for reasonable community facilities. Many of the existing facilities were affected by the earthquake and, in the case of the community swimming pool, it has been provided to the community under temporary arrangements.
Under consultation with the community through the recovery phase, two facilities were subject to strong community support and are outlined below.
Community swimming pool. In response to strong community demand, provision has been made in the 12 year plan to grant $1m in capital funding to the Trust set up to drive the pool initiative, and to support its operational costs annually to a maximum of $250,000.
Arts and cultural centre. No provision has been made for the arts and cultural centre in KDC budgets. At this stage it is fully independent of Council. Consequently, there is no provision in the 12 year plan to support such a facility.
5.3 Other Revenue Streams
5.3.1 Funding Policies Review
The purpose of the stocktake was to assess the current funding options to ensure they meet:
current good practice in the principles of the Local Government Act 2002 appropriate allocation of benefits between residential, business and rural properties maximum use of fees and charges including the use of financial and development contributions the use of debt including borrowing from LGFA efficiency of collection suitability of the funding for Kaikōura District. The stocktake identified the need to sense check the relevance of the current policies and ensure they are robust going forwards. There is a clear need for a rating review to address equity issues but this has not been part of this work. There is also a need to review the current Development Contributions Policy.
Refer to Appendix 5 for the full report.
The KRSG recommends that:
a Rating Policy Review be commenced in advance of the development of the 2021‐31 LTP,
KDC’s policy on (re)instituting a Development Contributions Policy should be integrated as a part of the development of the 2021/31 LTP, if there are identifiable growth related capital costs.
5.3.2. Investment Asset Review
The purpose of this stocktake was to identify assets that could be divested or could have revenue opportunities for KDC.
It found that there are limited investment opportunities to leverage existing Council assets. There is one potential opportunity which could be explored to facilitate growth and development at the
32 Wakutu Quay Wharf. This could potentially leverage some revenue generation for Council and is encompassed by the PGF work (refer to Section s 5.1.1 above).
Refer to Appendix 6 for the full report.
5.3.3. Debt Management
The purpose of this stocktake was to identify any ways KDC could be more efficient with its debt management.
The stocktake found that there is an opportunity to reduce financing costs through participation in the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), which provides funding to the local government sector at a lower cost than traditional funding sources. Consultation with the community was undertaken as part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan, as a precursor to accessing funding from the LGFA.
The KRSG support this work continuing alongside the implementation of the FCS recommended plan.
Refer to Appendix 7 for the full report.
5.3.4 Visitor Levy
The purpose of this stocktake was to investigate the viability of a visitor levy as an additional revenue stream for KDC.
The stocktake looked at other examples such as Southland District Council’s initiative to implement a levy on Stewart Island visitors. We found: that a levy would likely require enabling legislation that represents a high hurdle to implement; that capture of any such levy would be more problematic than the Stewart Island example; and therefore decided to keep a watching brief, particularly on the Queenstown Lake District Council’s initiative to pursue a bed tax.
Further, the recently published draft Productivity Commission report Local Government Funding and Financing specifically addresses the tourist related position of small councils, either through accommodation levies when tourists stay in the tourist centre, and/or through access to some operational funding from the international visitor levy where there substantial day visitors who do not stay over.
The Productivity Commission report and its findings are draft. But the outcome of the national consideration of the report may enable the KDC to access relevant alternative funding. This reinforces maintaining a watching brief and pursuing these opportunities as they arise given they seem directly applicable to KDC’s position.
5.4. Infrastructure Assets
The purpose of the stocktake was to:
assess the quality of data held by Council to inform its Infrastructure Strategy prepare the Infrastructure Strategy develop an Improvement Plan for asset data quality.
It was recognised that the development of an infrastructure plan will provide more clarity around the gaps in the current three year plan and provide more certainty on the renewal profile and strategic upgrades needed. However, the serious lack of data on which to base this work proved a huge
33 impediment, therefore we agreed to commission a 12 year infrastructure profile for the purposes of informing the 12 year financial plan.
The core findings of the stocktake are:
At this stage, KDC is not confident in its ability to prepare a robust and up‐to‐date Infrastructure Strategy. The level of confidence in asset data needs to be improved before a robust Strategy can be fully developed. There are a number of initiatives and actions currently underway to improve asset data systems and processes within KDC. It is intended that this will enable a complete 30 year Infrastructure Strategy to be completed for the 2021‐31 LTP. This 12 year Infrastructure Profile has been developed as an interim stage, generally aligned to the requirements of an Infrastructure Strategy and which can be used to inform the 12 year Financial Plan. As such, the purpose of this Profile is to identify significant infrastructure issues for KDC and provide an outline expenditure profile, including key projects over the next 12 years.
5.4.1 Predicted Expenditure
The charts below show the predicted expenditure across all Infrastructure Activities over the next 12 years, with a peak over the first three years while assets are ‘”brought up to scratch”, then reducing to a consistent spend per annum.
Works specifically related to the earthquake re‐build are excluded (with the exception of the community facilities which is a mix of earthquake rebuild and improvements).
Figure 1: Predicted 12 Yr Total Expenditure ‐ Split Capital Works / Ops and Maintenance
Predicted 12 Yr Total Expenditure ($000's) Split Capital Works / Ops and Maintenance 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 ‐
Ops and Maintenance Capital Works / Renewals
Figure 2: Predicted 12 Yr Total Expenditure ‐ Split by Activity
34 Predicted 12 Yr Total Expenditure ($000's) Split by Activity 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 ‐
Land Transport Water Supply Wastewater Stormwater Solid Waste Community Facilities
Figure 3: Expenditure Split across all Activities
EXPENDITURE SPLIT ACROSS ALL INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES 2018/19 ‐ 2029/30 OPS & MAINTENANCE / CAPITAL WORKS Community Facilities 26% Land Transport 39%
Refuse & Recycling Stormwater4% 1% Wastewater Water Supply 13% 17%
These graphs show in the order of $8m to $11m per annum total expenditure on infrastructure assets with a consistent spend from 2021/22, following the earthquake rebuild and a period of “catch up” to ensure assets are delivering the required levels of service.
It is anticipated that in the order of 80% of the costs are maintaining and operating assets with 20% on new/upgrade works and renewals. Around 50% of operations and maintenance expenditure for each activity is on management tasks and overheads – this high proportion is a typical consequence of the relatively small scale of works.
Land transport has the highest level of expenditure, although this is heavily funded through the Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) by NZTA.
35 Refer to Appendix 8 – 12 Year Infrastructure Profile – for the full executive summary and report. The full executive summary provides key assumptions built into the asset expenditures profile included in the 12 year financial plan.
5.5 Innovative Waste Kaikōura (IWK)
IWK is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) which delivers three waters and waste services to the District. Given these are core council services, it was decided to include IWK in the stocktake phase of the project.
Two reports were commissioned:
The Tonkin and Taylor (T and T) report reflected the informal nature of arrangements between IWK and KDC and the on‐going challenge of finding suitable governance. Morrison Low were asked to do a further review to confirm the findings of T and T and to expand on them in some areas. The outcome of this review will be presented to the new Council.
There are clear indications of the probable substantial uplift in costs of operation of the three waters service to meet the new, probable regulatory regime once reforms are completed nationally. It is assumed that generally, costs will rise.
The KRSG anticipates that significant work is required on delivery issues associated with the three waters and waste, and it considers this work should be given a high priority.
In regards to waste Council has resolved to close the landfill and move to a transfer and carry operation partnering with a regional provider. The decision is in principle with discussion and negotiations yet to be undertaken.
Refer to Appendix 9 for the full T and T report.
5.6 Human Resources
5.6.1 Purpose of Stocktake
The initial response to, and ongoing recovery from, the 2016 earthquake placed extreme pressure on KDC staff, who were also coping with their own personal earthquake experiences. It has been a challenging three years, and staff are to be commended for their hard work, adaptability, resilience and dedication to their community during this period. Much has been achieved in a short space of time, and the resilience of these staff has been tested.
The purpose of the stocktake was to assess the current in‐house capacity and capability within KDC. The stocktake noted the well‐known challenges in recruiting staff to smaller provincial councils around New Zealand, and highlighted the need to improve internal support services through additional training, system development and optimisation of internal processes/policies. For example, asset management and Asset Management Plans, and the need to address internal capability gaps and capacity constraints which would involve structural change or alternate service delivery.
Staff capability and culture have been affected by past under‐investment, and additional work and pressures created by the earthquake have had an effect on staff. However, 2.5 years after the quake there are signs of an improving morale. There is still a need to ensure support for staff and continue
36 with a cultural progression programme. There is also a need to focus still further on staff wellbeing as there are signs that staff are stressed and fatigued. The psycho‐social impact of working and living in a post disaster environment cannot be under‐estimated and was likewise demonstrated in Christchurch.
5.6.2 Council Level of Service Workshop
Section 7, which describes Phase 3 of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability work programme, tested elected members’ own analysis of Council’s performance against our view in a workshop setting.
The overall findings of the workshop identified activities which required a major step change, those which needed some improvement, and those which while they were working well still required some changes.
5.6.3 Work Underway
Interim steps have successfully been implemented by the CEO to address immediate issues within engineering and finance, and recruitment of two senior managers to lead the restructured organisation is underway.
6 PHASE TWO: THE 12 YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL
A high level model was developed so that KDC’s current and future financial position and capacity could be more clearly understood. The model considers four key financial statements: a Statement of Comprehensive Income, a Statement of Cashflows, a Statement of Financial Position and a whole of Council Funding Impact Statement. Considering these four statements together provides a graphical representation of KDC’s true financial position in the long term.
The 2019/20 Annual Plan was the starting position and the base premises are threefold:
rates must be set at a level that is sustainable to maintain the service levels Council intends to delivering and increases should be predictable and affordable while also recognise the immediate past lift in cumulative rates of approximately 36% to an average household rate of $2,721 up to the 2019/20 financial year, and will need to rise to at least $3,040 in the 2020/21 year.
the capital programme needs to ensure that assets are in place and able to deliver the reasonably predictable levels of service which the community expects
borrowing needs to remain within a constraint that ensures Council can maintain predictable rates rises, deliver a sustainable capital programme and retain a capacity for financial resilience.
While the high level financial model suggests financial sustainability is possible over the period, it does not:
37 allow for the needed redevelopment of internal support services ensure the retention of an adequate complement of staff adequately allow for necessary resilience and future unknown costs
7 PHASE THREE: SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS
7.1 Analysis Of Service Delivery Options
On 11 March 2019 a workshop with elected members confirmed nine main current Activity Groups and identified key issues, challenges and gaps for each of these activities as covered by KDC’s Three Year plan. Council agreed that existing services require a range of interventions (in some cases significant).
A policy framework was then developed to test possible options for service delivery for each activity. A desktop analysis of options available for each of the activity groups that KDC currently provides was undertaken.
The analysis considered four options for each activity group:
status quo – this provides the base case
contract out services, where KDC would have a contract with an external party to provide services (e.g. with an individual, a professional services firm, another Council)
shared service arrangement, where KDC and (an)other council(s) would source services from a third party
eliminate/exit the service, where KDC doesn’t have a legal obligation to provide the service.
The following criteria were used to assess these options against. A preferred option should: meet the Council’s agreed level of service
build future organisational capability
be prudent and affordable
support KDC’s independent governance
provide a benchmark for other small Councils.
The analysis considered overall risks and benefits, estimated costs and timeframes to implement each option.
These findings identify a range of preferred interventions which will deliver the capability and capacity required to ensure KDC is a sustainable organisation in the future, both from a financial and corporate perspective. In particular, of the eleven activity groups:
38 Internal support services need to be addressed urgently as they underpin all other activities and need to be fit for purpose to facilitate shared service or other delivery arrangements.
Four activities can be addressed outside of this project. These are: governance; community and customer services; commercial activities; and economic development and tourism (but related financial strategies are included in the 12 year plan).
Of the three engineering activities, two activities currently delivered by IWK – three waters, and refuse and recycling – may require relatively substantial and costly change initiatives, most likely contracting out or shared service delivery. Sustainability of the roading activity could be addressed in this package.
Building and regulatory, parks and reserves, community and civic buildings (two activities) lend themselves to shared services or contracting out. This would support overall sustainability.
The current model for the District Plan could be extended to include the strategy, policy and district plan activity.
With regard to the most likely future options, initial findings were that shared service arrangements were the most recommended option, but that fit for purpose arrangements for KDC were more likely to be working with other councils in virtual shared services arrangements, rather than working with other councils to share services from a third party. It should be noted that our current arrangements with Hurunui District Council for IT services works well.
Further analysis on IWK and the core services it delivers strongly suggests that alternative delivery options should be assessed.
7.2 Proposed New Operating Model
The status quo model means that even with the extraordinary aid and assistance packages subsequent to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, the long term sustainability of the Council is not necessarily addressed. There is a real risk of past under‐performance and under‐investment recurring in future years.
The KRSG recommends that Kaikōura adopts a new operating model to address the inherent risk in retention of the status quo.
The proposed new operating model is based on:
retaining a locally elected council within its existing territorial boundaries
developing the leadership skills to manage the delivery of services (including internal support services) within a set of collaborative shared services (most likely one core shared service arrangement and partner for internal support services and possibly more bespoke partnership with existing providers and delivery on core asset‐based services), with another/other local authority/ies developing an intervention package, estimated at a cost of $7.3m ‐ $10m to undertake the necessary development of internal support services.
39 Core assumptions of the proposed new operating model are:
the Council can attract and retain adequate management to work within these collaborative parameters Crown support towards the transition costs of $7.3m ‐ $10m can be agreed. A business case would need to be developed if such support was sought.
The estimated cost of implementing the proposed new operating model includes:
$4.8m for systems improvements (the digitisation of records and introduction of technology to operate in an “e” environment) $645,000 for transition management $1.85m for service reviews across building and regulation, economic development, three waters, parks and recreation, commercial activities, and refuse and recycling allowing for unknowns and contingency.
The exact shape and size of a future KDC under the new operating model has not yet been determined. However, as the organisation is expected to rely more on shared and contracted services as a means of delivery, it is possible the number of KDC staff located in Kaikōura may reduce somewhat. It would have a leadership team of around three to four managers who share procurement and contract management skills, the ability to work collaboratively with partners (notwithstanding that commercial contracting arrangements will need to be in place), have the capability to deliver the required level of service, and maintain these shared support arrangements so that they are adequate to enable the elected Council to provide the leadership as required by the Local Government Act.
Local, Kaikōura‐based staff will still be substantially required under any new operating model however the exact number and specific jobs are not yet known. Staff on the ground will likely include customer services including planning and regulatory services, administration, and works and services/engineering support, library and community support. This is not an exclusive list, rather it is some possible examples.
It is expected that a new operating model would take three to five years to fully implement. Change would not happen immediately and existing staff would have an important role to play in the transition.
7.3 Transition Costs Of A New Operating Model
It is clear that significant up‐front capital would be required to make the proposed new operating model viable. In particular, any efforts to introduce shared services with other providers would require KDC to improve systems and technology so it is able to interact and share information with other organisations. It would be unreasonable to expect any prospective partner to share or bear this cost. We note that further in‐depth work will be required to investigate the viability of preferred options, e.g. in the case of a shared service arrangement or contracting out, the willingness of other councils to enter into an arrangement with KDC.
KDC’s systems and environment will need to be compatible with any shared service partner.
Considerations may include:
digitising property files, and any records required to facilitate the shared service mapping and aligning processes and systems
40
aligning and ‘cleansing’ databases transferring and/or creating asset information systems that are common aligning GIS systems onto a common platform validating asset information training of staff and other due diligence exercises.
It would be a significant work stream for KDC and a partner Council(s), and is something that would need to be appropriately resourced and worked on solidly for three to five years, but this is what is required to secure effective service delivery and ensure sustainability/long term efficiencies/improvements in service delivery.
The total high level estimated costs that would be associated with moving to the proposed new model are a minimum $7.3m over five years, however allowing for unknowns and contingency this figure may realistically be closer to $10m. At a minimum, this would include:
$4.8m for systems improvements (the digitisation of records and introduction of technology to operate in an “e” environment)
$645,000 for transition management
$1.85m for service reviews
8 PHASE FOUR: DEVELOPMENT OF NEW GENERATION 12 YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN
8.1 Overview
The 12 year plan has been updated to test the cost of the proposed new operating model. This would require continuation of anticipated rate rises set out in the three year plan and:
assumes a level of debt which is close to the level assumed prudent does not enable any allowance for reasonable future projects “other than the necessary” minimises any financial resilience available through its debt facilities.
While the proposed new operating model would show a pathway forward to future sustainability, KDC could not deliver it within prudent financial parameters. Ideally, it would require a level of Crown co‐funding to be able to be implemented.
8.2 Analysis
Council’s primary challenge is having sufficient revenue. The issues include:
urgently Council is incurring operating deficits, requiring debt funding.
Council had planned substantial rate rises (a nominal 36%) over the three years from 2018/19, and the updated 12 year plan anticipates the need to maintain those rate adjustments with a further significant rate rise in Year 1 (2020/21) of the plan of 12.1%.
ongoing revenue is needed to maintain a balanced budget position and ensure a sustainable debt position at the end of this updated 12 year plan.
41
while the rebuild does minimise actual capital requirements over the life of this plan, it is anticipated that capital expenditure requirements will climb after the12 year length of this modelled plan to at least the level of depreciation, meaning the balance sheet at Year 12 needs the strength to meet those future anticipated capital spend requirements.
Appropriate financial discipline would be required of Council to maintain the financial direction outlined in the updated 12 year plan. Significant new requirements – such as redevelopment of the harbour and maximising its potential – would only be possible with external funding, such as PGF funding.
The graph below shows the Council’s financial position without any external funding support to implement the new operating model.
It shows that, based on current funding and rates levels, the implementation of the new operating model with no external funding support means that the net debt line is projected to be significantly above the debt cap line (the debt cap line has been modelled at 150% of total revenue excluding subsidy). At its peak above the debt cap line in 2023/24 there is only $1.4M of headroom between the net debt level ($19.7M) and the maximum LGFA limit of 175% (which is $21.1M).
The graph shows debt is at a level which risks not being financially prudent, and not sustainable, and it would leave KDC vulnerable to changing circumstances. It would, for example, definitely confirm its inability to contribute co‐funding to the redevelopment of the harbour even though this a fundamental facility to the community – especially its economic well‐being.
Over this period the anticipated average rate would be $3,119 in 2020/21 $3,950 in 2030/31.
42 Figure 1 – KDC’s new operating model implemented without Crown investment
The preferred option is to engage with the Crown on possible assistance with the implementation of the new operating model.
It would require a substantial level of assistance to correct the balance sheet position of KDC to ensure its debt line remained sustainable and able to meet the assumed challenges with asset renewals probably increasing after 2031.
Council has already lifted rates by an average of 50 % and this model assumes they continue to lift by 3% per annum. To set a higher rate would risk rate levels being even more unaffordable generally for the community.
43
8.3 Key Findings
The high level financial model indicates the new operating model cannot be prudently delivered within reasonable financial parameters:
it requires continuation of anticipated rate rises of the three year plan it requires debt levels close to the level assumed prudent it does not enable any allowance for reasonable future projects “other than the necessary” it minimises any financial resilience available through its debt facilities.
While the new operating model does show a pathway forward to future sustainability, it does require a level of Crown co‐funding to be able to be implemented.
9. WHAT HAPPENS IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN
The analysis from the FCS workstream’s package of work has progressively led the KRSG to the recommendation that KDC consider the adoption of a new operating model and discuss options with Government to address the identified shortfall. The primary alternative is retention of the status quo; that KDC continue in its existing form, post rebuild, without any change. This approach amounts to returning to the pre‐earthquake operating model.
The KRSG has discounted this position on the basis that the status quo suggests there are real risks of:
An inability to maintain the required staff capacity and capability needed to meet levels of service required of a local authority. The status quo capacity of KDC is considered to be inadequate to meet necessary future levels of service, especially in the corporate services area. KDC’s ability to attract and retain adequate experience is challenging, for example in the areas of strategic infrastructure services and finance.
An inability to maintain infrastructure‐based levels of service through the combined effects of limited staff resources and pressure on rates affordability. The pre‐earthquake model meant KDC could not invest in the necessary knowledge and information of its asset systems, develop credible strategic plans, nor necessarily invest adequately in its long term maintenance – reinvesting at a rate below the level of depreciation.
An inability to meet the future expectations of a fully competent local authority. The sector is subject to ongoing change and KDC’s ability to evolve and meet future expectations is uncertain. The most likely immediate challenge will be the signaled new regulatory environment for the delivery of the “three waters”. In its status quo position, it would be difficult to assume KDC could meet the requirements that this new environment will demand.
An inability to be resilient to future issues. The earthquake understandably challenges the KDC’s resilience – especially in the recovery phase. Without extraordinary support, it had limited capacity to call on to meet the challenges posed by recovery, in part because of the past underinvestment in staff and systems that are associated with the status quo.
44 The need of ongoing outside support – especially from central government. While the earthquake exacerbated KDC’s position, it is reasonable to assume the risks associated with the status quo position of the Council may well have required considering ongoing systemic support of that model, most likely through some form of semi‐permanent central government subsidy.
These risks were identified in the post‐earthquake environment through the March 2017 stock‐take conducted by Morrison Low, and have been reaffirmed by the FCS work stream.
The KRSG does not consider that taking no action is a viable option.
10 CONCLUSIONS
The KRSG has formed a consensus view that:
j) KDC is not sustainable into the future in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances exacerbated by the 2016 earthquake.
k) Historic under‐investment in KDC’s capital programme, systems, capacity and capability, while not uncommon for a small local authority, has been exposed by the earthquake and pressures have been exacerbated.
l) There is limited opportunity for additional or alternate sources of revenue, and therefore KDC needs to rely on its existing and future ratepayer base.
m) Significant expenditure and time would be required to address serious capability and capacity issues.
n) Council needs to address serious gaps through an Infrastructure Strategy to maintain existing and new assets and a Financial Strategy for Council commensurate with its limited balance sheet strength.
o) Expected increases in national regulatory standards, particularly in the three waters area, will put further pressure on already strained systems and capacity
p) Work required to establish future sustainability would take up to five years and cost at least $7.3m and probably closer to $10m. This is made up of a significant up‐front cost of $4.8m to bring systems up to current standards and digitise records. The remainder is for transition management, service reviews and enabling the move to full collaboration in a shared service new operating model.
q) Council should engage with the Crown on its financial position and agree on options to enable a move to the new operating model.
r) The KRSG does not consider the counter factual to its recommendation of adopting a new operating model is viable.
45 11 NEXT STEPS
Proposed steps are outlined in the table below.
Date Action 28 August Council meeting – final FCS report presented 28 / 29 August Information shared with community and stakeholders 10 September Ministerial briefing By 31 October Brief incoming Council By 31 November Present recommendations for FCS to new Council
12 RECOMMENDATIONS
The KRSG recommends to the CEO that she:
1. Notes:
i) That KDC is not sustainable in its current form due to increased and ongoing pressures on capability, capacity, systems and finances resulting from the 2016 earthquake
j) That historic under‐investment in KDC’s capital programme, systems, capacity and capability, while not uncommon for a small local authority, has been exposed by the earthquake and pressures exacerbated
k) That the draft 12 year financial plan together with the implementation of the new operating model produced by the KRSG demonstrates the path towards sustainability
l) That the gap between the current KDC position and what would be required to achieve future sustainability is estimated to require funding of $7.3 million and possibly up to $10 million over five years.
m) That in an effort to address future sustainability and be successful in any requests for external support, KDC must ensure ongoing, robust financial discipline.
n) That priority should be given to working closely with the Crown in order to address the shortfall and capability needs of Kaikōura in the next three‐to‐five years.
o) The importance of the implementation of improved corporate and information management systems to support the proposed new operating model, at an estimated cost of $4.8 million.
2. Advises Council that given that the local body elections are on 12 October 2019, it would be inappropriate for Council to make a decision to change to a new operating model supported by a recommended 12 year plan as recommended by the KRSG at this time.
46
3. Recommends to Council that it:
a) receives the findings and recommendations of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project
b) requests a full briefing on the Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project be provided to the new Mayor and Council by 30th October 2019
c) explores with the Crown ways that the Crown may support/make a contribution to the transition
d) requests that the findings and recommendations of the Financial and Corporate Sustainability Project be formally considered by the new Council by 30th November 2019.
4. Requests the KRSG to begin work immediately on the development of an implementation plan which includes:
a) advice on how to manage the transition to the proposed new operating model
b) proposed engagement with key stakeholders
c) consideration of internal and external consultation requirements prior to decision‐ making
d) the skills and resources required to deliver the plan.
5. Requests Council to support:
d) a Rating Policy Review being commenced in advance of the development of the 2021‐31 LTP
e) Council’s policy on (re)instituting a Development Contributions Policy being integrated as a part of the development of the 2021‐31 LTP
47 APPENDIX 1(A) KDC’S OBJECTIVES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES Strategic objectives adopted by Council on Wed 27 Feb 2019
The Kaikõura community will have strong representation through direct elected local government representation in place. The way Kaikõura services are delivered is financially sustainable. Statutory responsibilities are met. Services meet the specific needs of the community, are delivered efficiently and sustainably and consider the long‐term needs of the district. The community is confident that robust plans are in place. The Crown is confident that Council’s plans are deliverable. The way the Council works and is structured supports the District’s Long Term Vision and Plan.
Guiding principles adopted by Council on Wed 27 Feb 2019
Elected members will “do the right thing” for the communities of the present and future in their decision making on the Council’s future. Decisions that come out of this project will guide future decision. Kaikõura District is forward thinking, making the right decisions for present and future generations with the primary focus being sustainable service delivery to the community. Trust and credibility in Council capability and decision making will be built. The best available information and data to make common sense decisions will be used. The CEO will keep the staff well‐briefed so they are well informed as the project progresses. Trust and credibility will be built with the community and key stakeholders by informing them of progress on this strategic project. Elected members will trust in the advice from the Chief Executive (supported by the Kaikõura Recovery Steering Group) and will take the time needed to make good decisions.
48
Report to: COUNCIL
Date: 28th August 2019
Subject: Proposed Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw
Prepared by: Jacob Turnbull ‐ Policy Planner
Input sought from: Matt Hoggard ‐ Strategy Policy and District Plan Manager
Libby Clifford – Communication Manager
Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen
Chief Executive Officer
SUMMARY: At its meeting on 27 February 2019 Council resolved to create a Freedom Camping Bylaw. The consultation documents for this proposal are attached for discussion. Attachments: 1. Proposed Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019 2. Proposed Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019: Statement of Proposal 3. Proposed Summary of Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019: Statement of Proposal *Pursuant to Section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002 RECOMMENDATION That Council: (a) Determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem ( as required by s155(1) Local Government Act 2002); (b) Determine the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s155(2) Local Government Act 2002); (c) Determine that the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s155(3) Local Government Act 2002 and s11(2)(c)Freedom Camping Act 2011); (d) Determine the bylaw (in accordance with the council resolutions at the 27 February 2019 council meeting) to the bylaw are necessary to protect the area, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area or to protect access to the area (s11(2)(a) Freedom Camping Act 2011); (e) Determine the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problems (a11(2)(b) Freedom Camping Act 2011); (f) Approve and adopt the attached statement of proposal (appendix 2), which includes the proposed bylaw, for public consultation;
49 (g) Determine that the summary of the statement of proposal (appendix 3) is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal (Section 83(1)(a)(ii) of the Local Government Act 2011) and that the summary meets the requirements of Section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002. (h) Note that the Freedom Camping Act 2011 requires the use of the special consultative procedure to create a freedom camping bylaw; and (i) Notify the Proposed Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw for a period of one month from 11 September to 12 October 2019 or as soon as possible.
BACKGROUND Currently, Council has signage across the District that looks to manage camping with bans in urban and some rural areas. This method of managing the issues that campers bring is seen to be ineffective a.) in the age of technology b.) it relies on voluntary compliance Freedom Camper numbers are growing throughout New Zealand and bring with them conflicts with other users due to large space requirements and inappropriate discharges of wastes. A bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act: Gives Council officers the ability to fine campers who breach the Bylaw; Must have area‐specific evidence of problems caused by freedom camping before the activity can be banned or restricted in that area; Must consider alternative options to dealing with the identified problem(s) before freedom camping can be banned or restricted in that area; Offers more certainty for both tourists and residents about where freedom camping can and cannot occur; and Is consistent with national and regional policy. Results in a desirable and safe place to live; and A place that demonstrates environmental responsibility.
The Kaikōura Responsible Camping Working Group have drafted a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (FCA). Sites have been ranked against the criteria in the FCA prescribed for restricting or prohibiting an area. Council must first determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem (s155(1) LGA 2002) before notifying the Proposed Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019. Once notified there is a 1 month submission period for people to share their views which is proposed from 11 September 2019 until 12 October 2019. This process is prescribed by the special consultative procedure set out in the Local Government Act 2002.
ISSUES AND OPTIONS Option 1: Do nothing The issue will be managed through existing signage and voluntary compliance. This option is not recommended.
Option 2: Notify the proposed bylaw pursuant to the Freedom Camping Act with changes.
50 To implement the decision Council made on its meeting on 27 February 2019 a formal process needs to be followed. Council may amend the bylaw before submitted for the Special Consultative Procedure. This option is not recommended due to the significant site assessments that have been undertaken to get draft to its’ current state. Site assessments involve determining potential restricted or prohibited freedom camping areas on satisfaction of the Freedom Camping Act requirements (being purpose, appropriateness and proportionality). A significantly amended bylaw would need to be drafted, approved by Councillors and submitted for the Special Consultative Procedure.
Option 3: Notify the proposed bylaw pursuant to the Freedom Camping Act as drafted.
To implement the decision Council made on its meeting on 27 February 2019 a formal process needs to be followed. This is the recommended option. Advantages Disadvantages ‐ Greater enforcement powers than currently ‐ Area‐specific analysis required before a exist; prohibition or restriction on freedom can be ‐ Alignment with national and regional policy; set; and and ‐ Significant costs to enforce. ‐ Clearer freedom camping regime.
Option 4: Choose to delay notification of the proposed bylaw. If Council choose not to notify the bylaw it could still be changed while being consistent with the decision Council made on its meeting on 27 February 2019 to have the bylaw ready by December 2019. This option is not recommended given the strong community support for the bylaw and the need for enforcement tools over the incoming summer period.
COMMUNITY VIEWS
The Responsible Camping Working Group (RCWG) has approved of this bylaw at it’s meeting on 12 August 2019. A petition on Freedom Camping was delivered to Council at the 1 May 2019 meeting covering off the following: Removal of Freedom Camping areas from Kaikoura An online petition signed by approximately 850 people Remove the South Bay and Scarborough Street sites Considerations for Tangata Whenua Reference has been made to Te Poha o Tohu Raumati (Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura’s Environmental Management Plan) in drafting the proposed bylaw. Representatives from Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura have confirmed support for the proposed bylaw. They will be invited to participate in the submission process. Consultation will be undertaken in line with the local government requirements for special consultative procedures. The following dates/steps are proposed. These dates may be subject to change at the discretion of the incoming Council.
51 Notification/ beginning of consultation Wednesday September 11 Consultation ends October 12 Summary of submissions made publically available 8th November Hearings November 14th and 15th Decision/adoption of final bylaw 27th November Note: if the nature of the submissions results in the need to make substantial changes to the draft bylaw, it will have to be re‐notified and the hearings and adoption of the bylaw will be rescheduled accordingly Due to the significance of the issue to the local community, the following communications channels/tools are planned to support the consultation; Website and social media content Newspaper content Radio adverts Fliers to all residents
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: Financial Implications Council has allocated $140K of funds within the annual plan for the development and enforcement of a bylaw.
The Freedom Camping Act provides access to infringement notices for breach of a bylaw. For a standard breach, the infringement fee is $200.00 (unless government regulation provides otherwise). It also enables rental companies to deduct infringement notice fines from users credit/debit cards, however there is no obligation on the rental company to do this.
Community Implications Council has received support from the community as discussed in section 5 above. Council has also been successful in obtaining funding from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) part of this funding will be used to undertake a survey of campers, business and residents. The full impact of the bylaw cannot be know at this time. Bylaws are however dynamic documents which must be reviewed. The RCWG suggested that council should consider the effectiveness of the bylaw in in February 2021 and determine if a formal review is warranted.
Potential Risks The legal basis for the bylaw relies on Council conducting an area analysis which identifies issues and that the proposed response is the most appropriate response to deal with the problems identified. The response needs to be a proportionate response to the concerns. A potential risk to the Council proposal is that in some areas the proportionality of this response imposed by the bylaw may be debateable and therefore subject to a possible challenge in the courts (judicial review). Freedom camping bylaws have only been challenged once in the High Court.
52 Council has previously agreed to be recognised as a Motor Home Friendly Town by the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association. A poorly managed bylaw could lead to loss of creditability and loss of reputation for both campers and the community.
Health and Safety The provision of a bylaw is one additional tool council can use to protect the safety of people camping within the district.
All monitoring and enforcement staff will be required to undertake health and safety training.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Policy This matter is a matter of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Restrictions on freedom camping are complicated given the tension between:
Protecting personal freedom and promoting tourism; and Reducing harm to the environment and preventing nuisance to the community. Considering the complaints received, and environmental and health risks posed by freedom camping, it appears regulation of the activity through a bylaw is necessary.
Legislation Freedom Camping Act 2011
The Freedom Camping Act was introduced to strengthen the regulatory measures available to local authorities in managing freedom campers. It sets a default position that freedom camping is permitted in all Council and Department of Conservation (DOC) areas, unless explicitly banned by a bylaw or other enactment. The Freedom Camping Act states that there cannot be a complete ban on freedom camping within a District.
For a full version of this Act, see: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0061/latest/whole.html#DLM3886706
The Freedom Camping Act 2011 regulates freedom camping on land controlled or managed by local authorities. Section 10 states that “freedom camping is permitted in any local authority area unless it is restricted or prohibited in an area – in accordance with a bylaw made under section 11.”
As the Freedom Camping Act was introduced with the specific purpose of regulating freedom camping, a bylaw under its authority would be consistent with national policy and appears to be a more appropriate method of regulating freedom camping.
Before prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in any particular area, Council officers must conduct an area‐by‐area assessment of whether these requirements are met. The intent of the Freedom Camping Act is that restrictions or prohibitions on freedom camping are a last resort. Compared to a bylaw under the Local Government Act, there is a greater duty on Council to consider whether other options are sufficient to fix the problem(s) caused by freedom campers. An approach used in the proposed bylaw (commonly used in other local
53 authority freedom camping bylaws) is to permit freedom camping in a narrowly defined area – for example, a few car parks – subject to some or all of the following conditions:
Restricted to self‐contained vehicles; Only permitted between certain hours; Prohibited during holiday periods or specific times of year; and Other general restrictions (e.g. proper waste disposal, noise limits).
“Section 11: Freedom camping bylaws
(1) A local authority may make bylaws— (a) defining the local authority areas in its district or region where freedom camping is restricted and the restrictions that apply to freedom camping in those areas: (b) defining the local authority areas in its district or region where freedom camping is prohibited. (2) A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that— (a) the bylaw is necessary for 1 or more of the following purposes: (i) to protect the area: (ii) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area: (iii) to protect access to the area; and (b) the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area; and (c) the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.”
Section 12 states that: “a local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.”
The Act does not regulate freedom camping on private land (s3) nor does it regulate resting or sleeping at the roadside in a caravan or motor vehicle to avoid driver fatigue (s5).
If a bylaw is to be reviewed, amended or revoked the special consultative procedure must be followed. This procedure is set out in the Local Government Act.
Local Government Act 2002
There is no access to an infringement notice regime for a bylaw under the Local Government Act, (unless it is appropriate under other legislation like the Litter Act). Currently, breaches of the Bylaw must be prosecuted under the Local Government Act a long and expensive process, often disproportionate to the offence committed. Under this Act a Bylaw could be seen to undermine the Freedom Camping Act as it gives wide, discretional powers to Council to create prohibited or restricted areas.
Council is required to use the special consultative procedure as set out in s83 when reviewing, amending or revoking a bylaw (including one under the Freedom Camping Act 2011). Section 83 requires Council to prepare a statement of proposal (Appendix 2). The statement of proposal must include:
a draft of the bylaw as proposed (or a statement that the bylaw is to be revoked); and the reasons for the proposal; and a report on any relevant determinations by the local authority under section 155.
54 Section 155 of the Local Government Act requires Council to:
Determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem (s155(1)); After determining that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, Council must determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and determine that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s155(2)); No bylaw made may be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s155(3)). If the Council considers on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal, a summary of the information contained in the statement of proposal is also prepared (Section 83(1)(a)(ii)).
A summary of the information contained in a statement of proposal must:
Be a fair representation of the major matters in the statement of proposal; and Be in a form determined by the Council; and Indicate where the statement of proposal is available; and State the period within which persons interested in the proposal may present their views to the local authority (Section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002)
NZBORA Implications:
Right to Freedom of Movement: It is necessary to be aware of the Bylaw’s relationship with the right to freedom of movement. A Bylaw that is too restrictive could interfere with the right to freedom of movement, although this is unlikely. (See The NZ Motor Caravan Association Incorporated v Thames‐Coromandel District Council (http://www.tcdc.govt.nz/PageFiles/19359/NZ%20Motor%20Caravan%20Assoc%20v%20Thames‐ Coromandel%20District%20Council%20Judicial%20Decision.pdf)). There is need to consider whether and to what extent prohibited or restricted freedom camping areas will affect individual rights.
Enforcement Currently, Council officers can only issue infringement fines where there is a breach of the Litter Act 1979. Council officers are wary of issuing fines and/or proceedings for a breach in the first instance. This attitude would extend to any amendment of the Bylaw as, generally, the wrong‐doing on the part of freedom campers is simply being in a prohibited or restricted area. In these cases, Council officers feel a request to move on is a suitable initial course of action. However, the threat of the infringement regime under the Freedom Camping Act is worth considering as a possible deterrent. For example ‐ ‘No Camping’ signage in particularly troublesome areas could reference the Council’s ability to issue a $200 fine for breach of the Bylaw.
Local Authority Areas Some areas of complaint do not fall under Council’s authority, as the land is either: a DOC area; or controlled by NZTA or LINZ. Any bylaw regulating freedom camping should only extend to land under Council’s control. The implementation process will consider what steps can be taken to clarify this moving forward.
Cooperation with DOC
55 DOC has expressed interest in working with Council to open some DOC areas to freedom camping. The DOC Okiwi Bay site was suggested as one such site, which could help reduce the issues at NZTA safe pull‐off areas and Kiwa Road.
Tourism ‐ Motorhome Friendly Town Status The NZ Motor Caravan Association (the Association) has a ‘Motorhome Friendly’ website, which promotes destinations and events in areas that meet the Motorhome Friendly criteria (https://www.mhftowns.com/). Kaikōura has a Motorhome Friendly status. It is a useful marketing tool for the District, as the Association has over 65,000 members. The Association has advised that given the proposed bylaw that this may have to be reviewed but will be confirmed through their inevitable submission.
Community Outcomes Supported The work is in support of all KDC core community outcomes.
Delegations Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the LGA2002 provides that
“Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision‐making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—
(b) the power to make a bylaw; or…
This matter must be considered by Council.
ATTACHMENT 1: Proposed Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Council encourages travelers and campers to use camping grounds and other accommodation facilities as much as possible. 1.2. The Kaikoura District Council makes this Bylaw under Sections 11 ‐ 14 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011. This Bylaw should therefore be read alongside the Freedom Camping Act 2011. 1.3. The purpose of this Freedom Camping bylaw is to encourage responsible freedom camping in the Kaikoura District, whilst recognising that freedom camping is part of our traditional Kiwi culture and is a valued tourist experience.
2. TITLE
56 2.1. This Bylaw is the Kaikoura District Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019
3. PROCEDURE, COMMENCEMENT, AND REVIEW 3.1. This Bylaw comes into force on [Date] and shall apply to the whole of the Kaikoura District. 3.2. This Bylaw is required by section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to be reviewed no later than 5 years after the Bylaw was made and thereafter no later than 10 years after the Bylaw was last reviewed.
4. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 4.1. The Interpretation Act 1999 shall apply to this Bylaw. 4.2. In this Bylaw, unless the context requires otherwise: 4.2.1. Act: means the Freedom Camping Act 2011. 4.2.2. Camping ground means: 4.2.2.1. a camping ground that is the subject of a current certificate of registration under the Camping Regulations 1985; or 4.2.2.2. any site at which a fee is payable for camping at the site 4.2.3. Council: means Kaikoura District Council or any Committee of the Council or officer delegated to exercise the authority of Council. 4.2.4. Designated site: means a parking area or marked parking space identified within the areas in Schedules of this Bylaw and indicated by signs erected in the area where camping is permitted subject to any restrictions and conditions. 4.2.5. Enforcement Officer: means a person appointed by the Kaikoura District Council as an enforcement officer under the Act 4.2.6. Freedom camp: has the meaning in section 5(1) and (2) of the Act: 4.2.6.1. to camp (other than at a camping ground) within 200 m of a motor vehicle accessible area or the mean low‐water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200 m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track, using 1 or more of the following: 4.2.6.1.1. a tent or other temporary structure: 4.2.6.1.2. a caravan: 4.2.6.1.3. a car, campervan, housetruck, or other motor vehicle. 4.2.6.2. In this bylaw freedom camping does not include the following activities: 4.2.6.2.1. Temporary or short term parking of a motor vehicle; 4.2.6.2.2. Recreational activities commonly known as day‐trip excursions;
57 4.2.6.2.3. Resting or sleeping at the roadside in a caravan or motor vehicle to avoid driver fatigue. 4.2.7. Local Authority Area: has the meaning in section 6 of the Act and means an area of land within the Kaikoura District— 4.2.7.1. that is controlled or managed by the Kaikoura District under any enactment; but 4.2.7.2. does not include an area of land that is permanently covered by water. 4.2.8. Night: means the time period between 8pm and 7am or any part thereof. 4.2.9. Self‐contained Camping: means camping in a Self‐contained Vehicle or by alternative means providing that the individual camper(s) have the capability of meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of occupants of the camp for a minimum of three days without requiring external services, relying on public facilities or discharging or depositing any waste onto the environment. For the avoidance of doubt camping of any kind where ablution facilities involve the use of portable toilets not located and used in a fully private facility, or undertaking ablution activities in the natural environment, are excluded from being considered self‐contained camping. 4.2.10. Self‐contained Vehicle: means a vehicle designed and built for the purpose of camping which has the capability of meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of the occupants of that vehicle for a minimum of three days without requiring any external services or discharging any waste and 4.2.10.1. complies with New Zealand Standard 5465:2001, as evidenced by the display of a current self‐containment warrant issued under New Zealand Standard Self Containment of Motor Caravans and Caravans, NZS 5465:2001.and the availability on request of the associated self‐containment certificate; and 4.2.10.2. the toilet facility must be readily usable within the vehicle including sufficient head and elbow room at all times, even with the bed made up. 4.2.11. Waste: means any kind of waste, including human waste. 4.2.12. Waste Receptacle: means a receptacle or facility that is provided by the Council for the purposes of disposing of waste (for example, a rubbish bin, public toilet, or bulk waste disposal unit). 4.3. Every Schedule to this Bylaw shall be deemed to form part of the Bylaw.
5. PURPOSE
58 5.1. The purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate and manage freedom camping in Local Authority Areas and its effects on the Kaikoura District community and environment, in order to: 5.1.1. protect Local Authority Areas; or 5.1.2. protect the health and safety of people who may visit local authority areas; or 5.1.3. protect access to Local Authority Areas.
6. LOCAL AUTHORITY AREAS WHERE FREEDOM CAMPING IS PERMITTED 6.1. Freedom camping is permitted in any Local Authority Areas unless it is restricted or prohibited in an area— 6.1.1. in accordance with this bylaw; or 6.1.2. under any other enactment. 6.2. Nothing in this Bylaw allows freedom campers to take up permanent or semi‐ permanent residence on any Local Authority Area unless allowed for in clause 10.1 of this Bylaw
7. PROHIBITED AREAS AS OUTLINED IN SCHEDULE 1 7.1. No person may Freedom Camp in any prohibited area identified in Schedule 1 of this Bylaw 7.2. No person may Freedom Camp on any reserve vested in, owned or controlled by the Council under the Reserves Act 1977 unless the reserve is identified in Schedule 2 of this Bylaw
8. RESTRICTED AREAS AS OUTLINED IN SCHEDULE 2 8.1. A person may freedom camp in any restricted Local Authority area identified in Schedule 2, but must comply with the restrictions listed for that area.
9. GENERAL RESTRICTIONS 9.1. These General Restrictions must be followed in all Local Authority Area where not otherwise prohibited in Schedule 1. 9.1.1. All offenses listed in Section 20 of the Act (Attachment 1). 9.1.2. All Freedom Camping is restricted to Self‐Contained Camping
9.1.3. Except where this Bylaw provides for a lesser period, no person may freedom camp for more than 2 nights in any four‐week consecutive period in any one area or within 500 metres of that area.
59 9.1.4. On‐board storage tanks must be emptied on a regular basis and in the prescribed, hygienic fashion at a Council approved dump point. See Schedule 3 of this bylaw for dump point and public toilet locations.
9.1.5. Vehicles must park within defined spaces or within identified parking areas, whichever is present. One vehicle per space. Freedom Camping must not encroach on another defined parking space and if there are no defined spaces a minimum spacing of 3 metres must be maintained between freedom camping vehicles.
9.1.6. No washing of dishes; or washing and drying of clothes; or bathing in public facilities except for those facilities designated for that purpose.
10. PRIOR CONSENT FROM COUNCIL 10.1. Council may grant consent to waive Freedom Camping restrictions in Section 9 or any areas identified in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of this Bylaw. 10.1.1. Consent must be applied for in writing to the Council. Council must decide to grant or decline the waiver within 20 working days of receiving the application. 10.1.2. Council must notify Te Runanga O Kaikoura and Nga Uri O Mangamaunu of applications recieved. 10.1.3. Council must notify all affected parties of any application. 10.1.4. A person Freedom Camping in accordance with a consent granted under clause 10.1 must comply with any conditions of consent. 10.1.5. Fees may be prescribed for processing these permissions at Council’s discretion 10.2. A Council Officer may revoke a consent under 10.1 by giving a direction for the person to leave the camping area where that person has: 10.2.1. Acted in a manner likely to endanger the health and safety of other people; or 10.2.2. Damaged or likely to cause damage to the site; or 10.2.3. Breached any of the conditions included in any consent
11. COUNCIL MAY TEMPORARILY CLOSE AN AREA TO FREEDOM CAMPING 11.1. The Council may temporarily close or restrict freedom camping in any area or part of any area where the closure or restriction is considered necessary to: 11.1.1. prevent damage to the local authority area or facilities in the area; or 11.1.2. allow maintenance to the local authority area or facilities; or 11.1.3. protect the health and safety of persons or property; or
60 11.1.4. provide for better public access, including in circumstances where events are planned for that area. 11.2. Notice will be given of any temporary closure or restriction, and the removal of any closure or restriction, in any manner the Council considers is appropriate to the reason for the closure or restriction. 11.3. The temporary closure shall not exceed 90 days without review from Council.
12. OFFENCES 12.1. Every person commits an offence who; 12.1.1. freedom camps in a local authority area in breach of offences listed in Section 20 of the Act—(attachment 1); or 12.1.2. freedom camps in a Local Authority Area in breach of any prohibition or restriction in this bylaw. 12.2. Strict liability offences 12.2.1. In prosecuting an offence under Section 20 of the Act, the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant— 12.2.1.1. intentionally or recklessly committed the offence; or 12.2.1.2. knew that the offence occurred in, or in relation to, a local authority area or conservation land.
13. PENALTIES 13.1. In accordance with section 27 of the Freedom Camping Act, an enforcement officer may issue an infringement notice to anyone who the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds has committed or is committing an infringement offence as set out in Section 20 of the Act, which includes, but is not limited to; 13.2. As specified by section 23(1) of the Act (attachment 2), every person who commits an offence pursuant to Section 20(1)(a) and (c) of the Act or any restriction in this Bylaw is liable to the amount prescribed by regulations made under section 43 of the Act or if none $200 or to any other fine prescribed in any other legislation. 13.3. Each offence is separable and individually subject to separate fines. A person who commits an infringement offence is liable to a $200 infringement fee for each offence. 13.4. A person who is convicted of an offence against section 20(2) of the Act (Attachment 1) is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000. 13.5. A person who is convicted of an offence against section 20(3) of the Act (Attachment 1) is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000. 13.6. Subject to Section 24 of the Act a person who commits an offence may, in addition to, or instead of the penalty for the offence, be ordered to pay the costs incurred by
61 the local authority in repairing any damage done to the local authority area as a result of the offence.
14. CLAMPING AND IMPOUNDING OF OFFENDING VEHICLES 14.1. This bylaw gives authority to enforcement officers to clamp or impound vehicles that are in breach of this bylaw. 14.2. Council may recover cost for removal and/or storage in addition to fines incurred.
15. STATUS OF THE BYLAW: 15.1. Where any provision in a Council Bylaw, Policy or practice document conflicts with any provision contained herein or otherwise creates any confusion, the provisions of the Bylaw will take precedence.
16. REGARDLESS OF SECTION 15, RELATIONSHIP OF BYLAW WITH NGAI TAHU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT 1998 AND OTHER IWI SETTLEMENTS. 16.1. This bylaw does not limit or affect the rights in relation to nohaonga entitlements under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. 16.2. This Bylaw does not limit or affect the rights of iwi entitlements under any legislation passed in order to give effect to settlements under the Treaty of Waitangi.
17. AMENDMENTS TO RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED AREAS 17.1. The Council may by resolution, publicly notified, add to, amend or alter attached Schedules to include additional areas as restricted or prohibited for freedom camping, or to exclude any such areas where it is satisfied the additions, amendments or alterations meet the requirements of Section 11 of the Act.
18. SEVERABILITY OF ANY AND ALL PROVISIONS
18.1. In the case that any provision in this bylaw shall be found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
19. SCHEDULE 1: PROHIBITED AREAS FOR FREEDOM CAMPING 19.1. Freedom Camping is prohibited in these Local Authority Areas without prior written consent of the Council as in Clause 10.1: 19.1.1. Within the entire Kaikoura Township as mapped 19.1.2. South Bay Corner with SH1 19.1.3. Kaikoura Lawn Cemetery
62 19.1.4. Point Kean 19.1.5. Esplanade Lawn 19.1.6. South Bay Parade 19.1.7. Moa St. Car parks at Boat Harbour 19.1.8. Wakatu Quay 19.1.9. Kiwa Road, Mangāmāunu 19.1.10. South Bay Reserve (start of Peninsula walkway) 19.1.11. Coastal Strip from South Bay Parade until the Kowhai River 19.1.12. All areas as mapped
Figure 1: Kaikoura Township East
Maps Key: = Schedule 2: Restricted Areas = Prohibited = Permitted * 9. General restrictions apply
63
Figure 2 Kaikoura Township Central
Figure 3: Kaikoura Township South
Figure 4: Kaikoura Township North Figure 5: Kiwa Rd, Mangāmāunu
20. SCHEDULE 2: RESTRICTED AREAS FOR FREEDOM CAMPING 20.1. Freedom Camping is restricted at the areas listed below to the number of vehicles specified and restrictions as to the size of vehicle (if any), and to the following: 20.1.1. The areas can be used for overnight stays in vehicles only. Conventional camping or other activities outside vehicles are excluded; and
64 20.1.2. Only self‐contained vehicles are permitted; and 20.1.3. All personal effects must be kept within the vehicles; and 20.1.4. Vehicles may stay for a maximum of 1 night in any four‐week consecutive period at any of the listed areas. 20.2. Areas, and vehicle number and size restrictions: 20.2.1. West End car park – Maximum of 5 vehicles;
20.2.2. Jimmy Armers Beach ‐ Maximum of 6 vehicles, with a maximum length of 7.5 metres
20.2.3. Esplanade (Lion’s Pool) Maximum 5 vehicles Maximum vehicle length 7.5 metres
65
20.2.4. Kaikoura Lookout ‐ Maximum of 3 vehicles
20.2.5. Scarborough St. Reserve ‐ Maximum of 10 vehicles
20.2.6. Southend Railway Station Carpark ‐ Maximum of 5 vehicles
66
20.2.7. Pohowera ‐ maximum of 20 vehicles with NO FREEDOM CAMPING between 15 August and the last day in February of the following year.
21. SCHEDULE 3: DUMP STATIONS (DS) AND TOILETS (T). 21.1. South Bay Reserve DS T 21.2. BP Service Station DS 21.3. South Bay Race track T 21.4. West End car park T 21.5. Jimmy Armers Beach T 21.6. Mill St. and Beach Road T 21.7. Goochs Beach T
ATTACHMENT 1
Reprinted as at 1 March 2017 Freedom Camping Act 2011 Part 3 Enforcement, miscellaneous, and transitional provisions
67 Subpart 1—Offences, defences, and penalties
20 Offences (1) Every person commits an offence who— (a) freedom camps in a local authority area in breach of any prohibition or restriction in a bylaw made under section 11 that applies to the area; or (b) while freedom camping in a local authority area,— (i) interferes with or damages the area, its flora or fauna, or any structure in the area; or (ii) deposits waste in or on the area (other than into an appropriate waste receptacle); or (c) makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area in breach of any prohibition or restriction in a bylaw made under section 11 that applies to the area; or (d) deposits waste, generated while freedom camping, in or on a local authority area other than into an appropriate waste receptacle; or (e) fails or refuses to leave a local authority area when required to do so by an enforcement officer acting under section 36; or (f) [Repealed] (g) freedom camps on conservation land in breach of any prohibition or restriction in a freedom camping notice that applies to the land; or (h) while freedom camping on conservation land,— (i) interferes with or damages the land, its flora or fauna, or any structure on the land; or (ii) deposits waste in or on the land (other than into an appropriate waste receptacle); or (i) [Repealed] (j) makes preparations to freedom camp on conservation land in breach of any prohibition or restriction in a freedom camping notice that applies to the land; or (k) deposits waste, generated while freedom camping, in or on conservation land other than into an appropriate waste receptacle; or (l) refuses to give information when required to do so by an enforcement officer under section 35 or gives false or misleading information; or (m) fails or refuses to leave conservation land when required to do so by an enforcement officer acting under section 36. (2) Every person commits an offence who discharges a substance in or on a local authority area or conservation land in circumstances where the discharge of the substance is likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable to such an extent that it— (a) has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on the environment; or
68 (b) has caused, or is likely to cause, significant concern to the community or users of the area or land. (3) Every person commits an offence— (a) who, while an enforcement officer is carrying out his or her functions and duties under this Act,— (i) intentionally prevents the officer from carrying out those functions and duties; or (ii) obstructs or impedes the officer; or (iii) assaults, threatens, or intimidates the officer; or (iv) uses language that is abusive or threatening to the officer; or (v) behaves in a threatening manner towards the officer; or (b) who incites any other person to do any act referred to in paragraph (a). (4) In this section, waste receptacle means a receptacle or facility that is provided by a local authority or the Department for the purposes of disposing of waste (for example, a rubbish bin, public toilet, or bulk waste disposal unit).
Section 20(1)(f): repealed, on 1 April 2012, by section 8. Section 20(1)(i): repealed, on 1 April 2012, by section 8.
ATTACHMENT 2
Reprinted as at 1 March 2017 Freedom Camping Act 2011 Part 3 Enforcement, miscellaneous, and transitional provisions Subpart 1—Offences, defences, and penalties
23 Penalties (1) A person who commits an infringement offence is liable to the following fee: (a) the amount prescribed by regulations made under section 43 as the infringement fee for the offence; or (b) $200, if no fee is prescribed in accordance with paragraph (a). (2) A person who is convicted of an offence against section 20(2) is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000. (3) A person who is convicted of an offence against section 20(3) is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000. ATTACHMENT 2:
69
Kaikōura Proposed Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019: Statement of Proposal
Freedom camper numbers are growing throughout New Zealand. Growth in numbers are resulting in increased environmental and cultural concerns. Our research has found that Kaikōura does not have enough places for freedom campers to go. This means that there is often over‐crowding in the places where it is allowed or illegal camping at popular places. The council has been looking at minimising the conflict that freedom camping can cause by providing more suitable areas for campers to go.
The Bylaw refers to the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and provides clarity of where freedom camping is permitted and prohibited in the Kaikōura District. The purpose of the Bylaw is to control freedom camping in the district by defining local authority controlled and managed areas where freedom camping is permitted and apply conditions to the use of those areas.
Rationale for development The reason for developing the bylaw at this time is to: ‐ o Protect the health and safety of people who may visit reserves; o Protect culturally significant areas o Ensure appropriate access to local scheduled areas is maintained. o Protect the public from nuisance: o Protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety: o Provide transparency for those wishing to freedom camp in the district o Encourage a positive experience for campers and local residents o Provide consistency and fairness for all who use the area o Provide regulatory control and enforcement to protect and maintain the natural state of the area.
Problem identification and assessment When identifying the problems associated with freedom camping throughout the district, several factors become apparent.
Although there have been guidelines and conditions around where appropriate areas are for freedom campers (generally outside of the Kaikōura peninsula) and expected behaviours (Kaikoura environmental guide leaflet), these are not legally enforceable. This has led to visitor confusion about where exactly they can camp with no particular locations identified. The Council was approached by the community to provide clarification around the issue of freedom camping within the District.
70
To respond to ongoing issues with freedom campers Council has worked to establish more suitable sites. Council has promoted sites for campers to go to but this has been challenging to manage. Sites become over‐crowded where inappropriate behaviours around waste disposal, fire and conflict with other area users are common. Freedom campers received negative coverage making the front page of the local newspaper and made national television news.
At Kiwa Road, Mangāmāunu human waste into the natural environment from freedom campers gave rise to an area closure under the Health Act 1956 during the 2017/18 season. The area was under significant pressure at the time due to the roadworks north of Kaikōura closing many camping areas and being advertised as a free site in the District marked on CamperMate. New sites were established the following season, unfortunately they were unable to keep up with the increasing demand and only shifted the problems.
To ensure that cultural, environmental and health and safety concerns are met it is proposed that a freedom camping bylaw be developed. A bylaw provides for regulatory enforcement. A bylaw would also provides clarity to freedom campers on the appropriate areas where they can camp and provide conditions around the level of expectation to help maintain a positive experience for campers and local people.
Evidence of problems and nuisance There is anecdotal evidence of: a) Freedom campers using vehicles which are not self‐contained or choosing not to use on‐board facilities. Leading to human waste in public areas. b) Freedom campers discharging wastes (food scraps, greywater), lighting fires and driving on fragile ecosystems causing damage to natural environments including degradation of wahi tapu/wahi tonga areas c) Freedom campers using public toilets to wash dishes, laundry or themselves causing congestion, damage to facilities and unhygienic conditions d) Campers parking camper vans in public car parks and causing issues for those manoeuvring other large vehicles. c) Confusion of where campers can and cannot stay overnight.
These issues take up significant amount of staff time attempting to deal with complaints, repair damage or remove human waste. As the Kaikōura district covers a large geographic area with a long coastline, high amenity and attracts very large numbers of visitors annually. These issues cover the whole district.
What is covered by the bylaw The council can prohibit freedom camping in an area or put restrictions in place if it is necessary to: • protect the area, and/or • protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and/or • protect access to the area.
The bylaw must be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem; and
71 The council cannot: • prohibit freedom camping in all the local authority area • prohibit areas without evidence that a prohibition is required • make a bylaw that is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
How has the bylaw been developed Following several years of varied attempts to manage the issue, the Kaikōura Responsible Camping Working Group (KRCWG) was established in July 2018. The group was tasked to improve the Kaikōura District’s management of responsible camping. The working group provides the opportunity for membership from; Te Runanga o Kaikōura , Department of Conservation, New Zealand Police, New Zealand Transport Agency, Kiwi Rail, Canterbury District Health Board, Environment Canterbury, Kaikōura Youth Council, Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, Kaikōura Board Riders, Kaikōura Camping Ground Representatives, Nga Uri O Mangāmāunu, CamperMate, Kaikōura Tramping Club, Kaikōura Forest and Bird and Community Representatives.
The workshops were run in collaboration between the KDC and KRCWG in order to develop community driven solutions for reducing the adverse effects resulting from freedom camping. The KRCWG is not an “anti‐responsible camper” group and acknowledges the positive contributions responsible camping makes to the local economy.
After much considered discussion the KRCWG agreed a bylaw would be the best method to address the adverse effects of freedom camping. Over the last year KRCWG have completed assessments of sites where freedom campers have been seen by Council officers to understand whether the area needs protection from freedom camping in vehicles through the bylaw.
The proposed bylaw has been designed to: • Have rules that are simple and regionally consistent • Only have rules in places where they are required (in areas that are likely to be desirable to freedom campers) • Ensure that all campers have access to a toilet (either on‐board their vehicle or at a 24‐hour public toilet) • Provide more areas for camping in places that are suitable, subject to appropriate restrictions • Disperse the impacts camping can have across Kaikōura • Include site specific restrictions so the council can effectively manage camping.
One of the criteria we used to decide whether an area needed to be included in the bylaw was to look at whether campers are likely to want to go to an area. We did this by looking at how close the area was to the coast, toilets, and with general amenity observations. The below matrix shows how sites were assessed and classified in the draft bylaw:
Desirability to campers (Current or anticipated)
72 ‐‐‐Medium‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐High‐> ‐ Restricted Large Area Restricted Small Area Prohibited Area (Schedule 2 of bylaw) (Schedule 2) (Schedule 1)
Not Scheduled (Section Restricted Small Area Prohibited Area 9. General Restrictions) (Schedule 2) (Schedule 1)
Not Scheduled (Section Not Scheduled (Section Not Scheduled (Section 9. General Restrictions) 9. General Restrictions) 9. General Restrictions)
<‐Low‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Medium‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐High‐‐>
Level of protection required (access/health & safety of visitors/area)
To prevent camping at any area Council must be satisfied that a bylaw is necessary for 1 or more of the following purposes: • To protect the area; • To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area; and • To protect access to the area. These three criteria are considered in this document to be the assessment criteria. The following paragraphs show how the Council has interpreted the assessment criteria specifically, and provides clarity on how the assessment of the Act was undertaken using a fair and consistent approach.
a) Protection of the Area
The types of sites identified for analysis have a wide range of environments, such as residential areas, recreation grounds and parks in the urban area to bush, coastal and farmland sites in rural areas. The protection of the natural environment, such as the flora and fauna, has been assessed at each site.
Kaikōura has many culturally or historically significant sites, some of which are listed under the District Plan (Archaeological Sites, Wahi Tapu and Historic Areas). The significance of these sites must be analysed in regards to Freedom Camping, to ensure that the areas are protected for future generations to enjoy.
Sports Grounds (the turf) have been designed for a specific community use. To ensure that these areas are maintained i.e. not damaged by freedom camping vehicles and do not require expensive remediation, sports fields generally will have a higher score. To maintain the service level expected of sports grounds that benefit the entire community, freedom camping is prohibited from turf surfaces.
b) Health and safety of those visiting the site
73 The Act requires that the health and safety of those visiting the site are considered. The profile of the Kaikōura District consists of informal SH1 access which can be dangerous, railway crossings, uneven ground and coastal cliffs which are prone to erosion. Some sites have a high level of vehicular traffic (car parks and lookout points), or have a high level of use for other activities (like sports grounds). These aspects of health and safety have been considered during the assessment.
c) Access to the Area
Within this document the current access to each site is assessed. This includes taking into account the current vehicular access, to ensure that no unreasonable damage is caused by the access of vehicles (such as driving over culverts if there is no vehicle access) or the impact that people accessing the site will have on the area (pedestrians).
Assessment Scoring Method: Values from 1 to 7 are given to each of the matter listed above, if the significance score is 9 or above (once added), this means that the site is determined to be a “significant site” and freedom camping is prohibited. If the significance score is 8 or below, freedom camping is permitted at the site; however there could be some restrictions placed on the specific site. For example some sites have high amenity and are desirable to campers (coastal sites or sites near public toilets) and without restrictions the sites become hotspots and can lead to overcrowding, overloading public infrastructure and general health and safety concerns. An appropriate mitigation tool is to identify a limited number of spaces available for freedom camping at any area.
Protection of the area – Cultural significance, Historical significance, Flora or Fauna 1 No significant site concerns 2 Low concerns regarding significant sites 3 Some concerns regarding significant sites 4 Significant sites but not fully protected 7 Fully protected area, historical, cultural or native significance
Protect the health and safety of those visiting the area 1 No health and safety concerns 2 Low health and safety concerns 3 Minimal health and safety concerns (risk for the elderly or children) 4 Significant health and safety concerns 7 Risk to health and safety is too great to allow access to the site
Protect access to the area
74 1 Fully formed access to the site 2 Good access to the site, which would not cause damage 3 Moderate access to the site, and any vehicle access would cause minimal damage 4 Restricted access to the site, and any vehicle access would cause damage 7 No access to the site, and any vehicle access would cause significant damage
We will take a graduated response to enforcement The council’s graduated approach to enforcement means that the response is based on the individual circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the harm and attitude to compliance. It is not the intention of the bylaw to manage people who are homeless. A humane approach to enforcement will be taken to protect vulnerable members of our community.
If someone breaches the rules We will investigate if someone is camping in a way that they are not supposed to. In the first instance the council will educate and provide a warning to the camper. If the warning is ignored, we will consider whether escalated enforcement action is needed. We will use the best enforcement tool to help prevent non‐compliance in the future. This can include issuing a formal warning, issuing a $200 infringement fine, seizing any equipment used in the offence, seeking a court order or prosecuting the offender.
If problems occur in areas not covered by the bylaw The council will respond to problems in areas not scheduled in the bylaw by using the offence provisions in the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and other regulations. If problems continue then we will investigate whether to include the area in the bylaw in the future. Council will make a decision in February 2021 as to if the bylaw needs a formal review at that time. This bylaw must be reviewed within 5 years of becoming operative and then 10 years after the first review takes place.
What is the bylaw Sections 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 cover the introduction and commencement of the bylaw. Section 4.0 covers the definitions of this bylaw. Section 5.0 provides Direction for those who enforce the bylaw and also the general community, so they understand why a bylaw has been developed and highlights the main aims the bylaw is trying to achieve. Section 6.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is permitted. Section 7.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is prohibited Section 8.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is restricted Section 9.0 outlines the general restrictions Section 10.0 outlines obtaining council consent to freedom camp in restricted or prohibited areas Section 11.0 outlines how council may temporarily close a freedom camping area Section 12.0 outlines offences Section 13.0 outlines penalties Section 14.0 outlines powers for clamping and impounding of offending vehicles
75 Section 15.0 outlines the status of the bylaw with other council documents Section 16.0 outlines the relationship of bylaw with Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 and other iwi settlments Section 17.0 outlines the process for amending the bylaw Section 18.0 makes provisions for severability of any and all provisions so that if any provision in this bylaw shall be found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby Schedule 1 – Areas where freedom camping is prohibited including aerial maps Schedule 2 – Restricted areas for freedom camping including aerial maps Schedule 3 – Dump stations and toilets
Attachment 1 – Offences from the Freedom Camping Act 2011
Attachment 2 – Penalties
ATTACHMENT 3: Proposed Summary of Kaikōura Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019: Statement of Proposal *Pursuant to Section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002
Have your say on the draft bylaw ‐ Council is consulting on the draft Responsible Freedom camping bylaw. Submissions on the draft bylaw are open from 11 September to 11 October. ‐ As well as the bylaw, an education and research plan for the summer is being developed and Council is keen to hear from anyone who would like to help. ‐ After trailing different ways of managing responsible camping Council began working with the Responsible Camping Working Group to create a Freedom Camping Bylaw for our district in February 2019. ‐ The bylaw will be the key tool used by Council and the community to deal with cultural, environmental and health and safety concerns. ‐ As long as no legal challenges arise, the proposed bylaw should be in force by the end of 2019. ‐ Full information about the proposed bylaw including the statement of proposal, draft bylaw and an interactive map showing all proposed rules and controls can be found on the Council website How did we get here? ‐ Under the Freedom camping Act 2011, the bylaw cannot regulate freedom camping on private land or cover drivers resting or sleeping at the roadside in a caravan or motor vehicle to avoid fatigue. ‐ Under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, freedom camping must be allowed in Kaikōura. ‐ Protection through the bylaw can only happen for one or more of the following reasons; • To protect the area; • To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area; and • To protect access to the area. ‐ To develop the bylaw Council and the working group assessed sites used by freedom campers including residential areas, recreation grounds and parks in the urban area, bush, coastal and farmland sites. ‐ The assessments looked at whether the area needed protection through the bylaw. ‐ Each site received scores for its natural environment, such as the flora and fauna, cultural or historical significance including wahi tapu and wahi tonga areas and mahinga kai areas, health and safety elements such as railway crossings, uneven ground and coastal cliffs which are prone to erosion, traffic (car parks and lookout points), or a high level of use for other activities
76 (like sports grounds), current vehicle access and the impact that people accessing the site will have on the area. ‐ Sites with the highest scores received the highest protection, for example prohibiting camping completely.
7.4.1 The path to the draft bylaw
Under the Freedom camping Act 2011 freedom camping must be allowed in Kaikōura. Freedom camping can only be restricted through the bylaw for one or more of the following reasons;
To protect the area; To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area; and To protect access to the area.
To develop the bylaw Council and the working group assessed sites used by freedom campers including residential areas, recreation grounds and parks in the urban area, bush, coastal and farmland sites. The suitability of each site for freedom camping was checked against three criteria;
the natural environment, such as the flora and fauna, cultural or historical significance including wahi tapu and wahi tonga areas and mahinga kai areas health and safety risks such as railway crossings, uneven ground and coastal cliffs which are prone to erosion, traffic, use for other activities (like sports grounds) current vehicle access and the potential damage that could be cause (such as culverts or the impact on pedestrians)
Sites with the highest scores received the highest protection, for example prohibiting camping completely.
A draft Responsible Freedom camping bylaw was approved by the Responsible Camping Working Group and then Council in August 2019.
What’s in the bylaw The draft bylaw outlines controls around camping on all council owned or managed land. Under the Freedom camping Act 2011 bylaws cannot control freedom camping on private land or cover drivers resting or sleeping at the roadside in a caravan or motor vehicle to avoid fatigue. Under the draft bylaw, camping on council controlled or managed land; ‐ must be self‐contained ‐ is prohibited in most residential and business areas, except in designated ‘restricted areas’. ‐ is allowed for a maximum of 2 nights in any 4 week period in the remaining parts of the district.
Prohibited areas include; . Within the entire Kaikoura Township . South Bay Corner with SH1 . Kaikoura Lawn Cemetery . Point Kean . Esplanade Lawn . South Bay Parade
77 . Moa St. Car parks at Boat Harbour . Wakatu Quay . Kiwa Road, Mangamaunu . South Bay Reserve (start of Peninsula walkway) . Coastal Strip from South Bay Parade until the Kowhai River Restricted areas where self‐contained vehicles are permitted for a maximum of one night in a four week period; . West End car park – Maximum of 5 vehicles; . Jimmy Armers Beach ‐ Maximum of 6 vehicles, with a maximum length of 7.5 metres . Esplanade (Lion’s Pool) Maximum 5 vehicles Maximum vehicle length 7.5 metres . Kaikoura Lookout ‐ Maximum of 3 vehicles . Scarborough St. Reserve ‐ Maximum of 10 vehicles . Southend Railway Station Carpark ‐ Maximum of 5 vehicles . Pohowera ‐ maximum of 20 vehicles with NO FREEDOM CAMPING between 15 August and the last day in February of the following year. The draft bylaw also allows Council to; o Issue fines of $200 each for any of the offence listed under section 12. o This includes behaviours such as using public facilities to wash dishes, hanging out laundry or defecating in public.
Overall, the draft bylaw:
has rules that are simple and regionally consistent has rules only in places where they are required (in areas that are likely to be desirable to freedom campers) ensures that all campers have access to a toilet (either on‐board their vehicle or at a 24‐hour public toilet) provides for some controlled camping in places that are suitable includes specific restrictions for some areas so the council can effectively manage camping.
Bylaw sections Sections 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 cover the introduction and commencement of the bylaw. Section 4.0 covers the definitions of this bylaw. Section 5.0 provides Direction for those who enforce the bylaw and also the general community, so they understand why a bylaw has been developed and highlights the main aims the bylaw is trying to achieve. Section 6.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is permitted. Section 7.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is prohibited Section 8.0 outlines the areas where freedom camping is restricted Section 9.0 outlines the general restrictions Section 10.0 outlines obtaining council consent to freedom camp in restricted or prohibited areas Section 11.0 outlines how council may temporarily close a freedom camping area Section 12.0 outlines offences Section 13.0 outlines penalties Section 14.0 outlines powers for clamping and impounding of offending vehicles
78 Section 15.0 outlines the status of the bylaw with other council documents Section 16.0 outlines the relationship of bylaw with Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 and other iwi settlments Section 17.0 outlines the process for amending the bylaw Section 18.0 makes provisions for severability of any and all provisions so that if any provision in this bylaw shall be found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby Schedule 1 – Areas where freedom camping is prohibited including aerial maps Schedule 2 – Restricted areas for freedom camping including aerial maps Schedule 3 – Dump stations and toilets Attachment 1 – Offences from the Freedom Camping Act 2011 Attachment 2 – Penalties
79 Report to: Council File # Date: 19/08/2019 Subject: Tourism Infrastructure Fund August Application Summary Prepared by: Libby Clifford, Communications and Engagement Manger Input sought from: Martin Homisan Economic Development Officer, Kate Hunt Biodiversity and Planning Administrator, Jacob Turnbull Planner. Authorised by: CEO Angela Oosthuizen
SUMMARY This report presents a summary of an application currently being developed for funding from the government Tourism Infrastructure Fund in August 2019 for a number of key projects to solve immediate needs. It also outlines the intention to apply for a second round of projects in March 2020. RECOMMENDATION That the Council: ‐ 1.Receives the report ‐ 2. Confirms Option 2 as the preferred option ‐ 3. Notes that the application is expected to have a minimal impact on council finances and that final approval of projects will be made by the CEO once exact funding implications are known.
BACKGROUND The Tourism Infrastructure Fund The Tourism Infrastructure Fund supports local communities facing pressure from tourism growth and in need of assistance — areas with high visitor numbers but small ratepayer bases, for example.
The fund aims to protect and enhance New Zealand’s reputation both domestically and internationally. Supporting robust infrastructure contributes to quality experiences for visitors, and maintains the social licence for the sector to operate.
Endorsement from the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. Please refer to attachment. OPTIONS Option 1: do not apply This is not recommended. Staff believe that by not making an application council will forgo an opportunity to secure 50% funding for a number of projects that address key immediate needs.
Option 2: apply for projects as outlined below.
80 This is the recommended option. Staff believe that this combination of projects will have a manageable budget impact and allow Council to apply for funding to address some key immediate needs in August 2019. Funding for a second group of projects will then be applied for in early 2020 when sufficient work has been completed to ensure adequate budgeting and resources are in place and that the projects align with key existing work and iwi and community views.
August 2019 funding round projects:
Project Detail Infrastructure Amount
Scarborough The project covers providing an $400k entry road, carpark, coin operated South Site Landscaping, BBQs + picnic tables, planting, CCTV development system, outdoor sink, dump station for limited and smart recycling bin(s). freedom Tourism/outdoor camping and leisure and recreation enhanced infrastructure The intention is to enable outdoor sustainable tourist and community recreation use of the Scarborough street south and recreation reserve for a number of Roading community outdoor recreation activities. The use site provides links to existing walkways/bike tracks, is positioned for extraordinary views, allows plenty of space and, when developed, will provide a unique and iconic Kaikōura visitor and resident experience.
The development of the site is expected to relieve pressure on existing popular tourist and community sites.
Smart A) New recycling stations at key Installation of new $60k to be Recycling locations to encourage tourists to smart recycling confirmed by IWK bins reduce, reuse recycle. These bins will stations. Council’s aim help reduce the ongoing cost of is to encourage emptying them as regularly. tourists and community to reduce, B) A campaign to raise awareness reuse and recycle by and education visitors to make more installing Smart environmentally‐friendly choices and Recycling Bins. how to use the bins correctly.
81 Lions pool Partial demolition and removal of a Demolition $69k demolition & disused outdoor swimming pool Feasibility $39k feasibility structures in a key tourism location. Improves visitor experience Total $108k immediately and allows considered and effective planning for future uses of the site. Demolition cost of $ 69,000 based on preliminary quote.
Feasibility study $39,000 based on earlier applicant’s experience.
March 2020 funding round projects
Project Detail Infrastructure Amount (all approx.)
Kiwa Road Replace existing Toilet with Toilet $150+ Sustainable something as sustainable
Beautification* and self‐servicing as possible. Landscaping $10k
Planting to provide Cultural signage $50k environmental protection and restore biodiversity
Signage to allow the protection of wahi tapu/wahi tonga and mahinga kai areas and to enable visitors and locals to understand the cultural significance and history of the area.
Churchill park* 1 pan unisex toilet, easily Toilet $80k accessible from SH1 and the playpark.?
Option 3 Apply for all projects listed under option 2 as part of the August round. This is not a recommended option. Staff believe it is premature to apply for funding for the Kiwa road toilet/infrastructure and/or Churchill Park toilet as sufficient work has not yet been undertaken to ensure the projects align with budgets, available resource, strategic priorities and iwi and community views.
82 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS 4.1 Financial implications Tourism infrastructure funding projects normally require 50% funding from the applicant. In cases where Council as a primary applicant is financially constrained. And unable to contribute 50% of the projects cost.
Due to Council’s position with regards to future financial sustainability, staff believe a convincing case can be made under the relevant TIF conditions that Council will only fund 20% of the total project costs.
For all projects, this cost would be loan funded or taken from existing budgets, minimising financial implications.
Community Implications The community is expected to benefit from the application as it removes some of the funding burden from local ratepayers while allowing improvements to be made in key areas.
Health and Safety If funding is secured, all arising projects will comply with the Health and Safety at Work act.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION Policy This matter is not a matter of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Projects being applied for are consistent with the approach being taken to manage freedom camping and ensure Kaikōura positions itself to sustainably manage the impact of tourists on our environment and local economy.
Community Outcomes Supported The work is in support of all community outcomes.
We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost‐effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
83 COMMUNITY VIEWS Community views have not been directly sought, however, insights from the following consultations have informed this application:
‐ Pool related consultations over 2017‐2019 ‐ Annual plan consultation May 2019 ‐ Kiwa road consultation June 2019
APPENDIX
23 August 2019
TIF Secretariat
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
By email: [email protected]
To the TIF Secretariat
Canterbury Mayoral Forum and tourism infrastructure applications
The Canterbury Mayoral Forum supports applications from three Canterbury councils (Christchurch City Council, and Kaikōura and Selwyn District Councils) to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund.
We acknowledge the support provided to Canterbury councils for tourism infrastructure projects to date via the Tourism Infrastructure Fund. We are pleased that the Government continues to recognise the significant pressure on local authorities to provide the standard of facilities expected by the increasing number of visitors to our region. We appreciate the opportunity to apply for assistance through the Tourism Infrastructure Fund.
Canterbury council applications reflect the importance of ensuring that visitors to our region enjoy an excellent, safe and positive experience, supported by appropriate infrastructure and facilities.
Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (CREDS)
Canterbury Mayors launched the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (CREDS) for 2017–2019 in June 2017. The Canterbury regional visitor strategy, one of the seven CREDS workstreams, aligns closely with the National Tourism Strategy and is focused on attracting the right visitors, ensuring they have an enjoyable experience, and encouraging them to visit across the region and the South Island. Its objective is to: Grow sustainable tourism that focuses on the high‐end market, encourages a wider seasonal ‘spread’, disperses visitors across the region and South Island, and keeps them here longer.
Canterbury applications
84 Christchurch City Council is seeking funding to support upgrades at a number of tourist and freedom camping locations throughout the city council boundaries. These include freedom camping sites in costal areas of the city boundaries, as well as high‐traffic areas for visitors such as Hagley Park, the botanic Gardens, and across Banks Peninsula. Proposed upgrades include:
• enhanced car park facilities, landscaping and outdoor furniture at freedom camping sites
• sustainable and environmentally friendly toilet facilities with solar power
• installation of ‘Bigbelly Solar Bins’ to increase rubbish capacity as well as the additional benefit of free wifi
These upgrades have been identified in areas seeing increased numbers of both day and overnight visitors. A total of $248,369 is being sought to high provide improved facilities that are cleaner and more convenient to visitors and help manage sites, particularly during the high tourist season.
Kaikōura District Council is applying for funding for three projects to improve the visitor experience of tourists to the district. These include:
• development of the Scarborough South site, including road access and car parking, picnicking area with coin‐operated barbeques and outdoor sink, dump station and smart recycling bins. The Scarborough South site is a popular area for both freedom camping and recreational users, linking with existing walkways and cycleways.
• installation of smart recycling bins at key areas across the district to encourage tourists to reduce, reuse and recycle
• demolition of Lions pool, an outdoor swimming that is no longer operational, and a feasibility study for future development of the site. This project will improve visitor experience immediately and allow for considered and effective planning for future use of the site.
A total of approximately $660,000 of funding is being sought to improve and help manage key sites in the district that are facing increased patronage, and maintain positive visitor experiences for those travelling to the district.
Selwyn District Council is requesting funding for a number of developments across their district, to cater for those travelling through the region, predominately those travelling west from Christchurch, as well as those visiting within the district. These include:
• redevelopment of facilities at Lake Coleridge, including a replacement toilet facility, car park and picnic area. The Lake Coleridge area has seen a noted increase in tourist and recreational visitor numbers and is also on the route for the Te Araroa Trail. Existing facilities were constructed in the 1960s and are in average condition with no disabled access.
• upgrading the Hororata public toilets and wastewater system. Hororata is located on a key tourist route to a number of attractions, including Canterbury ski fields, as well as hosting a number of events bringing visitors to the area. Current facilities require upgrading to meet quality expectations, provide disabled access, and address wastewater capacity issues.
• improving tourist signage to highlight points of interest and provide information at three sites that are currently not well serviced.
85 These projects will help relieve pressure on popular visitor sites across the district that have seen increased levels of use and are struggling under current demand. A total of $675,000 is sought to help fund these initiatives and help facilitate positive experiences for those visiting the Selwyn area.
Central government investment in tourism
Canterbury Mayors and their councils, through the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy and its Visitor Strategy, are working together to ensure that Canterbury is in a strong position to respond to opportunities offered by New Zealand’s tourism growth.
We strongly support the applications of our member councils for funding to improve facilities and visitor experience of our region, so tourism growth is sustainable – and maintains a social licence to operate.
Yours sincerely
Mayor Lianne Dalziel
Chair, Canterbury Mayoral Forum
86 Report to: COUNCIL
Date: 16 July 2019
Subject: Kaikōura Community Pool Project
Prepared by: Emma Duncan, Project Coordinator Input sought from: Kim Whitwell, Communication Development and Communications
Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen, CEO
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN To provide Council with an update on the progress of the Kaikōura Community Aquatic Centre. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Applications have been made to funding sources totalling $1.25M. This is made up of two applications one to Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund for $950,000 and one to Lottery Community Facilities Fund for $300,000.
Results of the Lottery Community Facilities Earthquake Fund should be received by 30th September, results from the Lottery Community Facilities Fund will be early December.
The success of these funding applications is critical to the aquatic complex project phase one being able to be delivered within current target timeframes.
Two applications have also been made to the Tourism Infrastructure fund. One for coin operated BBQs, seating and picnic areas and planting. One for funding to demolish the existing pool and conduct a feasibility study on alternative uses for the site. See the separate Tourism Infrastructure Fund report for further details.
To assist with these applications, the council is required to decide on the ownership of the new aquatic centre. Following an analysis of the options it is recommended that pool ownership resides with the Kaikōura Community Charitable Trust. BACKGROUND The swimming pool in Kaikōura on the Esplanade was closed in 2016 after it was damaged by the earthquake. Council is now supporting a community led project to build a new indoor aquatic centre over the next 4 years.
In March 2019 Council approved a plan that aimed to achieve the following by September 2019
‐ Form a community based charitable trust to lead the project (complete) ‐ Choose a final site (complete) ‐ Develop a fundraising strategy (underway) ‐ Raise around $1.5 million in funding, grants and in kind sponsorship (underway).
Council are supporting the community to build a new indoor pool in the following ways;
Contributing up to a total of $1million in capex
87 Contributing up to $250,000 per annum in operating costs once the new pool is operational. Partnering with the new charitable Trust throughout the development, design and building process.
DISCUSSION Ownership There are two potential models for legal ownership of the assets that will make up the aquatic complex. Following input from independent financial advisor Dave Foster and from Kaikōura Community Charitable Trust Chairman John Wyatt, Council staff recommend that legal ownership sits with the Charitable Trust. A summary of relevant analysis and issues is presented below for Councils information.
Ownership Risks and issues for Council Benefits for Council Notes and mitigation model suggestions Asset ‐ Council is responsible for ‐ Council is the legal Council retains an owned by depreciation owner and retains ability to influence the Council ‐ Council is responsible for any legal authority operation of the pool operational budget deficits. through contracts ‐ Recorded on Councils asset such as the annual register funding agreement and lease arrangements.
Asset ‐ Council accepts a small risk ‐ Council is not The likelihood of the owned by that if the Trust were to responsible for trust becoming non‐ Kaikōura become non‐functional, deprecation, or functional is small. If Community alternative governance operational this were to happen Charitable arrangements would need to budget deficits. arrangements such as Trust be identified. ‐ The community the creation of a new ‐ If the aquatic centre may feel a trust and/or CCO (Preferred ownership needed to be stronger sense of would mitigate the option) transferred to either Council ownership of the likelihood of any Tax or an appropriate alternative aquatic centre, issues. such as a new trust of CCO encouraging more Council will have the receiving organisation active visibility of the may face tax or legal bills participation in financial management fundraising or of the project and of volunteer the pool operation activities through regular associated with updates and the complex. information sharing as outlined under the MOU and through the legal requirement of the Trust to audit its finances annually. Aquatic Centre location Scarborough Street South shows site sloping from south‐east to north‐west at a gradient of approximately 1:25. Services are readily available on site. Views to the Kaikōura ranges in
88 the north and South bay to the west are readily available. Dominant wind from the North West is expected during summer months. This is particularly significant for locating the outdoor pool. The Waste Centre is located to the north of the proposed site. Formation of an earth berm is proposed, but further study as to volume of soils available & required, together with visual effectiveness, is required. Aquatic centre concept and high level costs Create Limited were engaged to provide high level price cost estimates and design. The Trust expressed their requirements to Create in a workshop meeting on the 17th July. A component schedule and indicative budget cost estimate was then provided to the Trust for feedback and some compromises were made. Input from the Council meeting on the 14th August contributes to the concept report and the final copy will be available in September.
Funding Applications The Kaikōura District Council were successful for a grant of $46,000 plus GST funding application to the Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund to cover the concept phase costs.
An application to the Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund has been made to the amount of $950,000. An updated quote of the existing site was required to support this application along with the concept plans, pricing and deigns, project budget and timeline, copy of insurance settlement for the Lions Pool and a documentation showing evidence of site confirmation. This fund generally has a turnaround period of up to four weeks a result should be advised by the end of September.
A further application has been made to the Lottery Community Facility Fund for the amount of $300,000. This is a nation fund which is commonly oversubscribed. Applications close for this fund on the 28th August with a decision meeting on the 27th November. This fund has many requirements including partnership funding: evidence of one third funds secured, a feasibility study, project budget and timeline, concept drawings and floorplans, landownership support and letters of support. An outline waiver plan and peppercorn lease document is required to be completed by the end of November.
The success of these funding applications is critical to the aquatic complex project phase one being able to be delivered within current target timeframes. If the applications are unsuccessful, Council and the Trust will have to identify alternative funding sources and reset timelines and expectations. Once the outcome of the applications is known to outline the future direction of the project including timeframes, project management structure and funding agreements.
Funding and fundraising summary Community fundraising currently totals $8530.
Plans for fundraising through to October 2020 include 11 events with a predicted total income of approximately an additional $140,000.
The Trust have made an allocation of $200,000 in their budget presented in the Lotteries applications to achieve through sponsorship. An anticipated workshop/planning meeting with the Trust will determine a strategic approach to securing these funds ensuring sponsors are approached with professionalism and their support is acknowledged consistently. The
89 Trust will also follow up and secure the offers of in‐kind works which have been pledged to date. Aquatic Complex Budget
Secured Funding Kaikōura District Council (includes insurance pay‐out) $1,000,000 Op shop $200,000 Individual Donation $110,000 The Sutherland Self Help Trust $100,000 Kaikōura Lions $25,000 Sound Foundation $20,000 Fundraising to date $15,530 The old Kaikōura Community Trust Funds $5,564 Give a Little Page $3,560 Potential Funding 11 planned fundraising events through to October 2020 $140,000 Sponsorship $200,000 Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund $900,000 Lottery Community Facilities Fund $400,000 Rata Foundation $250,000 Grand Total $3,369,654
90
Green = done, yellow = underway, red = action needed
Ongoing Month Task activities
1 May draft Deed due to Council Completed Trust Deed will be reviewed by Council and
Lawyers; charitable status checked
29 May Council meeting May Council views Trust Deed as FYI
Annual plan consultation on all options
Working group (on Trust’s behalf) acquires letters of support
Organise revised builders quote for the existing pool received (guides DIA Application). Completed Trust Deed approved and signed by Trustees.
Trust finalise site. Work on fundraising strategy/plan Approve Create offer of service for project establishment and concept design stage for June new the complex. Register Trust with the Charities Commission, incorporate the Trust Board under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, open a bank account
in Trust name, apply for an IRD number for the Trust and interview and appoint the expressions of interest.
Agree and sign MOU between Trust and Council. Fundraising strategy finalised. Completed Strategic visions set. Finalise Trust communication plan. July Council staff prepare DIA funding application documentation. Finalised revised builders quote for the existing pool received (guides DIA Application).
91 On‐site and draft concept meeting with Council. Trust finalises high level pool design, budget.
August Work towards Outline Plan. Submit Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund Application. Submit Lottery Facility Fund Application. Receive results of Lottery Earthquake Facility Fund application. Awaiting Review funds secured to date. outcomes September Develop strategy and timeline for way forward. Begin developing land lease documentation, capex funding agreement and opex annual funding agreement. Begin final detailed design.
RECOMMENDATION THAT Council:
(a) Confirms ownership of the Kaikōura Aquatic Centre will reside with the Kaikōura Community Charitable Trust (b) Notes that two funding applications have been made to DIA funds totalling $1.25M (c) Notes that a meeting will be held between Council representatives and Trust members once the outcome of the applications is known to outline the future direction of the project including timeframes, project management structure and funding agreements.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
92
Report to: COUNCIL Date: 28th August 2019 Subject: The Whale Trail Prepared by: Matt Hoggard – Strategy, Policy and District Plan Manager Input sought from: Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen – CEO
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN: This report provides an update to Council on The Whale Trail. Approval in principle is sought for Council to be the holder of the easements required to provide legal access over the land required for The Whale Trail. BACKGROUND The Marlborough Kaikōura Trail Trust was established in December 2017 with the primary purpose to develop and operate a recreational cycling and walking trail from Picton to Kaikōura. Ultimately The Whale Trail will be approximately 200‐kilometre‐long and incorporate any shared use pathway being constructed through the area controlled by North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery (NCTIR). However, the section of the Trail being dealt with by NCTIR is outside of the scope of work for the Trust.
In June 2019 Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced $322,000 from the Provincial Growth Fund to co‐fund a technical study. It is estimated that the Trail will cost approximately $20m to develop.
To provide certainty for the Trail the trust is currently working to secure agreement to grant easements from private and public landowners over whose land the trail will pass. This ensures long term legal access.
This report seeks approval in principle for the easement concept. RECOMMENDATION THAT Council:
(a) Council agrees in principle to be the holder of the easement which provides for walking and cycling access required for the trail known as The Whale Trail. DISCUSSION: It is logical for Marlborough District Council (MDC) and Kaikōura District Council (KDC) to use the same base easement document. Each document is likely to be subject to minor changes to address landowners concerns.
It was anticipated the base easement document would be approved by MBC before this report came to council allowing KDC to piggyback of MDC’s legal advice. The Trust and MDC’s advisors have made significant progress on the base easement document though MDC is yet to provide formal sign off. However, given the up and coming election period it is considered appropriate
93 to seek direction from Council prior to this last stage as there may be delays associated with elections. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS The crux of the matter is liability. The current easement document is presently silent on the matter of liability. This is the approach being taken by cycle ways requiring easements over private land. This is most likely due to the complex nature of liability.
Even though the document is silent, KDC as the holder of the easement would mostly likely be considered the occupier of the land. As the occupier Council is likely to owe a duty of care, to both its invited guests and the surrounding landowners. If use of the trail resulted in damage to adjoining land, although defendable, it is possible council may be liable for any damage that results.
MDC are currently considering this matter in detail particularly in regard to risk of fire. Although our district’s climate means accidental fire are a less frequent event, it is still a significant risk.
It is possible to construct an easement document in such a way which would transfer the risk to the property owner. However, it is very unlikely that property owners would agree to an easement document in this form and the trail would be then being unable to proceed.
Although Council are often the last party standing when it comes to damages being sought it is important that Council balances risk with reward and shows leadership. For example, Council are responsible for legal road yet we do not prevent their use due to the risk of accidental fire. Rather Council take reasonable actions to minimise the risk, by mowing of grass and fire bans, with appropriate tools, risks can be minimised allowing roads to be used for their intended purposes.
The benefits of establishing the proposed cycling trail will be identified as part of technical study currently underway. A good indication is the 2015 Executive Summary of the Evaluation of the New Zealand Cycle Trail attached as Appendix 1. This highlights the significant benefits provided by the New Zealand Cycle Trail.
Given that the trail is unlikely to proceed unless reasonable easement documents are developed, staff seek conformation that Council agrees with the general concept that KDC will hold the easement for the cycle trail over land within the Kaikōura District.
This paper seeks high level direction from Council.
Legal details will be reviewed once the outcome of MDC’s deliberations are known and a final KDC legal review will be undertaken prior to signing any easement documents.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED The work is in support of all community outcomes.
We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity.
94 Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION The decision is not seen to be significant and does not trigger KDC’s significant policy. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Nil COMMUNITY VIEWS The communities’ views have not been sought on the easement documents, such documents are typically seen as operational matters. The matter of the trail’s location and effects of the trail, both positive and negative, is a matter for the feasibility study, as opposed to the development of easement documentation which are a matter of process.
95 Appendix 1 ‐ 2015 Executive Summary of the Evaluation of the New Zealand Cycle Trail
96
Report to: COUNCIL Date: . 13/05/19 Subject: New Road Naming Prepared by: . Jacob Turnbull – Policy Planner Input sought from: Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen‐ CEO
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN: An access way needs to be given a name to meet the requirements of AS/NZS 4819:2011 Australian/New Zealand Rural and Urban Addressing Standard. It is requested that Council name this private road. The access way is highlighted in Orange;
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Council:
(a) Name the road Edgar Place
97 BACKGROUND In the past Council has named roads in the District as needed or with the assistance of the Road Naming Subcommittee (no longer active). Although this is a private access way and not a public road, the same principle still applies as the name will be available in the public domain by way of maps and emergency services use. The access way services 8 lots. It is expected that a new road name sign will be created alongside a sign noting the private nature of the access way. DISCUSSION Other names in the area relate are Koura Bay Drive, Granges Road or closer to Hapuku is Kanuka Lane.
One possible name for the access way is Edgar Place after the late Albert Edgar who was one of 2 fatalities in the Kaikōura 2016 earthquake events. Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura support the use of the name to pay respects to the family. The Edgar (Alberts wife Pam) family have agreed to this proposal
We must provide 2 road names to LINZ in the case of one name already being in use. Hinau Lane will be forwarded as a backup option. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS Costs involved are a new post and sign which will come out of the existing roading budget.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION Not significant RELEVANT LEGISLATION: None COMMUNITY VIEWS: Residents have been made aware of the need for the change
98 Report to: Council File # Date: . 19/08/2019 Subject: Establishment of the waste management and minimisation solutions project steering group Prepared by: . Libby Clifford, Communications and Engagement Manger Input sought from: CEO Angela Oosthuizen, IWK General Manager Jacki Remihana, Community Facilities Senior Engineer Bruce Apperley, BECA and Tonkin and Taylor Authorised by: CEO Angela Oosthuizen
SUMMARY This report presents an outline of the project management and governance for two key strategic projects over 2019/2020, the development of a new waste minimisation strategy and action plan and the development of an alternative to our landfill (which has around 18 months of operational life left). The attached project initiation document includes high level project vision, objectives, outcomes, team and structure as well as high level timelines.
Attachments: i. Kaikoura Waste Steering Group Project Initiation Document RECOMMENDATION THAT the Council: (a) Receives the report, (b) Confirms the membership of the steering group
BACKGROUND Council previously received two reports on these projects. (The Landfill Future Options Report to the July 2019 Works and Services Committee and the Waste Management and Minimisation Report to the May 2019 Works and Services Committee.
To facilitate efficiencies for Council, Innovative Waste and our community, the two projects are being brought together under one steering group.
The steering group will meet at least monthly and has a membership of;
‐ KDC CEO – Angela Oosthuizen (Chair/Project Director) ‐ IWK General Manager – Jacki Remihana ‐ Councillors Milton and Bond ‐ Communications and Engagement Manager – Libby Clifford ‐ Community Facilities Engineer Bruce Apperley (until a Waste/3 Waters engineer is recruited) ‐ Strategy, Planning and Policy Manager ‐ Matt Hoggard (present on an as required basis only) ‐ Waste Minimisation Project Manager ‐ Chris Purchas ‐ Solid Waste Solution Project Manager – Logan Thomson
99 ‐ Te Rūnanga O Kaikōura representative (identity TBC)
The project will operate under the following structure
Analysis, Recommended Final decisions options Inputs decision development
Council staff
Businesses Steering Project Group Council Managers Iwi
Community
Stakeholders
The following draft project vision has been developed;
Kaikoura’s waste minimisation and management solutions help the district move forward as a great place to live with a strong, well‐connected community, that is ecologically exemplary and economically prosperous
The following draft project outcomes have been developed;
‐ Kaikōura remains a community that prides itself on managing its waste as safely, sustainably and responsibly as it can afford to ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions align with tikanga Maori and uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions balance cost against environmental sustainability, and operational safety, capability and efficiency ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions support a district economy that is diverse and provides continuous employment opportunities ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions are fit for future, with a minimum viable life of 10 years. ‐ The Kaikōura community understands the operational and financial realities of waste management in a modern context, resulting in acceptable satisfaction with levels of service around waste
The last operative waste management plan (WMP) for the Kaikōura District was adopted by council in 2009. Due for review every six years, the plan should have been refreshed in 2015. This work was not carried out. In the decade since the last WMP was adopted the
100 international, national and local context around waste reduction, management and regulation has changed significantly.
This includes the assessment that as at mid‐2019 there is approximately 2 years of useable life remaining at Kaikoura’s only landfill. (The consent expires in 2030.)
A short summary of relevant key context is below.
Internationally
‐ China, once an active market for waste (especially plastics) has changed its policies and no longer presents a market for most waste streams ‐ Markets for waste streams such as paper or scrap metal are volatile and continuing to experience significant shifts as many countries shift policies and thinking around waste management
Nationally
‐ Central government has strengthened health and safety and other key legislation, affecting how resource recovery/waste management centres are able to operate ‐ Central government has banned single use plastic bags ‐ Central government is signalling support for ‘green’ initiatives and increasing its scrutiny of waste management
Locally
‐ The November 2016 earthquake generated a step change in waste behaviours. This included a significant increase in the waste to landfill (from rebuild and recovery efforts) and a change in the socio‐demographics of Kaikōura with an influx of new temporary and permanent residents who exhibit a wide range of behaviours and expectations around waste management ‐ A pattern of non‐environmentally friendly behaviours has become evident in some areas of business and community including a sharp rise in illegal dumping ‐ Both the Council and IWK face significant fiscal constraints as they continue to develop new operating models post‐earthquake. ‐ There is a programme of ongoing change at council and IWK expected over the next 3‐5 years ‐ As a visitor destination Kaikōura has a well established tourism industry that uses ‘ eco tourism’, ‘sustainable tourism’ and other ‘green’ labels as a point of difference. One side effect is that many visitors are short‐stay and generate a disproportionally high amount of waste and negative environmental factors (such as greenhouse gases) during or travelling to or from their stay. ‐ Earthcheck, an ‘eco destination marketing’ tool has been in use in Kaikōura for 13 years without review and with a decreasing level of local buy‐in and understanding ‐ Sectors of Kaikōura resident population remain sensitive to and passionate about waste management issues (note other sectors take a far more urban/indifferent view) ‐ IWK has received a $400,000 worth of upgrades to site and layout and $300k for upgrades to key plant (machinery) ‐ The district plan is due for review ‐ Innovative Waste Kaikōura (IWK) is a Council Controlled organisation that manages Kaikōura's landfill, resource recovery, recycling and rubbish services. The Council owns 100% of the Kaikōura Enhancement Trust (KET), which in turn owns 100% of Innovative Waste Kaikōura Ltd (IWK).
101
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS Council has already approved funding envelopes for both projects in previous reports. Additional considerations are as follows:
An iwi representative has been invited to join the steering group and is expected to guide further engagement with iwi.
“Engage with businesses, stakeholders and the community transparently and proactively” is listed as a key project requirement. It is intended that the community will be presented with several opportunities to have their say in the project including workshops around the development of the Waste Minimisation Strategy and Action Plan and consultation around how projects are funded as part of the 2020/2021 annual planning round.
A risk identification and management approach will be discussed and agreed by the steering group at their September meeting
The Health and Safety at Work act is noted as a primary piece of legislation with which the project outcomes must comply.
Throughout the project planning will be undertaken to ensure delivery of waste related services is fit for purpose both now and into the future. This includes but is not limited to the completion of a section 17A review for waste services. (Note: to comply with Local Government act requirements, a section 17A review should have been complete by August 2017. RELEVANT LEGISLATION
This matter is a matter of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Depending on the vision and direction of Council the waste minimization strategy and action plan is developed it may have implications for several key policies including procurement. A fuller report will be provided once the scope of the project is clearer.
This project must comply with all relevant legislation and consents including;
o Resource Management Act 1991 ‐ resource consents, o District Plan o Health Act o Waste Minimisation Act 2008 o Waste Minimisation (Calculation and Payment of Waste Disposal Levy) Regulations 2009 o Local Government Act 2002 o Reserves Act 2004 o Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
102 o The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
The work is in support of all community outcomes.
We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
COMMUNITY VIEWS See above under 4.1
103 KAIKŌURA WASTE STEERING GROUP PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Contents Kaikoura Waste Steering Group Project Initiation Document ...... 104 Project vision ...... 104 Project objectives ...... 104 Project Context ...... 104 Project Outcomes ...... 100 Project key deliverables ...... 106 Project Requirements ...... 106 Project Team and Structure ...... 106 Structure ...... 107 Project Timeline ...... 108 DRAFT Terms of Reference: Waste Steering Group ...... 109 Steering Group purpose and origin ...... 109 Key deliverables ...... 109 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 109 Group Guidelines ...... 110 Membership: ...... 110 Decision Making ...... 110 Way of Working: ...... 111
Kaikouras waste minimisation and management solutions help the district move forward as a great place to live with a strong, well‐connected community, that is ecologically exemplary and economically prosperous
The project objectives are that:
‐ a fit for future new waste minimisation strategy is adopted by council no later than 30 June 2020 with a total cost of no more than approximately $50,000 ‐ a fit for future waste management facility is operational on the existing IWK site by no later than June 2021 at a total cost of no more than $2.8million ‐ a fit for purpose consented and compliant closure management plan for the current landfill is developed and implemented by 2021 and a cost of no more than $1.2m ‐
The last operative waste management plan (WMP) for the Kaikōura District was adopted by council in 2009. Due for review every six years, the plan should have been refreshed in 2015. This work was not carried out. In the decade since the last WMP was adopted the international, national and local context around waste reduction, management and regulation has changed significantly.
104
This includes the assessment that as at mid‐2019 there is approximately 2 years of useable life remaining at Kaikouras only landfill. (The consent expires in 2030.)
A short summary of relevant key context is below.
Internationally ‐ China, once an active market for waste (especially plastics) has changed its policies and no longer presents a market for most waste streams ‐ Markets for waste streams such as paper or scrap metal are volatile and continuing to experience significant shifts as many countries shift policies and thinking around waste management
Nationally ‐ Central government has strengthen health and safety and other key legislation, affecting how resource recovery/waste management centres are able to operate ‐ Central government has banned single use plastic bags ‐ Central government is signalling support for ‘green’ initiatives and increasing its scrutiny of waste management
Locally The November 2016 earthquake generated a step change in waste behaviours. This included a significant increase in the waste to landfill (from rebuild and recovery efforts) and a change in the socio‐demographics of Kaikōura with an influx of new temporary and permanent residents who exhibit a wide range of behaviours and expectations around waste management A pattern of non‐environmentally friendly behaviours has become evident in some areas of business and community including a sharp rise in illegal dumping Both the Council and IWK face significant fiscal constraints as they continue to develop new operating models post‐earthquake. There is a programme of ongoing change at council and IWK expected over the next 3‐5 years As a visitor destination Kaikōura has a well established tourism industry that uses ‘ eco tourism’, ‘sustainable tourism’ and other ‘green’ labels as a point of difference. One side effect is that many visitors are short‐stay and generate a disproportionally high amount of waste and negative environmental factors (such as greenhouse gases) during or travelling to or from their stay. Earthcheck, an ‘eco destination marketing’ tool has been in use in Kaikōura for 13 years without review and with a decreasing level of local buy‐in and understanding Sectors of Kaikōura resident population remain sensitive to and passionate about waste management issues (note other sectors take a far more urban/indifferent view) IWK has received a $400,000 worth of upgrades to site and layout and $300k or upgrades to key plant (machinery) The district plan is due for review Innovative Waste Kaikōura (IWK) is a Council Controlled organisation that manages Kaikōura's landfill, resource recovery, recycling and rubbish services. The Council owns 100% of the Kaikōura Enhancement Trust (KET), which in turn owns 100% of Innovative Waste Kaikōura Ltd (IWK).
105 ‐ Kaikōura remains a community that prides itself on managing its waste as sustainably and responsibly as it can afford to ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions align with tikanga Maori and uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions balance cost against environmental sustainability, and operational capability and efficiency ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions support a district economy that is diverse and provides continuous employment opportunities ‐ Waste minimisation and management solutions are fit for future, with a minimum viable life of 10 years. ‐ The Kaikōura community understands the operational and financial realities of waste management in a modern context, resulting in acceptable satisfaction with levels of service around waste
‐ A fit for future affordable solution for recycling and residual solid waste management, including a residual waste transfer facility at the Scarborough Resource Recovery Centre site ‐ A fit for future Waste Minimisation Strategy and Action Plan ‐ A review of service delivery around waste management including options around becoming a shareholder in Transwaste Canterbury and options around the use of Kate Valley and/or Bluegums. (Note: this review must be completed allowing sufficient time for final decisions to be made and contracts to be in place from May 2021.) ‐ A consented closure management plan ‐ Monthly reports to Council on progress ‐ A briefing for the Council that will be inaugurated following the results of the 2019 election
‐ Engage with iwi early and often ‐ Engage with businesses, stakeholders and the community transparently and proactively ‐ Ensure waste plans and solutions include adequate planning for Civil Defence needs and credible scenarios ‐ Comply with all relevant legislation and consents including; o Resource Management Act 1991 ‐ resource consents, o District Plan o Health Act o Waste Minimisation Act 2008 o Waste Minimisation (Calculation and Payment of Waste Disposal Levy) Regulations 2009 o Local Government Act 2002 o Reserves Act 2004 o Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act o The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 o KDC significance and engagement policy
‐ KDC CEO – Angela Oosthuizen (Chair/Project Director) ‐ IWK General Manager – Jacki Remihana
106 ‐ Councillors Milton and Bond ‐ Communications and Engagement Manager – Libby Clifford ‐ Community Facilities Engineer Bruce Apperley (until a Waste/3 Waters engineer is recruited) ‐ Strategy, Planning and Policy Manager ‐ Matt Hoggard (present on an as required basis only) ‐ Waste Minimisation Project Manager ‐ Chris Purchas ‐ Solid Waste Solution Project Manager – Logan Thomson ‐ Te Runanga O Kaikōura representative (identity TBC)
‐ Steering group meets (at least) monthly ‐ Monthly Council meetings (combined report written/presented by project managers) ‐ Waste minimisation project manager/ Solid waste solution project manager meet as needed with Council staff/IWK staff/contractors ‐ Periodic updates to Te Runanga o Kaikōura executive/full meeting (at iwi request) ‐ The community will be offered several opportunities to input and ‘have their say’ throughout the project
Analysis, Recommended Final decisions options Inputs decision development
Council staff
Businesses Steering Project Council Group Managers Iwi
Community
Stakeholders
107 Solid Waste Landfill closure Related/affected Month WMP Solution (Transfer plan projects station) August Kickoff BECA draft RFP for 2019 concept 17A review ‐ (waste)
September Council Concept and Develop TIF funding for bins 2019 workshop detailed design* concept confirmed/denied (overview/ (simple scope to vision) include site layout and typical transfer station only) October Draft Rural recycling signs 2019 Strategy replaced November Engagement ‐ Begin New council onboard 2019 ‘scene consent/RMA setting’ process Satisfaction survey workshops Earthcheck review Dec 2019 Design due to FCS decision? council Satisfaction survey Jan 2020 Detailed Design Satisfaction survey Feb 2020 Draft Detailed Design Budget Earthcheck decision Strategy confirmed adopted Annual plan budgets drafted March 2020 Apply for MfE Detailed Design TIF funding round funding as eligible April 2020 Consult Consult Consult Annual plan consultation May 2020 Building consents June 2020 Strategy Scope works & Detailed design Annual plan adopted adopted prepare tender Pool construction starts Aug 2020 Implement Tender Sep 2020 Implement Adjudicate tender Oct 2020 Implement Start construction Nov 2020 *No RFP
108 DRAFT Terms of Reference: Waste Steering Group
The Kaikōura Waste Steering Group (KWSG) was formed following the emergence between May and July 2019 of waste as a key priority for council for the 2019/2020 financial year.
The Steering Group was formed to advise Kaikōura District Council (KDC) about waste related projects and work.
The scope of matters considered by the KWSG is limited to waste related issues and shall not include other matters. Topics regarded as relevant to waste and so within scope include but are not limited to:
‐ Community and infrastructure recovery from the November 2016 earthquake ‐ Service delivery of waste and 3 waters services for Kaikōura ‐ Council and IWK fiscal responsibilities, opportunities and constraints ‐ Relevant examples of waste management and minimisation projects from other locations
This document sets out the purpose, roles and responsibilities, the decision‐making process, way of working of the group.
The KWSG does not have the authority to commit any Council to any path or expenditure and its recommendations do not compromise the Councils freedom to deliberate and make decisions.
The KCPWG will remain active until June 2020, unless otherwise requested by Council.
The KWSG will meet monthly (or more frequently as required)
Working group meetings will take place before monthly Council meetings. Monthly updates will be provided to Council and any guidance from Council will be considered at working group meetings.
All reports will be written by project managers and signed off by Chair/Project Director and presented to Council by Chair with support from project managers as needed.
Membership of the group is voluntary and no remuneration will be given. Key deliverables ‐ A fit for future affordable solution for recycling and residual solid waste management, including a residual waste transfer facility at the Scarborough Resource Recovery Centre site ‐ A fit for future Waste Minimisation Strategy and Action Plan ‐ A review of service delivery around waste management including options around becoming a shareholder in Transwaste Canterbury and options around the use of Kate Valley and/or Bluegums. (Note: this review must be completed allowing sufficient time for final decisions to be made and contracts to be in place from May 2021.) ‐ A consented closure management plan ‐ Monthly reports to Council on progress ‐ A briefing for the Council that will be inaugurated following the results of the 2019 election Roles and Responsibilities The KWSG are responsible for;
109 ensuring waste management in Kaikōura takes a sustainable and future focused approach reviewing new and existing information to ensure the project meets legislative requirements ensuring all funding, capital and operational possibilities are fully explored, risks managed or mitigated and opportunities leveraged ensuring overall project objectives and outcomes are met ensuring all sub‐projects are delivered on time and on budget ensuring community, iwi and stakeholder engagement (including but not limited to consultation) is fit for purpose ensuring community, iwi and stakeholder feedback informs project planning
The KWSG members must:
represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of the Kaikoura community, give effect to the principles of Councils Annual, Long‐Term and Reimagine Kaikōura Plans communicate with Kaikōura organisations and special interest groups within the community, be culturally sensitive, observing tikanga Māori promote stewardship, by considering the efficient use of resources, take responsibility for the needs and aspirations of the community, act with integrity, ensuring words are reflected by actions, and follow the group guidelines for communication and behaviour set out in this document. operate in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
Every effort will be made to ensure all members can attend monthly steering group members. If member(s) are unable to attend the meeting(s) will proceed at the discretion of the Chair.
Members are appointed by the KDC CEO, confirmed by Council. Members must either live in or have a significant relationship with Kaikōura District.
Alternative or substituted representatives may be permitted with the approval of the Chair or the majority of the group. Decision Making The KWSG will strive for consensus (i.e. a recommendation that all group members can support). However, in the event that full consensus is not reached, any arising recommendations to KDC mayn express the main view of the group plus:
other views held by group members, and/or several options and/or staged processes If disputes arise during the process, every attempt will be made to resolve these amongst the group.
If a vote is called, all steering group members have one vote. If voting is tied, the Chair’s vote is final.
110 The KWSG will meet as and when required, but no less than monthly. The Communications Manager/Executive Officer will share coordination duties (limited to room bookings, catering, setting meeting dates/times) The project manager will, prepare the agenda and minutes and distribute all required documentation at least 3 days prior to the meeting. Subject matter experts may be invited to attend the meetings to provide support for discussions 7.10.2.1 Guidelines for relationships and behaviours with each other in the group An environment is created so that all group members are able to be heard and nobody is spoken over. Individuals are encouraged to contribute and share their skills; opinions are respected – no view is a wrong view. Attendees are punctual. The group is responsible for each other’s comfort and enjoyment at each workshop The group works in collaborative ways (strive for consensus, communicate clearly to promote understanding). There are clear expectations of each other and goals. Individual members take collective responsibility for group agreements (to be summarised at the end of each meeting).
7.10.2.2 Guidelines for relationships with the community Information to be circulated is agreed by the group. The community will be kept informed in proactive, transparent and relevant ways. There is consistent and clear messaging; (see also below ‐ Guidelines for working with the media). Members are receptive to community feedback and act as a conduit for their views. All interest groups hold equal value, all are listened to and respected.
7.10.2.3 Guidelines for relationships and behaviours when working with the media. When required, a spokesperson should be elected by the KWSG. The KWSG Chair will approve any communication with the media including press releases. Other than the nominated spokesperson, individuals may not speak on behalf of the group or Council Group members must not undermine the KWSG, associated work or process.
111
Report to: COUNCIL Date: . 28th August 2019 Subject: Planning /Resource Consent Update Prepared by: . Matt Hoggard ‐ Strategy Policy and District Plan Manager Input sought from: Nirosha Seelaratne – Planning Officer Jacob Turnbull ‐ Policy Planner Kate Hunt – Biodiversity/Admin Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen Chief Executive Officer
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN This report provides a general update of what is occurring in the Planning Department. The report is for information only.
BACKGROUND/UPDATE The planning team has a number of varied projects that are progressing, below provides a snapshot of some key projects:
Resource Consents: Appendix 1 includes a list of resource consents that are currently in progress, prepared by Nirosha Seelaratne. With recent monitoring of visitor’s accommodation, the number of resource consents related to visitor’s accommodation is public enquires will increase. If a significant number of additional consents are received out sourcing is likely to be required.
District Plan Review: Work continues reviewing the natural hazards provisions in the District Plan. The first meeting of the advisory group was held on 7th August 2019. Question arose as to if natural hazards associated with fire and shaking (as opposed to fault lines) need to considered. The working group is currently reviewing these aspects. Three phases of public engagement are proposed: 18‐20 October, Community Engagement on Science 8‐9 November, Community risk workshops 30 November, Community policy response
Responsible Camping: At the 24th July Responsible Camping Working Group (RCWG) meeting the group signed off the bylaw in principle. A meeting occurred on 10th and 11th August with Nga Mangamaunu and Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura (TRoK) respectively. An additional report in this agenda addresses the statement of proposal and draft bylaw.
Tourism Infrastructure Funding (TIF): Discussion on Kiwa Road is progressing the area is extremely sensitive, both in terms of past usage and ownerships. It is important that meaningful solutions are developed and not rushed. Discussions are occurring with Nga Mangamaunu and Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura. Given the complex nature or the area no decision will been made on the
112 outcome of the area prior to the closure or Round 4 (28 August) of the TIF. Round 5 of the TIF will open on 1 March 2020
Significant Natural Areas Project: Mike Harding has been confirmed as the Ecologist to undertake the review of the SNA Project. His expected timeline is: August: Gather materials & review existing SNA’s September: Report on reviewed SNA’s September: Assess potential SNA’s October: Report on potential SNA’s
New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy: Work is underway to create a national Biodiversity Strategy, led by DOC (there is an existing one from 2000‐2020). A discussion document has been released, which can be found here www.doc.govt.nz/biodiversity‐consultation. Kate Hunt is attending a regional workshop in Christchurch on the 29th August. Feedback closes on September 22nd.
National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity: More info can be found here; https://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/biodiversity/upcoming‐government‐biodiversity‐ initiatives/developing‐national‐policy‐statement . The draft NPS is going out for public consultation in October.
EarthCheck: 2017/18 Benchmarking data has been submitted, data shows a jump in water, electricity and waste. Due to EarthCheck’s policy of auditing data that is less than 12 months old, we will have to collect and benchmark 2018/19 data. This will delay our audit for certification to later this year. We will still retain our certification despite this delay. Data collection for Benchmarking 2018/19 is underway.
Kotahitanga Alliance: The Strategy Launch was held in Nelson on the 28th June 2019. Kate Hunt represented KDC. A copy of the strategy and launch video can be found at https://www.Kaikōura .govt.nz/our‐district/environment/councils‐environmental‐programmes/ . The next Alliance meeting is scheduled for the 3rd September in Marlborough.
The Whale Trail: A separate report is intended to be included on this agenda to address the proposed easement documents.
Changes to the Resource Management Act ‐ Targeted Resource Management Act Reforms Stage 1
Stage 1 review will focus on reversing changes made by the previous government (under the 2017 Amendments) and additional mechanisms to expedite outcomes. Matters within scope include:
Restoring the ability for sub‐dividers to appeal conditions on subdivision consents Reducing complexity in the Act Restoring public participation Increases to maximum fines and increases to the time allowed for filing prosecutions Repeal of regulation making powers by central government (note powers to make NPS, NES, National Planning Standards remain). Changes to support delivery of Essential Freshwater package. Strengthened EPA powers
113 Stage 2
Stage 2 is a comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act. The review will be supported by a budget of $8 million and will take a first principles look at the effectiveness of the current RM system. Matters within scope include:
Should separate legislative instruments exist for management of built and natural resources (e.g an urban development act and a natural resources act), or should all matters be addressed by a single Act. Should Part 2 remain, or should the principles in Part 2 site within a strategic over‐ arching legislative instrument Bottom lines for protection of ecological systems. Interaction between the RMA, the LGA, UBD authority, Fisheries Act, Health Act Compulsory requirements to prepare new national direction (currently only the NZCPS is compulsory) Mechanisms to hold councils accountable (a response to findings of the productivity review that some councils have systemic cultural issues) Use of spatial planning tools to support a transition to renewable energy sources Mechanisms to increase Māori participation
Why: The RMA is seen to be not delivering optimal resource management outcomes. In particular, the following key issues have been identified:
Lack of environmental protection Complexity ‐ Successive amendments and adhoc changes to the RMA have resulted in complexity and a loss of cohesiveness Urban development outcomes are not being achieved – general consensus is this is due to restrictive planning controls resulting in significant costs. Lack of alignment between RMA, LGA and Transport Act. Plan‐making processes are slow e.g. half of all regional councils not confident that they will be able to implement National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (NPSFM) requirements by 2025 Who:
Stage 1 Targeted RMA Changes being prepared by MfE Staff. Stage 2 RMA Reforms led by an independent panel: o the chairperson will be Anthony Randerson a retired Court of Appeal judge. o the remainder of the panel is still to be appointed but will consist of 4 additional persons (with the chair making a total of 5 persons) When:
Stage 1 Targeted RMA Changes are expected to be released before the end of the year Stage 2 RMA Reforms will be initiated later this year. The timeframes for delivery are: o Options / Issues paper to be delivered at the end of this year o Report (including recommendations) to the Minister by May 2020 o Recommendations will not include the draft changes to the Act, and drafting unlikely to be completed before election in 2020.
114 Stage 1 and Stage 2 reviews will not impact the delivery of new national direction (i.e. changes to NPSFM, new NPS on biodiversity, new NES on halting intensification, new NPS on highly productive soils). RECOMMENDATION THAT the Council:
a) Receive the Planning /Resource Consent Update report for information.
DISCUSSION Nil
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS Nil
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment
waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards. SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION No ‐ Process RELEVANT LEGISLATION RMA 1991, LGA1974 and LGA2002 COMMUNITY VIEWS Nil
115 APPENDIX 1: RESOURCE PLANNING 1. Active and deferred Resource consent applications from 17th July 2019 to 14th August 2019
RC ID Applicant Name RC Description RC Location RC Status
1038 Vaughan, Steven Land use‐ Change of 170 Beach Road Deferred(Hurunui DC Michael consent conditions processing the application) 1400 Vendbos Holdings Ltd Subdivision 2009, SH1 Deferred
1446 Parklands Southland Land use 166, Esplanade Deferred Ltd 1495 Napoleon Ltd Subdivision 43, Wiffens Road Deferred (external consultant) 1533 Nelson petroleum Erection of signs 136‐142, Beach On Hold Distributors Ltd Road 1538 Harmac Concrete Ltd Land use 137, Red Swamp Active (External Road consultant).Notification report received. 1561 McKeon Group Ltd Establish a 24hr self‐ 92, SH 1 Deferred (s92). Waiting service fuel facility for further information 1564 Prestige Subdivision 74, Torquay St Deferred Homes(Canterbury) 1569 St Pauls Presbyterian Land Use. Sonic Building 11, Deal Street Active Church (Demolition & reconstruction ) 1554‐02 Nelson Petroleum Variation of hours of 136‐142 Beach Deferred (s 92) Distributors Ltd operation Road 1593 John Leeder Staged Fee simple & 82‐94 Active Cross Lease subdivision Esplanade(White Morph hotel ) 1606 Victor Foster Variation of Consent 140 South Bay Deferred (s 92). Conditions Parade Waiting for further information. 1607 Lynda Kichingham & Subdivision & Land Use 27 Clarence Valley Active Neil Dudley Rd 1608 Kevin Shaw Land Use ( Dwelling in LOT 1 DP 11880 Active Significant Landscape State Highway 1 area) 1609 Linda Faye De Vine Visitors accommodation 151 Beach Road Active activity( Existing) 1610 Michelle & Thomas Subdivision & Land Use 165 Beach Road Deferred (s 92). Butters Waiting for further information.
2. Notified consents Notification report has been received for (LU 1538) Harmac Concrete Ltd application. Council will proceed with the Public notification process as recommended in the report.
116 3. Monitoring Although monitoring of complaints is ongoing, there is also a requirement to monitor the granted resource consents consistently.
4. General Project Information memorandum processing is ongoing
117
Report to: Council File # 23.1 Date: . 28 August 2019 Subject: Community Services BAU Report Prepared by: . Susi Haberstock Input sought from: Community Services Team Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Mayor and Councillors with an update on community services and development in the Kaikōura District. Community Services encompasses 6 sub‐categories: 1. Customer Services, including file management 2. Community development including pool, rebuild navigator and housing information 3. Civil defence emergency management 4. Community grants and fundraising 5. Kaikōura District Library including events management 6. Youth development including Youth Council
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Council: Receives The Community Services Report for information.
BACKGROUND From the Annual Plan 2019/2020 p113 ‐ The goal for the next financial year is to continue to move seamlessly from social recovery to community development, continuing the process where community comes together to take collective action and generates solutions to common problems. This strengthens community resilience, safety and wellbeing, ensuring everyone in the community has their essential needs met and enhances quality of life for residents and visitors:
• Creates a cohesive community that is focused towards a common vision and goal for Kaikōura • Grows strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions • Increases sport, art, cultural, environmental & educational opportunities • Enriches quality of life for residents and visitors • Making it happen – builds strong community networks to encourage youth participation & capacity.
ISSUES AND OPTIONS Community development activity for August 2019 a) Standard continue to be updated:
118 • Memorial Hall administration and forms have all been reviewed and updated. • Finance forms also being reviewed and updated. Working with other departments to ensure these are all fit for purpose and streamlined. b) Connecting with Hurunui District Council to build relationships and share ideas around processes, problem solve and networking. Working on connecting with Marlborough also. c) Dog registration seems to be slowing down. Customer enquiry levels remain consistent throughout the winter months. Very little down time comparative to previous years.
Creative Communities Scheme Sports NZ Rural Travel Fund
• 10 applications received for 2018‐2019. 2 of those • 6 applications received for 2018‐ were requested by committee to review then 2019. nd reapply. They were successful on 2 application. • Have sent email to Fund • Just received first payment of $8649.00 (1st of 2 administrator requesting confirming payments for the year). Carried over $2550.35 of rollover amount of $3,067.63 from 2018‐2019). from 2018‐2019. • Total available for first of four rounds = $4962.00, • Have requested confirmation of to be confirmed by committee meeting on 28th ‘normal usual’ funding of $10,925.00 August 2019. for the 2019‐2020 year as funding • 4 rounds: August 2019, December 2019, February year is July to June. 2020 and May 2020 • 1 round in March 2020. • 1st round closed 7th August, have received 2 applications plus 1 more expected on Monday 12th August as a result of a requested extension. • As a result of CCS needing an update on the Progress Reporting, have identified 6 historical applications that require accountability responses. George Low Fund Kaikōura Community Initiative Fund
• 3 applications received for 2018‐2019 • 13 applications received for 2018‐ • To confirm with Finance on ‘usual’ $4,500.00 for 2019, 1 was not eligible. the new year? • To confirm with Finance on ‘usual’ • Funding year July 19 to June 20. allocation of $10,000.00 • 1 round in March 2020. • Funding year July 2019 to June 2020. • 2 rounds; September 2019 and March 2020.
4.1.3 Housing Forum Housing Statistics:
• Te Whare Putea ‐ all 4 units are full, 5 on the waiting list, 1 tenant sharing a unit. 2 of the 4 tenanted people are waiting for a pensioner flat to become available. • MBIE Temporary Accommodation Service ‐ 1 tenanted • Harcourts ‐ no accommodation available, 2 couples looking for more permanent accommodation, 2 flatmates looking for a rental • KDC Pension Flats ‐ fully tenanted, 12 on waiting list (all singles), 3 of the 12 considered high accommodation needs. Tenants were advised of the increase in charges on Friday 09 August.
119 Increased charges take effect from 04 November 2019. Support has been offered to tenants should they need help connecting with Heartland Services. • Housing NZ ‐ 24 homes, fully tenanted • NCTIR Accommodation ‐ hold 56 properties in Kaikōura from 1 bed to 6 bed units. Holiday home and private rental numbers not available. • Compass Village ‐ occupation is at 66%, units still available for contractor use if needed. a) Community development staff organised a staff food drive where many items were donated. These have been delivered to Te Whare Putea where the items will assist some local families through the food bank. b) Continuing to support Council comms and Kaikōura Water Zone committee comms.
4.1.5 Rebuild Navigator update August 2019 22 Cases settled or require no further assistance
52 Cases actively managing:
• 28 cases involve managing REPAIRS • 15 cases involve managing SCOPE • 2 cases involve managing REBUILD • 33 cases involve managing INSURANCE • 2 cases involve managing ASBESTOS PRESENTING ISSUES
Asbestos 2%
Insurance 32% Settled / No Action Required 22%
Rebuild 2% Repairs 27% Scope 15%
• The main areas of concern for August continue to be scopes, repairs & insurance. • The Rebuild Navigator has made good progress with 22 cases either being settled or requiring no further assistance. • Carrying on from July, all cases under the EQC cap have been handed back to EQC from private insurers. Due to this, the Rebuild Navigator has had to start again, confirming case managers for the different properties. • The Rebuild Navigator has spent a few days with one of EQC’s assessors and has been successful in moving forward with a few claims. One the strength of this, he is endeavouring to make progress with other cases. • The team is now working with LPB builders to redo scopes and get them back to EQC to ensure continued progress. Should EQC require an engineer, they can appoint one.
120 • The deconstruction of one claimants dwelling is not far away and the team is awaiting the building consent to be released. Once this is complete the deconstruction will take place and the new dwelling will be constructed. • The team has had a few new homeowners come forward requiring assistance with their claims and the Rebuild Navigator is currently working through these to help them get sorted and move forward.
Events Kaikōura management update 4.2.1 Importance and relevance for events in Kaikōura • Community and Mental Well‐Being ‐ studies have shown that building healthy relationships and spending time with family, friends, and others in your community can help improve mental well‐ being. Strengthening relationships both at home and within community ultimately shapes our life. Mental health and physical health are fundamentally linked, with positive mental well‐being contributing to physical conditions. Those at risk of serious mental health conditions are at increased risk for chronic physical conditions, which makes having community support very important. • Community‐wide events ‐ bring people from all walks of life together, strengthening the bonds between them. Those bonds act to improve mental well‐being, while helping to alleviate personal struggles. • Who we are – identity ‐ establishing a strong town identity is important, particularly for smaller townships. Smaller towns can use community events to connect their residents and keep old traditions alive, while making new ones as well. It can also help attract new visitors, by showing off what makes the town so unique, which can simultaneously help build a strong sense of pride for the community. • Community pride in our town ‐ a sense of pride amongst the community may also encourage members to take better care of their neighbourhoods • Create New Business Opportunities ‐ community events can be used as an opportunity to showcase the community’s local businesses. Enlisting people from our own town helps drive revenue to these small businesses, attracting those in the community to support them. In addition, community events may also bring in business from neighbouring towns, generating further revenue that supports the community. • Community Events are fun! ‐ at the end of the day, the point of hosting a community event is to create memorable moments for the people in our town. These types of events will not only showcase what we have to offer, but connect members of the community no matter their background, gender or age.
4.2.2 Progress and future plans • Increased the content of the website to include what Kaikōura has to offer. • Increased website exposure throughout NZ and internationally ‐ Eventfinder has been populated with specifically Kaikōura events – check it out on https://www.eventfinda.co.nz/. This information now also shows up on the NZ.Com website http://www.nz.com/. • Information now also available on all venues available in Kaikōura with specific information on: o Location o Type of venue o Services offered o Conference option o Accommodation option o Food o Max people o Activities
121 o Sporting events o Wedding organisers/ hire/ hair/ make up/ photography/ food etc.. o Event planner include o Options in town; Nature wildlife/ Adventure / family fun/ indulgence o Group options o Conference and incentive o Packages o How to get here including times, travel options o Accessibility including disability options o Local transport o Link to operator websites o Include more pictures particular of venues
• Continue to collaborate with: o Kaikōura Star ‘what’s on’ page local events o Community groups, local and KDC communications o Sports groups o Garage sales o School events o Fundraisers o Guest speakers o Music/bands/entertainment o National awareness days o Local awareness days
• Promote Kaikōura as an event destination by: o Increasing our event profile on a national and international level o Supporting events currently being held o Looking for other event options o Work in with Sudima Hotel and their event and conference incentive team o Create a conference, incentive and team building page o Look at options for out of town school group camp ideas o Package up winter event deals between Kaikōura and Hanmer Springs, helping to promote the Alpine triangle and increase domestic numbers o Add the “how to hold an event” information to the website o Work with Sheena Hamilton around holding 4 annual events
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS Financial Implications The library, community development and civil defence teams are all working well and within budgets.
Community Implications The activities all support the proactive implementing our district vision ‐ Helping Kaikōura move forward as a great place to live with a strong, well‐connected community, that is ecologically exemplary and economically prosperous.
Risk Management Weekly management team meetings Monthly 1:1 with all 13 staff
122 Monthly council reports Fortnightly team meetings with financial updates Health and Safety All Health & Safety issues are brought to the attention of the Health & Safety committee and there is an action plan. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Policy Well‐being’s The Local Government (Community Wellbeing) Amendment Bill was reintroduced on the 8 May 2019 and reinstates a focus on wellbeing to the purpose of local government and in about a dozen places elsewhere in the Act. In addition, LGNZ is currently pushing Localism by reinvigoration local democracy: The case for localising power and decision making to councils and communities. Ten reasons for giving localism a chance: 1) Localism is a more efficient and effective way of meeting community needs 2) Localism recognises and reflects New Zealand’s growing diversity 3) Localism ensures power and authority 4) Localism improves the coordination and integration of public services 5) Localism builds community resilience 6) Localism spurs innovation 7) Localism is good for local democracy 8) Localism s needed so regions do not fall behind 9) Creating better cities 10) Localism reduces the overall cost of government https://localism.nz/proposal/10‐reasons‐to‐give‐localism‐a‐chance/#2
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED The work is in support of all community outcomes.
We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically Kaikōura’ s unique natural diverse, attractive to investment environment and biodiversity and and provides certainty around sustainably manage disposal of business and employment waste. continuity. Our community is resilient, safe Our community participates in and well and has their essential decisions and planning in a way needs met that benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and Residents and visitors enjoy an community facilities are easily improved quality of life in our accessible, cost effective and able District. to withstand our natural hazards.
123 Report to: COUNCIL Date: 20 August 2019
Subject: Building and Regulatory Update Prepared by: Mark Mitchell – Building and Regulatory Manager Input sought from:
Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen Chief Executive Officer
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN:
Brief update as to the month’s current activity in both the BCA and Regulatory areas of our business. RECOMMENDATION THAT the Council: (a) Receives The Building and Regulatory Report for information.
UPDATE
Building consent received the 15th of July‐ 12th August = 14 ( 0 in‐house ‐ 14 to Comply) Building Consents issued for 15th of July‐ 12th August = 17 Code Compliance Certificates received for 15th of July‐ 12th August = 21 Code Compliance Certificates granted for 15th of July‐ 12th August = 17 Building Inspections conducted for 15th of July‐ 12th August = 116 61% inspection pass rate. 39% inspection fail rate for 15th of July‐ 12th August Inspection pass rate on the rise which is very welcomed.
The BCA are currently advertising for a replacement for Richard Clifton. Closing date 26th August. Mark helping to support Daniel Joyce with the delivery of building inspections. Report from Regulatory Team Parking Parking infringements have dropped off at this present time due to the winter period. We are seeing a higher voluntary compliance when we check the West End car park. Ticket machines continue to be a challenge with reoccurring errors. When the machines are out of order, we are unable to enforce the car park.
Parking infringements issued in July 19 = $760.00 of these 11 have paid = $440 in July there were 8 infringements uploaded to MOJ with a value of $320 once collected.
Parking fees collected from car park machines in July were up from $752 / July 2018 to over double at $1611 in July 2019. Street patrols have noticed a big decrease in vehicles parking over the time limit or in restricted areas.
124 Voluntary Compliance ‐ Car Park Fees
16,000 Jan‐19,
14,000
12,000
10,000 Feb‐19, Dec‐18, May‐19, 3,640 Jan‐18, Nov‐18, Apr‐19, 8,000 Mar‐19,
6,000 May‐18, Feb‐18, Apr‐18, 4,000 Mar‐18, Jun‐19, Jul-19, Oct‐18, Sep‐18 Aug‐18, Jul‐18, 2,000 Jun‐18,
‐ May‐18 May‐19 Jun‐18 Jun‐19 Jul‐18 Jul‐19 Aug‐18 Aug‐19 Sep‐18 Sep‐19 Oct‐18 Oct‐19 Nov‐18 Nov‐19 Dec‐18 Dec‐19 Jan‐18 Jan‐19 Feb‐18 Feb‐19 Mar‐18 Mar‐19 Jul‐18 Oct‐19 Aug‐19
3.3.1 Dogs . Impounds‐ 4 dogs impounded fees for these $567.50 . Dog Infringements‐ 4 owners infringed fees for these $800 . 950 dogs registered fees collected $49,130.00 . 237 known dogs remain unregistered. 50% Penalties apply from 20th August. . Dog related investigations which have included rushing dog, barking and roaming complaints.
DOG CONTROL STATISTICS 2019
49310
39079
28250 29251 26185.4825110.33 24028.97 21629.8 22376 21692.05 19869.7
1001 1050 1062 1080 1235 953 1031 1083 1024 1020 1133 1109 1259 1290 1235 1178 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Number of dogs owned Number of Dogs Registered Impounds Dangerous Total Revenue
125 DOG CONTROL STATISTICS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Number of dogs owned 1109 1259 1290 1235 1178 Number of Dogs Register 1031 1083 1024 1020 1133 1001 1050 1062 1080 1235 953 Impounds 23 16 Dangerous 2344 13 Total Revenue 26185.48 25110.33 21629.8 22376 21692.05 24028.97 19869.7 28250 29251 39079 49310 3.3.2 NOISE Only 2 noise complaints in July neither resulted in a second visit. Both in early hours of morning.
Resource consents for Air B N B are being followed up and the results are coming in for these and the Accommodation Sector rating.
3.3.4 BWOF’s One audit done this period, which resulted in a fail however building owner has done the required work and will be re‐inspected.
New Manager application‐0 Renewal Manager‐4 Special License‐0 Renewal on license‐2 New on license‐0 Club License‐0
Reported 7 times on various applications. Tri‐agency meeting was held on 1 July 2019. Provided advise to the organisers of the Kaikōura Matariki event and the possible need for a Special Licence. Leia worked on presentation/training to be provided to licensees & managers, agendas for tri‐ agency meeting and prep. also Liaised with Kaikōura Police and MOH to arrange dates for tri‐ agency meeting. Ian Shaw attended a Council meeting and discussed the upcoming monitoring, the situation with different licensed premises, the draft LAP and the East Coast rural water supply amongst other items.
Health Act 1956
Assisted building control officer at a site visit to possible insanitary building in the district.
Food Act 2014
Food verifiers did the following:
. Verified 1 food business
126 . Provided ongoing advice to transitioning businesses. . Admin, reports, CAR follow‐ups and close‐outs & scheduling.
Water
. Routine water sampling as per KDC’s approved Water Safety Plan.
127 Report to: Council File: R\25.31\04.02\Aug 19
Date: . 16 August 2019
Subject: Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Activity Report
Prepared by: Peter Thomson, Rebuild Programme Manager
Input sought from: Project Manager; Programme Administrator
Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of the key earthquake Rebuild Programme activities for the month, relating to Horizontal Infrastructure (roading, structures and three waters). BAU (Business as Usual) activities are reported on separately elsewhere.
Attachments: i. Rebuild Construction Photographs
RECOMMENDATION That the Council: (a) receives the Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Activity Report dated 16 August 2019.
PROGRAMME UPDATE Monthly Summary of Key Activity Fords Reservoir: The contractor has re‐mobilised onsite with the arrival of the new 1.5m litre steel tank. Construction and installation will occur during the next 2‐3 weeks. Contract completion is expected in late September. WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plant) Aeration Lagoon: Earthworks construction of the new aerated lagoon is almost complete. Site materials have been used successfully for the construction, avoiding the additional cost of expensive imported fill, and giving project savings. Shaping and bunding of the new infiltration basins is also progressing well. Next phase is concreting the pipe penetrations for the new lagoon, and then commencing HDPE liner installation. Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade: Work is progressing with over 300m of new sewer main installed on Beach Road. Temporary single lane traffic has been necessary to accommodate trenching in difficult ground conditions. This is being carefully managed by the Contractor to ensure efficient north/south traffic flow. Fourteen PSS tanks have now been installed. Design changes to tank surface reinstatement is being worked through with a small number of affected landowners. Six Bridges Replacement Design & Build Contract: Construction is now underway at Hawthorne Road bridge, and a second crew is due to start at Scotts Road bridge later in August. Piling works will commence late August/early September. All design and preparation works for other bridges are advancing according to the approved programme.
128 Mackles Bore repairs: Enabling works at the Alternative Bore are progressing positively but the extensive nature of the work is increasing the project budget. The programme is to complete the validation testing of the Alternative Bore; confirm its use with the Drinking Water Assessor & Ecan; and then get it “pump ready” as soon as possible ahead of the summer holiday season. This will ensure the Urban scheme has a “pump ready” backup supply available of a 24/7 standby basis, in the event there are any supply problems with Mackles Bores over the peak demand season. Repairs of the Mackles Bores will then be able to be programmed, procured and carried out in the period March to May 2020. Health and Safety There were no Health & Safety incidents or issues reported this month. Environment and Heritage There were no Archaeological and Cultural issues arising from construction this month. However, an Archaeological Authority may be required for the three‐waters reticulation repair contract works. Clarification is being sought from Heritage NZ. Quality Contract management and MSQA resources have been stretched as more construction contracts are awarded and underway. Stantec have supplied another Senior Engineer to provide Engineer’s Representative services for the WWTP Aeration Lagoon. This has successfully balanced the workload, but is stretching professional services budgets. This situation has been created by the large peak in the rebuild programme which was not forecast when budgets were set in 2017/18. Beca has completed design/documentation work for procurement of structural bridge repairs, and reviewing the Wards II design & build proposal from CSL. Monitoring and Assurance Claims are addressed monthly with DPMC (Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet), and have exceeded the Crown advance of $3.46m. Last month’s reimbursement claim is with the joint Ministers for approval. The August claim will progress faster as we anticipate payment approvals will be made under Ministerial delegations. Total claims including items against the Budget Bid and Betterment now total about $5.5m, with approximately $670k for the August claim. The Stage‐Two Betterment application is pending resolution of the methodology for Mackles Bores repairs (still expected by September). Then prioritisation of additional betterment projects can be addressed and completed. Review of Rebuild Projects The Rebuild team reviews the Rebuild programme planner on at least a monthly basis. The monthly review includes the following: Use of all the latest post‐tender/contract values and estimates. Re‐assessment of individual project contingencies. Re‐assessment of timeframes including start/finish dates for projects and handover to BAU. Rebuild Programme Financials Financial tables below provide an update of the Rebuild Programme financial situation, based on: 1. All financials are consistent with Crown/Council eligibility and funding policy. 2. November 2017 reporting baseline is retained. 3. Clarence Valley Access solution is excluded from the Total Cash Flow chart. 4. Project Contingencies are re‐assessed project by project. 5. Three Cashflow graphs: (i) Total Programme; (ii) Roading only; (iii) 3–Waters only. 6. The Crown’s Budget Bid (BBID) financial assistance is capped at $2.2m.
129 7. The Crown’s Betterment financial assistance is capped at $2.4m. 8. Income from KDC insurers for material damage/LAPP is fixed at $4,431,057.
Key Financial Notes: The 3YP (three year plan) Council budgets are consistent with Council’s Annual Plan 2019/20. The KDC 3YP total budget variance (Delta) is now estimated at $32,125 (overspend). Provision for funding Stage‐Two Betterment projects is included totalling $673,624. Programme and Cashflow extends to September 2020. Full Rebuild Programme 2016 / 20172017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020
Total Programme Total spent to Programme Programme Programme Programme Activity Most Likely Nov 17 Estimate to date date Estimate 16/17 Estimate 17/18 Estimate 18/19 Estimate 19/20
Rebuild Programme Mgt$ 1,061,087 $ 2,642,931 $ 1,380,627 $ 41,375 $ 695,918 $ 1,120,998 $ 962,416 Water $ 3,911,218 $ 4,269,543 $ 2,863,091 $ 1,474,918 $ 405,970 $ 861,596 $ 1,513,114 Stormwater $ 645,193 $ 486,487 $ 34,607 $ 7,320 $ 24,542 $ ‐ $ 454,625 Sewerage $ 11,636,332 $ 13,768,602 $ 4,817,396 $ 1,658,139 $ 657,662 $ 2,880,614 $ 8,562,369 Roading $ 21,405,376 $ 21,298,923 $ 9,446,379 $ 4,410,623 $ 2,356,236 $ 2,643,281 $ 11,888,784 GRAND TOTAL$ 38,659,206 $ 42,466,486 $ 18,542,100 $ 7,592,376 $ 4,140,329 $ 7,506,489 $ 23,381,307
130 131 Rebuild Programme Financial Overview ‐ Jul 2019 60% 40% 3W ‐ Eligible Roading 3W ‐ Betterment 3W ‐ Non eligible ML Programme Non Eligible KDC Total KDC 3YP Budget, LTD ML forward NZTA 95% NZTA 51% KDC share (a) Betterment Eligible costs PLA 60% Insurers to 40% BBID to 40% KDC to 40% (b) Insurers to NE KDC to NE (c) Delta 3YP Estimate costs (a+b+c) Revised for AP 19/20
Rebuild Programme Mgt & Others $ 2,642,931 $ 1,380,627 $ 1,262,305 $ 974,999 $ ‐ $ 51,676 $ 673,624 $ 942,632 $ 565,579 $ ‐ $ 377,052 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 51,676 $ 52,921 ‐$1,245 Programme Management ‐ Claimable as program overhead $ 1,919,307 $ 1,351,739 $ 567,569 $ 974,999 $ ‐ $ 51,676 $ ‐ $ 892,632 $ 535,579 $ ‐ $ 357,052 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 51,676 $ 52,921 ‐$1,245 Programme Management ‐ Claimable as 3W overhead $ 50,000 $ 28,888 $ 21,112 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ 20,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Programme Contingencies ‐ Roading $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Programme Contingencies ‐ 3W $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Provision for betterment $ 673,624 $ ‐ $ 673,624 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 673,624 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Roading $ 21,298,923 $ 9,446,379 $ 11,852,544 $ 19,638,988 $ 203,113 $ 1,456,822 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,456,822 $ 1,486,777 ‐$29,955 Sealed Roads EQ Damage Assessments / Geotech $ 510 $ 510 $ ‐ $ 485 $ ‐ $ 26 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 26 $ 26 $0 Unsealed Roads EQ Damage Assessments / Geotech $ 22,293 $ 22,293 $ ‐ $ 21,179 $ ‐ $ 1,115 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,115 $ 1,115 $0 Drainage EQ Damage Assessments $ 18,914 $ 18,914 $ ‐ $ 17,968 $ ‐ $ 946 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 946 $ 946 $0 Streetlights EQ Damage Assessments $ 22,490 $ 22,490 $ ‐ $ 21,365 $ ‐ $ 1,124 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,124 $ 1,124 $0 Footpaths EQ Damage Assessments $ 23,639 $ 23,639 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 23,639 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 23,639 $ 23,639 $0 Bridges EQ Damage Assessments $ 78,043 $ 78,043 $ ‐ $ 74,141 $ ‐ $ 3,902 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 3,902 $ 4,043 ‐$141 Roading Programme 16/17 ‐ Management $ 417,281 $ 417,281 $ ‐ $ 396,417 $ ‐ $ 20,864 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 20,864 $ 20,864 $0 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Management $ 318,601 $ 318,601 $ ‐ $ 302,671 $ ‐ $ 15,930 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 15,930 $ 15,930 $0 Roading Programme 19/20 ‐ Management $ 52,000 $ 7,685 $ 44,315 $ 49,400 $ ‐ $ 2,600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,600 $ 1,672 $928 Roading Programme 16/17 ‐ Sealed $ 1,801,309 $ 1,801,309 $ ‐ $ 1,711,243 $ ‐ $ 90,065 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 90,065 $ 90,065 $0 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Sealed $ 833,141 $ 833,141 $ ‐ $ 791,484 $ ‐ $ 41,657 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 41,657 $ 41,657 $0 Roading Programme 19/20 ‐ Sealed $ 340,608 $ 39,874 $ 300,734 $ 323,578 $ ‐ $ 17,030 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 17,030 $ 17,128 ‐$97 Roading Programme 16/17 ‐ Unsealed $ 1,697,635 $ 1,697,635 $ ‐ $ 1,612,753 $ ‐ $ 84,882 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 84,882 $ 84,882 $0 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Unsealed $ 686,079 $ 686,079 $ ‐ $ 651,775 $ ‐ $ 34,304 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 34,304 $ 34,304 $0 Roading Programme 19/20 ‐ Unsealed $ 22,035 $ ‐ $ 22,035 $ 20,933 $ ‐ $ 1,102 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,102 $ ‐ $1,102 Roading Programme 16/17 ‐ Drainage $ 435,613 $ 435,613 $ ‐ $ 413,832 $ ‐ $ 21,781 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 21,781 $ 21,781 $0 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Drainage $ 1,052,345 $ 1,052,345 $ ‐ $ 999,728 $ ‐ $ 52,617 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 52,617 $ 52,617 $0 Roading Programme 19/20 ‐ Drainage $ 584,811 $ 8,140 $ 576,671 $ 555,570 $ ‐ $ 29,241 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 29,241 $ 31,019 9 ‐$1,77 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Traffic Services $ 18,663 $ 18,663 $ ‐ $ 17,730 $ ‐ $ 933 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 933 $ 933 $0 Roading Programme 17/19 ‐ Environmental $ 538,641 $ 538,641 $ ‐ $ 511,709 $ ‐ $ 26,932 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 26,932 $ 26,996 ‐$64 Bridges replacement (x6) $ 5,566,757 $ 710,652 $ 4,856,105 $ 4,890,158 $ 203,113 $ 473,486 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 473,486 $ 471,968 $1,518 Bridges repairs (x15) $ 1,059,280 $ 109,955 $ 949,325 $ 1,006,316 $ ‐ $ 52,964 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 52,964 $ 84,387 ‐$31,423 Clarence Valley Access $ 5,095,941 $ 479,181 $ 4,616,760 $ 4,841,143 $ ‐ $ 254,797 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 254,797 $ 254,797 $0 Clarence Valley Southern Access Route $ 428,853 $ 123,401 $ 305,452 $ 407,410 $ ‐ $ 21,443 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 21,443 $ 21,443 $0 Roading Programme ‐ Footpaths $ 183,444 $ 2,295 $ 181,149 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 183,444 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 183,444 $ 183,444 $0 Water $ 4,269,543 $ 2,863,091 $ 1,406,452 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,264,582 $ 2,786,665 $ 1,669,727 $ 934,217 $ 182,719 $ ‐ $ 228,153 $ 228,153 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Post EQ ‐ Temporary Water Safety Plans & Samplings $ 34,915 $ 34,915 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ 0 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 34,915 $ 34,915 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water Assessment / Retic $ 103,457 $ 103,457 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 103,457 $ 62,074 $ 41,382 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water Assessment / Structures $ 48,820 $ 48,820 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 48,820 $ 29,292 19,528 $ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water 16/17 Emergency repairs ‐ Retic $ 375,108 $ 375,108 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 294,584 $ 174,478 $ 120,105 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 80,524 $ 80,524 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water 16/17 Emergency repairs ‐ Structures $ 151,322 $ 151,322 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 144,580 $ 86,748 $ 57,832 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 6,742 $ 6,742 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ 17/18 EQ OPEX repairs ‐ Retic $ 23,151 $ 23,151 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 21,282 $ 12,769 $ 8,513 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,868 $ 1,868 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ 17/18 EQ OPEX repairs ‐ Structures $ 5,931 $ 5,931 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 5,931 $ 3,559 $ 2,373 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Mt Fyffe Water main and road reinstatement $ 986,557 $ 986,557 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 882,453 $ 529,472 $ 298,576 $ 54,405 $ ‐ $ 104,104 $ 104,104 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ East Coast ‐ Structures ‐ Reservoir $ 71,288 $ 71,288 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 71,288 $ 42,773 $ 28,515 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Kincaid ‐ Structure ‐ Reservoir $ 25,680 $ ‐ $ 25,680 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 25,680 $ 15,408 $ 10,272 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Ocean Ridge ‐ Structure ‐ Reservoir $ 28,184 $ 28,184 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 28,184 $ 16,910 $ 11,273 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Urban ‐ Reticulation $ 240,000 $ ‐ $ 240,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 240,000 $ 144,000 $ 83,744 $ 12,256 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Urban ‐ Structure ‐ Fords $ 1,402,725 $ 966,355 $ 436,370 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,214,582 $ 198,000 $ 118,800 $ 79,200 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Urban ‐ Structure ‐ Peninsula $ 265,371 $ 33,310 $ 232,061 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 265,371 $ 159,223 $ 98,977 $ 7,171 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Water ‐ Urban ‐ Structure ‐ Mackles Bore $ 507,035 $ 34,694 $ 472,341 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ 457,035 $ 274,221 $ 73,927 $ 108,887 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater $ 486,487 $ 34,607 $ 451,880 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 484,579 $ 290,747 $ 130,003 $ 63,828 $ ‐ $ 1,908 $ 1,908 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater Assessment ‐ Structures $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 11,300 ‐$ 11,300 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater Assessment ‐ Retic $ 71,898 $ 3,688 $ 68,210 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 70,625 $ 42,375 $ 16,950 $ 11,300 $ ‐ $ 1,273 $ 1,273 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater 16/17 Emergency Repairs $ 6,047 $ 6,047 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 5,412 $ 3,247 $ 2,164 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 636 $ 636 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater 17/18 OPEX Repairs $ 24,542 $ 24,542 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 24,542 $ 14,725 $ 9,817 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater Repairs ‐ Structures $ 84,000 $ ‐ $ 84,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 84,000 $ 50,400 $ 33,600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Stormwater Repairs ‐ Reticulations $ 300,000 $ 330 $ 299,670 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 300,000 $ 180,000 $ 56,172 $ 63,828 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage $ 13,768,602 $ 4,817,396 $ 8,951,206 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 461,794 $ 12,987,328 $ 7,791,246 $ 2,848,752 $ 1,576,401 $ 770,925 $ 312,535 $ 288,025 $ 24,509 $ 795,434 $ 732,109 $63,325 Sewerage Assessment / Retic $ 501,870 $ 501,870 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 500,344 $ 300,206 $ 200,138 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,527 $ 1,527 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Assessment / Structures $ 18,934 $ 18,934 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 18,934 $ 11,361 $ 7,574 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage 16/17 emergency repairs ‐ Retic $ 458,605 $ 458,605 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 410,080 $ 246,048 $ 164,032 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 48,525 $ 48,525 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage 16/17 emergency repairs ‐ Structures $ 644,125 $ 644,125 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 581,491 $ 347,744 $ 234,064 ‐$ 317 $ ‐ $ 62,634 $ 61,840 $ 794 $ 794 $ ‐ $794 Lyell Creek $ 7,725,957 $ 1,682,438 $ 6,043,519 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 261,628 $ 7,311,856 $ 4,387,114 $ 930,056 $ 1,223,761 $ 770,925 $ 6,030 $ 6,030 $ ‐ $ 770,925 $ 732,109 $38,816 Aeration Lagoon $ 3,113,623 $ 993,649 $ 2,119,975 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 200,166 $ 3,045,892 $ 1,827,535 $ 959,435 $ 258,921 $ ‐ $ 7,063 $ 7,063 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Pump Station ‐ Esplanade $ 39,500 $ 39,500 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 39,500 $ 23,700 $ 15,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Pump station ‐ Mt Fyffe Meadows $ 384,426 $ 340,209 $ 44,217 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 379,459 $ 227,676 $ 80,148 $ 71,635 $ ‐ $ 4,967 $ 4,967 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Manholes $ 57,500 $ 2,615 $ 54,885 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 57,500 $ 34,500 $ 23,600 ‐$ 600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Pipework Esplanade $ 97,750 $ 1,977 $ 95,773 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 97,750 $ 58,650 $ 35,545 $ 3,554 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Pipework Beach Rd catchments $ 299,000 $ 10,548 $ 288,452 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 299,000 $ 179,400 $ 108,730 $ 10,870 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Pipework South Bay $ 115,000 $ 2,138 $ 112,862 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 115,000 $ 69,000 $ 41,820 $ 4,180 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Pipework Mt Fyffe Hawthorne $ 12,715 $ 12,715 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 12,715 $ 12,715 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage Pipework Ocean Ridge $ 97,750 $ 2,177 $ 95,573 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 97,750 $ 58,650 $ 35,545 $ 3,554 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage 17/19 OPEX ‐ Retic (repairs) $ 1,005 $ 1,005 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,005 $ 1,005 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Sewerage 17/19 OPEX ‐ Structures $ 104,841 $ 104,841 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 32,771 $ 19,663 $ 12,265 $ 843 $ ‐ $ 72,070 $ 48,354 $ 23,715 $ 23,715 $ ‐ $23,715 Sewerage 19/20 OPEX ‐ EQ maintenance and powering $ 96,000 $ 48 $ 95,952 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $0 Grand Total $ 42,466,486 $ 18,542,100 $ 23,924,386 $ 20,613,987 $ 203,113 $ 1,508,498 $ 2,400,000 $ 17,201,204 $ 10,317,300 $ 3,912,972 $ 2,200,000 $ 770,925 $ 542,596 $ 518,086 $ 24,509 $ 2,303,932 $ 2,271,807 $32,125 132 ACTIVE PROJECT PROGRESS / STATUS UPDATES The following is a brief outline of the status of all active project, most likely estimates, start, finish and hand‐ over dates. Relevant project numbers are used in project description. Projects that are 100% complete are not listed.
Roading and Structures Roading Emergency Works – Pavement and Drainage repairs 2019/2020
Estimate: $999,500 Spent to date: $55,699 Status: The estimate has been revised to reflect the remaining sum in 2019/20 financial year. Downer is engaged to complete the scheduled repairs as part of the Council’s road maintenance contract. Works are now progressing and will continue during winter, spring and early summer.
Start: Jul 2019 Finish: Dec 2019
Clarence Valley SAR (Southern Access Route) Estimate: $429,000 Spent to Date: $123,401 Status: Council’s road maintenance contractor Downer is maintaining the temporary 4wd SAR track via Waipapa Road and the unstable ford across the Wharekiri Stream. Active slips north of the Wharekiri Steam are being addressed through the “Blue Slip” area. Remedial works will be completed in August at an estimated cost of about $140,000.
Start: ongoing Finish: Jun 2020
Footpath Repairs Estimate: $183,500 Spent to Date: $2,295 Status: Rebuild works are being combined and coordinated with the BAU programme, to ensure a single efficient reinstatement and repair programme in 2019/20. This is a Non‐Subsidised activity.
Start: Nov 2019 Finish: Jun 2020
Minor Structural Bridge Repairs Estimate: $1,059,000 Spent to Date: $109,955 Status: Minor structural repairs on 14 damaged bridges are out to tender with Council’s pre‐qualified physical works contractor panel of Brian Perry Civil, Isaac Construction and Fulton Hogan.
Start: Oct 2019 Finish: Feb 2020
Six Bridges Replacement Estimate: $5,567,000 Spent to Date: $710,652 Status: The sixth bridge replacement for Wards II (Mt Fyffe Road) will be procured as a variation to the CSL contract. Off‐site prefabrication of precast, beams, and piles is in progress. Contract crews started on‐site at Hawthorne and Scotts Road bridges in August.
Start: Apr 2019 Contract Completion: April 2020 Finish & Hand‐Over: Jun 2020
Clarence Valley Access (Provision for Solution) Estimate: $5,096,000 Spent to Date: $479,181 Status: Work on the Indicative Business Case is essentially complete. A Council Workshop is scheduled for 20 August, and a comprehensive report on options has been prepared for the Council meeting on 28 August.
Start: ongoing Finish: to be confirmed
133 Water Reticulation and Structures
Mackles Bore Estimate: $507,000 Spent to Date: $34,694 Status: Enabling works at the Alternative Bore (Mt Fyffe Road) are progressing positively, but the increasing scope of these works are having a commensurate increase in the project budget. The programme is to complete the Validation testing of the Alternative bore; confirm its use with the Drinking Water Assessor and Ecan; and then get it “pump ready” as soon as possible ahead of the summer holiday season. This will ensure the Urban scheme has a “pump ready” backup supply available on a 24 hour standby basis, in the event there are any supply problems with Mackles Bores over the peak demand season. Repairs of Mackles Bores will then be programmed, procured and carried out in the period March to May 2020. In the future, the Alternative Bore may remain in standby mode as an emergency backup supply for the Urban scheme, or could be assessed to supply other Council schemes by BAU staff.
Start: ongoing Finish: May 2020
Fords Reservoir Estimate: $1,403,000 Spent to Date: $966,355 Status: Isaac’s contract works making good progress on programme. New 1.5m litre steel Tasman reservoir tank has arrived on site and will be erected over the next month.
Start: Apr 2019 Contract Completion: Oct 2019 Finish & Hand‐over: Feb 2020
Peninsula Concrete Reservoir Lining Estimate: $265,500 Spent to Date: $33,310 Status: Lining contractor Mainmark will establish onsite in August, with work estimated to be complete in two months. Then the reservoir can be filled and brought back into service.
Start: Aug 2019 Contract Completion: Nov 2019 Finish & Hand‐over: Nov 2019
Kincaid Reservoir Repairs Estimate: $25,700 Spent to Date: nil Status: Verification of eligibility still needs to be confirmed or otherwise.
Start: Sep 2019 Finish: Nov 2019
Urban Reticulation Repairs Estimate: $240,000 Spent to Date: nil Status: Eligibility confirmed, procurement proceeding and works to commence in October. Programme may be subject to archaeological approvals.
Start: Oct 2019 Finish: Mar 2020
Wastewater Reticulation and Structures
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Aeration Lagoon Estimate: $3,114,000 Spent to Date: $993,649 Status: Earthworks construction of the new aerated lagoon is almost complete. Site materials have been used successfully for the construction, avoiding the additional cost of expensive imported fill and reducing total estimated cost. Shaping and bunding of the new infiltration basins is also progressing well. Next phase is concreting the pipe penetrations for the new lagoon, and then commencing HDPE liner installation.
Start: Jul 2019 Contract Completion: Apr 2020 Finish & Hand‐over: Jul 2020
134 Totara Lane (Mt Fyffe Meadows) Pump Station Estimate: $384,500 Spent to Date: $340,209 Status: New system has been successfully changed over and is operational, however final contract completion and commissioning is awaiting the contractor’s attention.
Start: Nov 2018 Finish: Sep 2019
Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade Estimate: $7,726,000 Spent to Date: $1,682,438 Status: Work is progressing with over 300m of new sewer main installed on Beach Road. Temporary single lane traffic has been necessary to accommodate trenching in difficult ground conditions. This is to be carefully managed by the Contractor to ensure efficient north/south traffic flow. Fourteen PSS tanks have now been installed. Design changes to tank surface reinstatement is being worked through with a small number of affected landowners.
Start: Mar 2019 Contract Completion: Apr 2020 Finish & Hand‐Over: Jul 2020
Reticulation Pipework & Manhole Repairs Estimate: $667,000 Spent to Date: $19,456 Status: Eligibility confirmed, procurement proceeding and works to commence in October. Programme may be subject to archaeological approvals.
Start: Oct 2019 Finish: Mar 2020
Stormwater Reticulation and Structures
Stormwater structures and reticulation repairs Estimate: $456,000 Spent to Date: $4,018 Status: Eligibility to be confirmed, then procurement will proceed with works to commence in October. Programme may be subject to archaeological approvals.
Start: Oct 2019 Finish: Mar 2020 PROGRAMME RISKS AND ISSUES Only medium, extreme and high risks are included in the Risks Register table below. Changes since last month: Programme is not delivered on time or cost: ▲ Increasing risk that time for programme delivery will extend past June 2020, due to unforeseen ground conditions for Lyell Creek, and Six Bridges; delays to Mackles Bore repairs; and contractor performance.
Lack of internal resources to deliver the programme: ▲ All rebuild staff in place until end of June 2020. Staff resources may need to be secured to the completion of the programme. There is a likely risk that programme completion is likely to run past mid‐2020.
Timely access to Crown funding leading to major cashflow issues for KDC over next summer (up to $2.5M/month): ▲ Monthly claim meetings with DPMC scheduled, and internal KDC finance team. Process approvals and payment timing is very tight, no room for slippage. Expenditure will likely exceed $2.5m per month.
135 Rebuild Risks Register
Subject Inherent Scoring Action Scoring ‐ After mitigation Further Mitigation required Actione Inherent_Con Inherent_Like Inherent_Risk Residual_Con Residual_Like Residual_Ri Since last Category Event Owner e sequence lihood level Risk Control/Mitigation Status sequence lihood sk_Level month Further_Control Financial Rebuild programme scope not fully defined Rebuild Programme PT Major Likely High 21 Asset investigation undertaken and incorporated. Initial Significant Unlikely Med 9 Stage‐One Betterment projects resulting in increased programme estimates Manager Programme contingencies reviewed and project Assessment approval pending. Stage‐Two still to estimates updated. Project scope agreed. = be prioritised & allocated. Project contingencies reviewed. Financial KDC ability to meet financial obligations ‐ KDC Finance PT Major Likely High 21 Thorough review through the 3YP process. Business case Initial Significant Possible Med 13 2019/20 Annual Plan budget cashflow and budgets manager preparation for additional support. Confirmation of Assessment confirmed against Programme. Still additional budget bid funding. = to confirm Stage‐Two Betterment funding.
Programme management The programme is not delivered on time or cost Rebuild Programme PT Significant Possible Med 13 Appropriate programme management and fit for purpose Monitor Significant Likely High 17 Increasing risk that programme Manager reporting. Response ▲ delivery will extend past June 2020.
Physical delivery The programme is not delivered safely Rebuild Programme PT Major Possible High 18 Appropriate safety standards defined and implemented Initial Major Unlikely Med 14 H&S standards included in IDAP Manager for the programme. Appropriate monitoring and Assessment = panels, and follow through into assurance to ensure compliance. physical works tenders.
Physical delivery The programme is not delivered to appropriate Rebuild Programme PT Major Possible High 18 Quality standards and requirements defined for the Initial Major Unlikely Med 14 Standards & requirements to be quality standards Manager programme. Appropriate monitoring and assurance. Assessment = managed through appropriate project control and MSQA. Stakeholder Loss of community and stakeholder confidence in Communications PT Significant Possible Med 13 External communications plan developed and Initial Significant Possible Med 13 Response to 2019 resident and tolerance to ongoing rebuild work Officer implemented. Timely response to rebuild queries Assessment satisfaction survey, 50% satisfied = with progress of rebuild to date.
Stakeholder Community/Stakeholder expectations are not Rebuild Programme PT Significant possible Med 13 Clearly articulated rebuild programme objectives, regular Monitor Significant Possible Med 13 Good stakeholder engagement achieved with programme outcomes. Manager stakeholder engagement. Response = during physical works delivery.
Programme management Lack of internal resources or loss of key resources KDC CEO PT Significant Possible Med 13 Timely engagement of appropriate resource, backfill Initial Significant Likely High 17 All staff in place and stable till end resource as required. Agreement for additional support. Assessment of June 2020. However Programme ▲ completion is likely to run past this date. Physical delivery Lack of external resources to deliver the Rebuild Programme PT Significant Likely High 17 Timely communication of rebuild programme to market Initial Significant Unlikely Med 9 Contractors and consultants programme Manager and appropriate procurement strategy in place. Market Assessment engaged for all programme tasks. testing and appropriate packages identified. =
Financial Timely access to Crown funding leading to major DPMC and NZTA PT Major Possible High 18 Streamlining claiming process and ensure funder's Monitor Significant Possible Med 13 Monthly claim meetings with DPMC cashflow issues for KDC over next summer (up to RSG reps confidence in KDC's claim preparation processes forward. Response ▲ scheduled, and internal KDC finance $2.5M/month) team.
Programme management Rebuild information not provided to stakeholders Communications PT Significant Possible Med 13 Rebuild communications plan in plan and implemented Monitor Significant Possible Med 13 Response to 2019 resident in a timely way Officer with regular stakeholder updates Response = satisfaction survey, 62% satisfied with Council comms.
Physical delivery Environmental or cultural consenting Rebuild Programme PT Significant Likely High 17 SLA with MKT, Archaeological authority application and Monitor Significant Possible Med 13 Key consents from Ecan obtained. requirements impacting programme Manager work being undertaken with ECan Response = Each project is being assessed for cultural and environmental impact. Physical delivery Opportunity for legal challenge on key projects Rebuild Programme PT Major Possible High 18 Legal advice sought as required Initial Major Unlikely Med 14 High profile CVA project, but e.g. Lyell Creek, Clarence Valley Access Manager Assessment = otherwise unlikely for balance of programme. Risk Profile Trend
No of Risk Inherent Jun‐17 Jul‐17 Aug‐17 Sep‐17 Oct‐17 Nov‐17 Jan‐18 Feb‐18 Mar‐18 Apr‐18 May‐18 Jun‐18 Aug‐18 Sep‐18 Oct‐18 Nov‐18 Dec‐18 Jan‐19 Feb‐19 Mar‐19 Apr‐19 May‐19 Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Items Extreme 0 1111111 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 00000000000 High 118767778 7 5 6 4 6 7 6 64455000002 Medium 667877778 109 12 9 8 9 10 12 12 11 11 14 13 13 13 13 11 Low 0 0000000 2 2 3 22222344444 New 211 Closed 1 1 Total Items1715151515151516161616161717181818181818171717171717
Likelihood definitions Consequence Consequence definitions Almost The potential threat/event is Insignificant Minor Significant Major Catastrophic Catastrophic Progra mme Project fa il s certain almost certain to occur The potential threat/event will Potential to majorly impact Programme/ Almost Likely probably occur in most Med 11 High 16 High 20 Ext 23 Ext 25 Major project success and/or Certain circumstances time/quality/budget/reputation Programme or Project is still deliverable The potential threat/event may Possible Likely Med 7 Med 12 High 17 High 21 Ext 24 Significant but impacts to occur occasionally time/quality/cost/reputation
The potential threat/event could Likelihood Consequences are manageable for Unlikely Possible Low 4 Med 8 Med 13 High 18 High 22 Minor infrequently occur programme/ project delivery The potential threat/event may Not likely to have consequences for Rareoccur in exceptional Unlikely Low 2 Low 5 Med 9 Med 14 High 19 Insignificant programme/ project circumstances Rare Low 1 Low 3 Low 6 Med 10 Med 15
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: There are no financial issues or implications from this report that require Council decisions. SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION: This decision is not a matter of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED: The Rebuild Programme work supports all community outcomes.
136 We value, protect and enhance Our District is economically diverse, Kaikōura’s unique natural attractive to investment and provides environment and biodiversity and certainty around business and sustainably manage disposal of employment continuity. waste. Our community is resilient, safe and Our community participates in well and has their essential needs decisions and planning in a way that met benefits our future.
Our infrastructure, housing and community facilities are easily Residents and visitors enjoy an accessible, cost effective and able to improved quality of life in our District. withstand our natural hazards.
137 ATTACHMENT: REBUILD CONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Clarence Valley SAR, Blue Slip remedial work, plantings and Lyell Creek – sewer main trench in Beach Road new culverts.
WWTP ‐ New Aeration Lagoon earthworks
Lyell Creek – HDPE sewer pipe installation, Beach Road
WWTP ‐ Aeration Lagoon – HDPE Liner
Fords Reservoir – new 1.5m litre steel tank assembly 138
Report to: Council Date: 28 August 2019 Subject: Economic Development activities Update – August 2019 Prepared by: Martin Homisan, Economic Development Officer (EDO) Input sought from: Leadership Team Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen, CEO
PURPOSE AND ORIGIN: This report is to inform the Council about activities undertaken by the Economic Development Officer (EDO) in August 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The EDO has finalised all activities associated with the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) grant in this reporting period. Overview of tasks, completed in the reporting period: 1. PGF external consultancy tasks ‐ Completed 2. PGF grant invoicing and reporting ‐ Completed 3. Independent assessment panel recommendations – Followed 4. Continuing communication with about Kaikōura projects with the PGF officials ‐ Ongoing 5. Compilation and submission of Council’s two separate PGF applications – Completed, awaiting PGF official feedback
Summary of other ED objectives and activities in August 2019 reporting period: Kaikōura Business Card (KBC) project delivery, which involves several components: a) Electronic and hard copy draft of Kaikōura promotional document has been compiled. Further refinement of content is work in progress. b) The main Council video and feature business videos– all raw footage has been completed, involving several staff volunteer’s extras and footage of July’s Council meeting in progress – all successfully completed c) In house proofreading of KDC document draft is work in progress d) The official release of KBC project is scheduled in late September 2019 at this stage Pakihi training ‐ EDO has facilitated a dedicated small business workshop to encourage start‐ up business for locals, who will be exiting NCTIR employment within the next 12 months Kaikōura Business Association (KBA) – ongoing communication about KBA objectives and progress EDO’s involvement in TIF round 4 applications, due to be submitted at the end of August 2019
139
Liaison with KITI to address South Bay toilet maintenance and temporary food stall issues related to 2019‐2020 Cruiseship season. 2019‐2020 summer season will see a record number of 13 cruise ship arrivals to Kaikōura between 03 October 2019 and 09 March 2020.
RECOMMENDATION That the Council:
(a) Receives this report for information
ISSUES AND OPTIONS /STATUS UPDATE Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) Feasibility Study ‐ Update EDO additional comments: The MBIE grant of $200,000 (excl. GST) has now been fully paid to Council. MBIE has requested a final report, which has been prepared by the EDO, before invoicing for the last instalment of $30,000 (GST excl.) in August 2019: MBIE grant received by KDC total: $200,000 PGF consultancy expenses total: $200,000 Balance outstanding: NIL
Submission of the PGF applications: As per IAP recommendation, KDC has submitted two separate PGF applications, titled: Kaikōura Marine Development Programme (KMDP):: Part 1 Wakatu Quay (WQ) Kaikōura Marine Development Programme (KMDP):: Part 2 South Bay Harbour redevelopment (SBH) The most recent IAP monthly meeting has been held on 14 August 2019. The Council is yet to receive official PGF feedback.
Pakihi workshop ‐ supporting new startups and business development The EDO has organised and facilitated "Getting into business" workshop on Friday and Saturday, 2‐3 August 2019. A sizeable group of Kaikōura district Māori and Pakeha residents have explored their start‐up and existing small business development options over two days at the Council's Chambers. Business training has been delivered by an experienced small business specialist, Pakihi Director Hamish Anderson. Hamish has covered a number of topics, with many ‘pearls of small business wisdom’ including:
140
• Transactional customers usually purchase once. Relationship customers will provide a steady income stream as long as their relationship with your business is good • A point of difference is the reason why a customer chooses you over your competitor. If you have no point of difference, getting new customers is just luck. • No doesn't mean "No" forever: it just means "not now! • The easiest people to sell to are people who are already buying from you • Make a sale and build a relationship.
EDO is looking forward towards supporting more specialised small business development opportunities for Kaikōura residents in the future.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: (a) All ED project activities are conducted within the pre‐approved ED 2019/20 financial budget. (b) PGF activities have been completed on time and within the original budget.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Our District is economically diverse, attractive to investment and provides certainty around business and employment continuity.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION Not applicable
141
MAYOR’S REPORT
Councillors have been fully committed to the cause these past couple of months, I would like to thank you for your commitment and time you have put in to reading and deciphering all the information that is coming through.
Thank you Angela for the work you are doing for Council, it isn’t easy.
It is good to see the number of past councillors that are back to carry on the work of getting through the quake issues and getting Kaikōura back on its feet. We also have one Councillor, Craig Mackle standing for Mayor.
It would have been difficult for a fully‐fledged new Council to come to terms with all of the work streams that are going on across Kaikōura.
There is a lot of work happening right across the district at present. The sewer is going back in and a lot roadwork in the last couple of months. The bridges are due to start anytime now. The Memorial Hall and Op shop are also nearing completion.
Work is progressing at the Destination Kaikōura centre and should be completed before the new season gets underway. Staff have moved to the rear of the building while this work takes place.
The Hop will be here shortly as well as the Suburban Marathon and the High School {Bin Kennedy Event] featuring sports people from across the country. The cycle club are applying for funding to build a new trail on Mt Fyffe. The first Cruise ship will arrive on the 3rd of October with thirteen visits scheduled for the season.
There is so much happening and the new season is about to hit Kaikōura. Let’s hope we can capitalise on what is happening out there and make the most of it.
Regards
Winston
142