Agenda of Activities Performance Audit Committee

sdclogo

Activities Performance Audit Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Activities Performance Audit Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 20 July 2016 at 10.30am.

present

Chairperson	Lyall Bailey
Mayor	Gary Tong
Councillors	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Paul Duffy
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive (Steve Ruru), Group Manager Community & Futures (Rex Capil), Group Manager Services and Assets (Ian Marshall), Chief Financial Officer (Anne Robson), Manager, Building Control (Kevin O’Connor), Team Leader, Governance (Chris Dolan), Publications Specialist (Chris Chilton) and Committee Advisor (Alyson Hamilton).

1 Apologies

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the apology lodged by Councillor Baird be accepted.

2 Leave of absence

There were no requests for leave of absence.

3 Conflict of Interest

Mayor Tong declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 7.3 – Freedom Camping.

4 Public Forum

There were no members of the public seeking speaking rights.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Cr Harpur, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved:

That the minutes of Activities Performance Audit Committee meeting held on 29 June 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Reports

7.1

Financial Report for the period ended 31 May 2016

Record No: R/16/7/10662

Susan McNamara, Management Accountant, was in attendance for this item.

The Committee noted that 92% of the financial year is compete.

Ms McNamara spoke on matters relating to the income, operating expenditure, capital expenditure, roading and transport, forestry revenue, chief executive’s account and the balance sheet.

Ms McNamara commented in regards to the balance sheet funds on call are the result of Council rates received at the end of May and held to ensure there is enough cash available to meet commitments as they fall due.

Members queried if rate arrears are an issue for Council.

Ms Robson responded rate arrears can be collected via the ratepayers bank mortgage, however this is not such an issue for Council.

In response to a query regarding penalties Ms Robson confirmed 10% is added to the outstanding balance at the end of the instalment date and a further 10% to any outstanding balance at the end of the financial year.

Ms McNamara informed Council has $8M invested in three term deposits ranging from one to six months maturities. These have now all matured with recent re-investments achieving 2.64% to 3.08%.

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Dobson and resolved:

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the period ended 31 May 2016” dated 12 July 2016.

7.2	Contract 15/33 - Winton Rising Watermain Renewal Record No: R/16/5/7430
	Mr Ian Marshall (Group Manager, Services and Assets) and Mr Matt Keil (Operations/Projects Engineer-Water and Waste Services) were in attendance for this item. Mr Marshall advised the purpose of this report is to recommend the commencement of a programmed ‘Rising Watermain Renewal’ Project in Winton’ as presented under staff submission during 2015 to occur in 2016-2017 as per Council’s current 2016-2017 Annual Plan. Mr Keil informed the proposal is to complete a water pipeline renewal of an existing 200 mm diameter fibrolite asbestos watermain between the Winton water intake and the Winton Water Treatment Plant totalling 2.9 kilometres, including all associated fixtures. Mr Keil explained the existing 200mm asbestos carry water main has an asset age of 41 years and was established when Deegans bore was established. He added the pipeline has been assessed and is known to be in poor condition and at risk of failure. Mr Keil advised this pipeline serves all of Winton Township and is critical asset to the town’s water supply and the high risk of failure to the current asbestos pipeline, due to the current pipeline condition. The Committee noted findings from a pipeline condition assessment completed by Opus International Consultants in September 2006 outlined the pipeline has been graded as 5, ie very poor condition. Mr Keil explained this grading has the description “imminent failure predicted, deterioration failures may have already occurred”. Cr Dobson queried whether asbestos pipes, when they fail are a health issue. Mr Keil confirmed this is an issue, however Contractors are fully trained in dealing with this hazard. Cr Harpur noted the project is to be funded by way of the District Water Activity Fund and queried the funding balance of this Fund. Staff to respond to this query. Cr Duffy left the Meeting at 10.55 am. Cr Duffy returned to the Meeting at 10.58 am. Cr Macpherson queried the possibility of this project overrunning the budget. Mr Keil responded that he felt confidant the quotations received from the Contractors were robust and felt it was highly unlikely for an overrun to occur. In response to Cr Duffy’s query regarding disposal of asbestos Mr Keil advised this can only be undertaken by a certified handler of hazardous material of which there is one approved company that deals with the disposal of asbestos to the landfill. However the intention is for the asbestos pipes to remain underground and not be exposed.

	Resolution Moved Cr Douglas, seconded Cr Macpherson recommendations a to f, with a new g (as indicated). That the Activities Performance Audit Committee: a) Receives the report titled “Contract 15/33 - Winton Rising Watermain Renewal” dated 12 July 2016. b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002. c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter. d) Approves the Winton Rising Watermain Renewal Project to proceed for a total cost of $1,280,591.80 ex GST to be funded by the District Water Activity. e) Awards the Contract 15/33 to Fulton Hogan for the sum of $907,591.80 ex GST including a total contingency of $130,000.00. f) Approves the expenditure from the district fund for replacement of 218 lineal/metres of a critical pipeline between the Winton Water Treatment Plant and 274 Great North Road - brought forward from 2018-2019, subject to there being sufficient funds within the overall project following the completion of Contract 15/33 and be funded by the District Water Activity. g) ~~Delegate’s authority to Council’s ‘Group Manager, Services and Assets” to award the expenditure for ‘Railway Street Watermain Installation’ subject to recommendation (f).~~ g) Delegate’s authority to Council’s Group Manager, Services and Assets” to award a variation to Contract 15/33 – Winton Rising Watermain Renewal for the “Railway Street Watermain Installation” subject to the project being able to be completed within the budget of $1,280,591 (ex GST).

7.3

Freedom Camping

Record No: R/16/7/10265

Mayor Tong withdrew from the table due to a conflict of interest.

Mr Michael Sarfaiti (Environment Health Manager) was in attendance for this item.

Mr Sarfaiti reported on the freedom camping shared service for Te Anau Basin during the 2015/2016 season.

Mr Sarfaiti explained Southland District Council (SDC) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) have a shared service for the purpose of regulating freedom camping in the Te Anau Basin during the tourist season.

Mr Sarfaiti advised Council managed the service during the season. Patrols started on 1 November 2015 and ended on 30 April 2016.

Mr Sarfaiti added two seasonal casual Rangers were employed by SDC, providing patrols of Council and DOC land.

Members noted Queens Reach continues to remain closed for camping.

Mr Sarfaiti advised 405 vehicles were moved on during the season, or a total of 833 campers. 278 of the vehicles were private vehicles, and 122 were rental vehicles. Two infringements were issued for failure to move on.

In regards to funding for the Rangers Mr Sarfaiti advised the service was funded as follows (excluding GST):

Department of Conservation $26,000

Te Anau Community Board $8,500

SDC Rates $17,500

Total $52,000

The Committee noted DOC will be managing the service next season and following that the shared arrangement will be reviewed.

Mr Sarfaiti confirmed it is proposed to continue this funding model next year.

Mr Sarfaiti advised the Rangers are successful in moving freedom campers on using an educational, tourist friendly, approach.

During discussion members commented that it is good to receive positive comments in relation to feedback from freedom campers at designated sites.

The Committee queried the possibility of recouping the funding of this service ($52,000) by way of fines.

Mr Sarfaiti responded that research into this option via a survey was undertaken by Council in preparation for the draft freedom camping bylaw which resulted in a response indicating a 50:50 split between Tourist Friendly vs Instant Fines. He advised it was agreed at this time to use the tourist friendly approach.

Resolution

Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Dillon and resolved:

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Freedom Camping” dated 12 July 2016.

The meeting concluded at 11.10am CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Activities Performance Audit Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 20 JULY 2016.

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Activities Performance Audit Committee

7 September 2016

sdclogo

Road Pavement Rehabilitation Programme 2016/2017

Record No: R/16/8/13786

Author: Joe Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by: Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To outline to the Activities Performance Audit Committee (APAC), the sections of road currently being considered for inclusion in the 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitation Programme, while seeking feedback and endorsement of the proposed actions. The sites have been selected as they require renewal to overcome their structural deterioration which is unlikely to be able to be dealt with as economically through heavy duty maintenance

Executive Summary

2 This report outlines the sections of road currently being considered for inclusion in the 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitation Programme that is currently being worked on. APAC’s endorsement of this programme and the planned procurement processes is sought.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Road Pavement Rehabilitation Programme 2016/2017” dated 25 August 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d) Determines that the sites below be included in the 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitation Programme, and be approved for investigation, design and release for procurement:

1. Wreys Bush Mossburn Road [RP 22750 - 23470]

2. Dipton Castlerock Road [RP 5820 - 23470]

3. Two Chain Road [RP 2900 - 3720]

4. Otapiri Gorge Road [RP 3760 - 4030]

5. Otapiri Gorge Road [RP 5150 - 7150]

e) Determines that more detailed work continue on looking at the options for Brydone Glencoe Road from RP 9400 – 10300 and these be reported back to APAC at a later date.

f) Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to let contracts for the projects listed in d) above subject to satisfactory tenders being received that provide value to the Southland District Council.

Content

Background

3 The Pavement Rehabilitation Programme for 2016/2017 has 5.530 km of road proposed to be rehabilitated prior to 30 June 2017, if all sites are approved and proceed. These sites can be completed within the approved budgets. This report discusses the proposed and potential sites identified for pavement rehabilitation. It is proposed to progressively release the approved projects to the market prior to 30 November 2016.

4 The candidate sites are described within the attachment to this report. They have been selected for rehabilitation based on the remaining expected pavement life recorded in RAMM, visual assessment of the sites by MWH along with, the results of FWD, condition rating and high speed data testing. This data was then forwarded to the Community Engineers and the three Alliance Management Teams for their comments on the potential suitability and timing of rehabilitation at the sites.

5 Each site is discussed in terms of its location, the scope of the rehabilitation work anticipated and the specific details of each site which have influenced its selection as a candidate for rehabilitation. The options for each site are then discussed as well as any site-specific issues or risks which may influence the procurement method selected for the site.

6 The Pavement Rehabilitation Programme for 2016/2017 has been developed taking into account all of the considerations above. The location plans, photographs and general details of the sections of road included in the attachment to this report are provided along with preliminary rough order of cost estimates. These estimates include an allowance for contingency and professional service fees. It should be noted that some of these estimates are based on a general view of potential costs, prior to detailed design being carried out to confirm pavement depths and full requirements.

Issues

7 The various treatment options proposed for each site are based on re-establishing pavement capacity and levels of service appropriate to the One Network Road Classification (ONRC) hierarchy of the road for each location.

8 The chosen treatments attempt to balance all factors to come up with the most economical long term solution to produce the best value for money.

9 As part of the site investigation, prior to reporting to Council, the initial 2016/2017 rehabilitation programme candidate sites were discussed by the Council’s Asset Management Team and with the NZTA Audit Team. Following this discussion a further site inspection was carried out by representatives of MWH and the Council’s Asset Management Team to ensure alignment between SDC and NZTA on rehabilitation site priorities.

10 As a result of the inspection two of the proposed sites have been removed from the rehabilitation programme as it was agreed that SDC could push these sections of road harder, effectively sweating the asset by recommending that the sites be patched and resealed within the existing maintenance programme.

11 After the NZTA Audit Team’s visit, the Central Alliance Team noted two sections of pavement that were deteriorating rapidly due to increased pavement loading from logging in the Otapiri Gorge Area. An initial assessment of pavement failures was carried out by MWH to review the need for rehabilitation. The assessments indicated that rehabilitation would produce a positive NPV similar to those already accepted by the NZTA Audit Team.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12 No unusual legal considerations are involved with these projects. As with all projects, but larger value projects in particular, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results from unsuccessful tenderers. To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team will diligently follow the NZTA procurement procedures.

13 The Request for Tender will state that the Principal reserves the right to consider or reject any alternative tender, in the Principal’s sole discretion.

Community Views

14 Although no specific community views have been sought, feedback has been sought and received from Councils Community Engineers and the Alliance Contractors in identifying candidate sites.

Costs and Funding

15 The programme of works form part of the overall roading programme for 2016/2017 and fits within the Annual Plan and NZTA approved budget ($1.9M).

16 The current proposed programme equates to $1.18M excluding Brydone Glencoe. If the Otapiri Gorge Road sites ($646,790) are excluded the proposed programme would reduce to $533,640.

Policy Implications

17 The projects are part of the Southland District Council 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitations Programme.

Analysis

Options Considered

18 Generally two main options for each site have been considered and outlined below. A third option is also shown for the Otapiri Gorge Sites.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Patch and Reseal Candidate Rehabilitation Sites within the Existing Maintenance Programme

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduced financial input required particularly in the short to medium term.

· Greater number of small defects can be treated in isolation over the whole SDC roading network.

· Continued reduction in levels of service and subsequent inconvenience and economic hardship to users.

· Increased risk of road deterioration requiring sections to be fully reconstructed, imposing a significant financial requirement in the longer term.

Option 2 – Full Rehabilitation of Candidate Sites

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reinstating levels of service on routes justified by traffic volumes and strategic value to the network.

· Removing inconvenience to road users and providing improved economic output.

· Maximises the current NZTA funding assistance rate.

· Long term cost savings.

· Greater shorter term financial input required compared to patch and reseal option.

Option 3 – Temporary reversion to gravel for Otapiri Gorge Sites

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Lower total costs for the duration of the logging operation.

· Only the failed pavement area would need to be treated when logging is completed.

· Long term cost savings.

· Lowered level of service from gravel pavement that would lengthen as logging progresses.

· Lower speed through the section would be required for traffic safety.

· Maintenance issues with grading a patchwork of gravel and seal sections.

19 Following discussions with NZTA Audit Team and the drive-over review of the 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitations Programme with MWH representatives, Option 1 has been chosen for two sites and Option 2 for five sites.

20 By adopting these options, SDC is being provided with better long term value for money.

21 The patched and repaired sections should be able to be managed under continued routine maintenance for the medium term before rehabilitation is required, extending the remaining pavement life of these sections.

22 The two Otapiri Gorge Road sections identified, following the NZTA Audit Teams visit, have the potential for any of the three options.

23 In keeping with Councils 80/20 principle, the programme has assigned first priority to the higher volume roads (20%). As some initial sites programmed did not meet the required NPV’s the capacity exists to carry out work on the lower volume roads (80%).

24 On this basis Option two has been chosen for two Otapiri Gorge Road sections.

Assessment of Significance

25 The pavement rehabilitations programme is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

26 This report and its attachment provide an outline of the proposed programme of 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitations and an indication on how these may be procured.

27 The proposed procurement methodologies have been chosen to balance minimising professional services inputs with obtaining competitive prices and managing risks and price certainty.

28 The overall aim is to obtain value for money. For these rehabilitation projects it is proposed that all be tendered on a Lowest Price Conforming basis.

29 It is recommended that the APAC endorse both the proposed programme of work and procurement methodologies, including that all projects be let under staff delegated authority.

30 Summary of Recommendations

Road Name	Start (km)	Length (km)	Recommendation
Wreys Bush Mossburn	22.750	0.72	Rehabilitation
Dipton Castlerock	5.820	0.82	Rehabilitation
Two Chain	2.900	0.82	Rehabilitation
Otapiri Gorge	3.760	0.27	Rehabilitation
Otapiri Gorge	5.150	2.00	Rehabilitation
Brydone Glencoe	9.400	0.90	Rehabilitation and Slip Repair
Riverton Otautau	2.160	1.26	Patch and Reseal
Otautau Wreys Bush	10.050	1.09	Patch and Reseal

Next Steps

31 That the projects detailed are included in the 2016/2017 Pavement Rehabilitations Programme and MWH proceed with detailed investigation, design and procurement on the basis of the supporting information contained within this report.

Attachments

a Roading Pavement Rehabilitation Programme 2016/2017 - Potential Projects ⇩

Activities Performance Audit Committee

07 September 2016

PROJECT 2: DIPTON CASTLEROCK ROAD

Scope of Work

This 820m pavement rehabilitation project is located on Dipton Castlerock Road between RP 5820 and RP 6640.

The proposed rehabilitation works will include drainage, construction, supply and placing of bulk fill, subbase and basecourse, and sealing. The works will also include further extending the seal on Gerrard Road from the SDC standard of 20m to 100m.

This was an option suggested by NZTA audit team to reduce corrugation and potholing in the breaking and acceleration zone as well as to prevent gravel tracking onto the main road. The location of the project is shown on the following locality plan.

Road Details

· Road Classification Secondary Collector

· SNP Value $254.3 M

· Traffic Volume (AADT) 440 vpd

· Percentage of Heavy Vehicles 13 %

· Age of Pavement 57 years

· Cost Estimate $196,600

· NPV $22,470

Failure Mode

The predominant failure modes are widespread rutting and shear failure of the pavement. Cracking and flushing are also evident in the pavement surface. Typical condition of the pavement is shown in photographs 3 and 4.

Options

The road is straight and flat so no geometric improvements are envisaged other than the intersection improvements proposed at Gerrard Road.

The pavement was widened to the required seal width in April 2001 so no further widening will be required.

Options to be investigated for the pavement rehabilitation include stabilisation of the existing pavement, with some make up material, and a granular overlay.

Due to the close access to river gravels, a granular overlay is likely to be the preferred treatment option for this site as it should be the most cost effective.

The road section was confirmed as a rehabilitation candidate during the site drive over by MWH and the SDC Asset Management Team members.

Risks / Issues to be addressed

There are no out of the ordinary issues or risks currently identified to be addressed for this site.

Procurement Method

As there are no out of the ordinary risks currently identified for this site, a traditional lump sum contract, with appropriate contingencies, is recommended with a Lowest Price Conforming Procurement Tender Method. The possibility of tendering this site as a package with Two Chain Road pavement rehabilitation noted below can be considered. Although these sites are separated by some distance, there is a possibility that cost efficiencies may be still be gained through economies of scale.

LOCALITY PLAN FOR
DIPTON CASTLEROCK ROAD
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION SITE

Photograph 3 – Dipton Castlerock Road – Typical pavement condition.

Photograph 4 – Dipton Castlerock Road – Cracking and rutting in wheel track retaining water.

PROJECT 3: TWO CHAIN ROAD

Scope of Work

This 820m pavement rehabilitation project is located on Two Chain Road between RP 2900 and RP 3720.

The proposed rehabilitation works will include drainage, construction, supply and placing of; bulk fill, subbase, basecourse, and sealing. The location of the project is shown on the following locality plan.

Road Details

· Road Classification Access (current) Secondary Collector

Proposed*

· SNP Value $138.8 M

· Traffic Volume (AADT) 130 vpd

· Percentage of Heavy Vehicles 20 %

· Age of Pavement 58 years

· Cost estimate $168,350

· NPV $55,960

* At the time the road was classified under the ONRC, the traffic volumes placed it as an Access Road. More recent traffic counts indicate higher Heavy Vehicle percentages which would just make this road a Secondary Collector. Given that the amount of heavy vehicles is unlikely to reduce in the future, it is proposed to treat this road as a Secondary Collector road, including providing it with a 7.0m seal width (rather than 6.5m for an Access Road)

Failure Mode

The predominant pavement failure mode is rutting and cracking of the pavement, with extensive flushing within the wheel-paths. Typical condition of the pavement is shown in photographs 5 and 6.

Options

The existing road section is straight with one unposted curve. Therefore geometric improvements will be minimal and remain within existing fence lines.

Directly to the east of this section is the intersection of Two Chain and Riversdale Pyramid Roads which was investigated for realignment in 2000. The project was deferred at that time until a pavement rehabilitation was programmed in the area to allow the realignment to be carried out at the same time allowing for economies of scale. It is recommended that this work be carried out now as this is a very worrying intersection. This would Tee Two Chain Road into Riversdale Pyramid Road giving the traffic on Riversdale Pyramid Priority. Photos 7 and 8 show the intersection as it currently is. It is estimated that the intersection improvement would add $75,000 to the total cost of this project.

Pavement design options will consider stabilisation of the existing pavement and granular overlay. It is most likely that the preferred rehabilitation method will be overlay due to the presence of gravel supplies close to the site and the greater risks associated with stabilisation.

Risks / Issues to be addressed

There are no out of the ordinary issues or risks currently identified to be addressed for this site beyound those discussed above.

Procurement Method

As there are no out of the ordinary construction risks identified for this site, a traditional lump sum contract, with appropriate contingencies, is recommended with a Lowest Price Conforming Procurement Tender Method. This project could potentially be packaged together with Dipton Castlerock Road to achieve better cost efficiency through economies of scale.

LOCALITY PLAN FOR
TWO CHAIN ROAD
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION SITE

Photo 5 – Two Chain Road – Cracking on both wheel tracks in both lanes over a major portion of the pavement.

Photo 6 – Two Chain Road – Rutting in both wheel tracks of the south lane.

Photo 7 – Two Chain Road – Approach to intersection with Riversdale Pyramid Road.

Photo 8 – Riversdale Pyramid Road – Approach to intersection with Two Chain Road.

Activities Performance Audit Committee

07 September 2016

PROJECT 4: OTAPIRI GORGE ROAD SITE 1

Scope of Work

This 270m pavement rehabilitation project is located on Otapiri Gorge Road between RP 3760 to RP 4030.

The potential rehabilitation works would include drainage, construction, supply and placing of; bulk fill, subbase, basecourse and sealing. The location of the project is shown on the following locality plan.

The failures were raised by the Central Area Alliance due to increased logging traffic on the road. The site was raised too late to be included during the driver over with MWH and SDC asset management staff.

Road Details

· SDC Road Classification Access Temporary Secondary Collector*

· SNP Value $11.0 M

· Traffic Volume (AADT) 80 vpd 100 vpd

· Percentage of Heavy Vehicles 14 % 25%

· Age of Pavement 49 years

· Cost estimate $91,410

· NPV $26,620

* At the time the road was classified under the ONRC, the traffic volumes placed it as an Access Road. More recent traffic counts indicate higher Heavy Vehicle percentages which would just make this road a Secondary Collector. Given that the amount of heavy vehicles is unlikely to continue beyond 8 years it is proposed to continue to treat this road as an Access road, including providing it with a 6.5m seal width.

Failure Mode

The pavement is failing through rutting, cracking and flushing, leading to shear failures across the full road width. Typical condition of the pavement is shown in photographs 9 and 10.

This section and the section RP5150 to 7150 are separated by 1,120m of pavement that is also beginning to deteriorate.

The remaining sections RP4030 to RP5150 and RP7150 to RP11330 are also exhibiting signs of potential failure.

Options

With the maturing of forests in the area, the loading on this section of road has increased with a rapid deterioration in the pavement. This increased pavement load is anticipated to last for 8 to 10 years and has the potential to affect 8km of road beyond this section. Currently much of this timber extraction is programmed for the winter months when the pavement is at its weakest.

Options to be investigated for the pavement rehabilitation include stabilisation of the existing pavement and a granular overlay of the failed areas.

An alternative option, which is more in keeping with the council 80/20 philosophy could be to repair and hold these failed sections temporarily and when the logging ends look at a rehabilitation of the pavement to a level of service more appropriate to the road’s Access category.

The option of Heavy Duty Maintenance and Resealing of the failed areas could be an extremely expensive option due to the rate of deterioration of the road section, ($22,300 per km per year based on NPV calculations). This figure is based on the existing grade 2/4 seal lasting only four years and would be a high risk option.

Risks / Issues to be addressed

As this site is straight and flat the only slightly abnormal issues or risks currently identified to be addressed for this site are the effects of logging traffic on construction.

Procurement Method

As there are no out of the ordinary construction risks currently identified for this site, a traditional lump sum contract, with appropriate contingencies, is recommended with a Lowest Price Conforming Procurement Tender Method.

This site if it proceeds, could potentially be packaged together with site 2 and Dipton Castlerock Road to achieve cost efficiency through economies of scale for these geographically close sites which are likely to use the same gravel source.

LOCALITY PLAN FOR
OTAPIRI GORGE ROAD
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION SITES 1 AND 2

Photograph 9 – Otapiri Gorge Road Site 1 – extensive cracking and rutting along road centreline with shear failures developing.

Photograph 10 – Otapiri Gorge Road Site 1 – flushing, cracking and rutting of a 4 year old seal coat.

PROJECT 5: OTAPIRI GORGE ROAD SITE 2

Scope of Work

This 2,000 m pavement rehabilitation project is located on Otapiri Gorge between RP 5150 and RP 7150.

The proposed rehabilitation works would include slip stabilisation, drainage, construction, supply and placing of rockfill, bulk fill, subbase, basecourse and sealing. The location of the project is shown on the previous combined locality plan.

Road Details

· Road Classification Access Temporary Secondary Collector *

· SNP Value $10.4 M

· Traffic Volume (AADT) 80 vpd 100 vpd

· Percentage of Heavy Vehicles 14 % 25%

· Age of Pavement 49 years

· Cost Estimate $555,380

· NPV $37,328

*See comments for site 1

Failure Mode

The pavement failure modes are rutting, cracking and flushing which is visible in both wheel tracks. The south-bound lane of Otapiri Gorge Road is primarily suffering from extensive edge-break primarily due to the narrow carriageway widths. Typical condition of the pavement is shown in photographs 11 and 12.

Options

With the maturing of forests in the area, the loading on this section of road has increased with a rapid deterioration in the pavement. This increased pavement load is anticipated to last for 8 to 10 years and has the potential to affect 8km of road around this section. Currently much of this timber extraction is programmed for the winter months when the pavement is at its weakest.

Options to be investigated for the pavement rehabilitation include stabilisation of the existing pavement and a granular overlay of the failed areas.

An alternative option, which is more in keeping with the council 80/20 philosophy could be to hold these failed sections to gravel temporarily and when the logging ends look at a rehabilitation of the pavement to a level of service more appropriate to the road’s Access category. Based on a gradual reversion to gravel of 1.5km initially and around 1km per year until logging ends. This would be followed by 1.2km of rehabilitation per year until the road is fully rehabilitated. The option has a total cost of $1,930,000 and an NPV cost of $1,140,000 over a thirteen year period.

Compared to this alternative, rehabilitating the pavement when it fails, based on a similar pavement failure rate, has a total cost of $1,490,000 and an NPV cost of $1,190,000 over seven years.

These options are close within the accuracy of the assumptions made in calculating these figures. Rehabilitation now retains the existing Level of Service.

The option to do Heavy Duty Maintenance and reseal to hold the road until logging is completed and rehabilitate the road at the same rate as for the gravel road option, has a total cost of $2,660,000 and an NPV cost of $1,650,000 over the thirteen year period. This option also retains the existing Level of Service.

Risks / Issues to be addressed

There are several out of the ordinary issues or risks currently identified to be addressed for this site. These include:

1. A narrow winding section of road located close to a moderate sized river which leaves little allowance for curve improvement.

2. Existing fence lines that appear to have encroached into the road reserve and may require relocation.

3. An area of sideling cut and fill with patched slumping visible along part of the lower road edge.

4. Potential for the river to scour out the road alignment

There is evidence of larger rocks in the pavement which would make stabilisation a riskier option.

Procurement Method

As there are no out of the ordinary overlay construction risks currently identified for this site, a traditional lump sum contract, using the appropriate contingencies, is recommended with a Lowest Price Conforming Procurement Method for the tender.

This site if it proceeds, could potentially be packaged together with site 1 and Dipton Castlerock Road to achieve cost efficiency through economies of scale for these geographically close sites which are likely to use the same gravel source.

Photograph 11 – Otapiri Gorge Road Site 2 - rutting and cracking are now visible in both wheel tracks with shear failures developing. Edge break due to the narrow two-lane carriageway is also present.

Photograph 12 – Otapiri Gorge Road Site 2 - flushing, cracking and rutting of a 4 year old seal coat.

PROJECT 6: BRYDONE GLENCOE ROAD (TE TIPUA SCHOOL ROAD)

Scope of Work

This pavement rehabilitation project is located on Brydone Glencoe Road and has been shortened to 900m between RP 9400 and RP 10300 due to landowner resistance to land acquisition for curve realignment at Te Tipua School Road.

The proposed rehabilitation works would include drainage, construction, supply and placing of; bulk fill, subbase, basecourse and sealing. The project scope also includes sealing widening and slip repair works.

A significant amount of work is still required to determine the best option for the slip repair, which will affect the pavement rehabilitation options.

Several options have been considered but at present none adequately meet the balance between safety, levels of service and value for money.

It is therefore recommended that this project be the subject of a separate report detailing the various options and proposing a recommended solution.

GLOSSARY

Engineering terms and acronyms used in this report are described below:

AADT – Average Assessed Daily Traffic, which is an average of all the traffic counts taken for a section of road weighted to allow for seasonal variations.

RP - Route position, which is the measured distance along a road.

SNP - Strategic Network Plan, which is a measure of the value of export produce that is transported along a road.

vpd - Vehicles per day.

CBR - California Bearing Ratio, used as a measure of soil strength, the higher the number the stronger the soil.

AP40 - All material passes a 40 mm sieve.

AP65 - All material passes a 65 mm sieve.

Cost Estimate - Engineers expected cost estimate of the work, this includes contingencies. Contingencies are an allowance for any unexpected costs. An example is to move fencing or electricity poles (note: at this stage the costs are rough order only and will be refined once survey and design has been undertaken).

Net Present Value (NPV) - Is a calculation used to evaluate and compare an option against the minimum (maintenance costs) scenario over a 40 year assessment period. The higher the NPV, the stronger the case is for the project to proceed. If the NPV is negative, maintaining the asset at status quo is the most effective option.

Lowest Price Conforming - Is a supplier selection method used when the best value for money is achieved on price alone. The majority of our rehabilitations are done using this supplier selection method as they are relatively low risk projects of a routine nature. The four main suppliers that tender for these projects all have a reasonable track record and relevant experience for delivering these types of projects.

Price Quality Method - Is a supplier selection method where the preferred supplier is selected by balancing price and quality through the use of a formula. It will be used if there are significant risks that need to be managed. A good example was the Te Anau roundabout where resources and timeliness are critical success factors to mitigate the impact the community.

Activities Performance Audit Committee

07 September 2016

Customer Service Survey Results 2015/2016

Background

The customer service survey provides Council with useful feedback about its response to residents’ enquiries or requests. It also allows reporting on whether levels of service are being achieved.

The survey consists of five questions;

1) Were you satisfied with the helpfulness of staff?

2) Were you satisfied with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?

3) Were you satisfied with the outcome?

4) Were you contacted about your request?

5) Do you have any further comments?

Method

A sample of customers who made an enquiry/request to Council was obtained from the GEAC Pathways Customer Service system every month during 2015/2016. The survey was conducted every month to avoid customers forgetting how their request was dealt with.

The proportionate stratified random sampling method was applied to ensure the sample included requests from each department and was in proportion to the number of requests coming through for each department (eg if 50% of the customers made roading requests then 50% of the sample would include customers that made roading requests). The survey was conducted by telephone and undertaken by the Customer Service Officers.

RFS Question

Customers were asked if they were contacted regarding their request. 111 respondents said they were contacted about their request (59%). 88 of respondents said that they were not (45%).

Key Performance Indicator questions

The percentage of customers who are satisfied with the response times, staff helpfulness and the outcome of their enquiries. The target is 90%.

Response rate

Out of the 342 in the sample, 166 customers were able to be contacted for the survey giving a response rate of 49%. The margin of error is ± 8%.

The majority of respondents made requests related to things that the Area Engineers department are responsible for (eg: roading maintenance, parks and reserves) (42%), followed by Animal Control (22%), Rural Fire (22%), Water and Waste (8%), Roading (4%), Building Control (1%) and Property (1%).

Satisfaction

Satisfaction is calculated by adding very satisfied and satisfied together.

Survey Results

1) Were you satisfied with the helpfulness of staff?

Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the helpfulness of staff when they contacted Council. A total of 98% were satisfied and 2% not satisfied, which meets the Council’s performance target of 90% was met.

Staff Helpfulness

The results were also analysed by what department was responsible for actioning the request. Out of the three main departments that requests related to, satisfaction with staff helpfulness was 100% for Area Engineers, 100% for Rural Fire, and 95% for Animal Control.

Staff Helpfulness	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	66	13	33	37	7	1	1
Satisfied	3	0	1	0	0	0	1
Dissatisfied	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Very Dissatisfied	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	69	13	36	37	7	1	2

Note: One respondent did not answer the question

Staff Helpfulness	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	96%	100%	92%	100%	100%	100%	50%
Satisfied	4%	0%	3%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Dissatisfied	0%	0%	3%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Very Dissatisfied	0%	0%	3%	0%	0%	0%	50%
TOTAL	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

2) Were you satisfied with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?

Respondents were next asked how satisfied they were with the time it took to resolve their request. A total of 92% were satisfied and 8% were not satisfied, which does meet the Council’s performance target of 90%.

Timeliness

Satisfaction with the time it took to resolve the request was 89% for Area Engineers, 100% for Rural Fire and 90% for Animal Control.

Timeliness	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	47	12	24	36	7	1	1
Satisfied	10	0	2	1	0	0	0
Dissatisfied	4	0	1	0	0	0	0
Very Dissatisfied	3	1	2	0	0	0	1
TOTAL	64	13	29	37	7	1	2

Note: 13 respondents did not answer the question

Timeliness	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	73%	92%	83%	97%	100%	100%	50%
Satisfied	16%	0%	7%	3%	0%	0%	0%
Dissatisfied	6%	0%	3%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Very Dissatisfied	5%	8%	7%	0%	0%	0%	50%
TOTAL	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

3) Were you satisfied with the outcome?

Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the outcome of their request. A total of 85% were satisfied and 15% not satisfied, which does not meet the Council’s performance target of 90%.

Outcome

Satisfaction with the outcome was 75% for Area Engineer requests, 100% for Rural Fire requests and 88% for Animal Control requests.

Outcome	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	39	12	26	34	6	1	1
Satisfied	9	0	3	3	0	0	0
Dissatisfied	9	0	2	0	1	0	0
Very Dissatisfied	7	1	2	0	0	0	1
TOTAL	64	13	33	37	7	1	2

Note: 9 respondents did not answer the question

Outcome	Area Engineers	Water & Waste	Animal Control	Rural Fire	Roading	Property	Building Control
Very Satisfied	61%	92%	79%	92%	86%	100%	50%
Satisfied	14%	0%	9%	8%	0%	0%	0%
Dissatisfied	14%	0%	6%	0%	14%	0%	0%
Very Dissatisfied	11%	8%	6%	0%	0%	0%	50%
TOTAL	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

4) Were you contacted about your request?

Customers were asked if they were contacted regarding their request. 111 respondents said they were contacted about their request (59%). 88 of respondents said that they were not (45%).

Results - By Department

Animal Control (AN)	36	22%
Area Engineers (AE)	70	42%
Building Control (BLD)	2	1%
Property (prop)	1	1%
Roading (RD)	7	4%
Rural Fire (RF)	37	22%
Water and Waste (WWS)	13	8%
	166	100%

5) Do you have any further comments?

Comments - Overall

The majority of comments from respondents were positive with many saying there was a quick response or the staff member was good to deal with. However, some respondents said that the topic of their request was an ongoing issue. Some also said that they had to call twice to get action or that they were unaware of the outcome. For the full list of comments please see Appendix B.

Comments - By Department

Animal Control - The majority of the respondents said they received a prompt service and they were happy with the results, however some complaints are ongoing.

Area Engineers - A large number of respondents said that they received a prompt service and were happy. Some did not know the outcome of their request and some requests for road maintenance were ongoing. On several occasions the Customer Services Officer opened further requests for service.

Building Control - One respondent commented they were very happy with the outcome and the other respondent stated that they had no response.

Property - One comment which said they were very happy.

Roading - Two respondents commented. One commented on grader work and one said the road was much better.

Rural Fire - The majority of the respondents said they received a prompt service and they were happy with the result.

Water and Waste – Four respondents, were happy with the speed of the service, one wanted the calendar updated and one was contacted by the contractor.

Appendix A - Survey Questions

Hi this is ........ calling on behalf of the Southland District Council. Could I please speak with ..............?

You recently placed a request with the Council with regard to ........ and I was wondering if you have time to complete a quick satisfaction survey with three questions?

The answers range from 1 - 4, with 1 being Very Dissatisfied and 4 being Very Satisfied.

The first question is ............................

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Qn No	Question	Very Dissatisfied 1	Dissatisfied 2	Satisfied 3	Very Satisfied 4

1	Were you satisfied with the helpfulness of staff?
2	Were you satisfied with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?
3	Were you satisfied with the outcome?

4	Were you contacted about your request	Yes		No
5	Do you have any further comments?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.

Appendix B - Comments

AE	Re-added RFS as hole is still there
AE	Unable to answer Question 2 and 3 as unsure if the light has been fixed
AE	Unable to answer Question 2 and 3 as unsure if the light has been fixed
AE	Community Engineer has done a great job so far
AE	Very happy
AE	Re-added RFS, as customer believed there wasn’t enough gravel put on 1st time
AN	Heard nothing back from Animal control.
AN	Pricing is expensive for dogs in the pound
RF	Very happy, was very quick
AE	Re-added RFS for same issues as in this RFS
AE	Only a matter of time till issue is back, SDC staff will contact us when needs fixed again
AE	Potholes back re-added RFS
AE	Re-added RFS as potholes are back
AE	Sorted in excellent timeframe
AE	Re-added RFS for grader
AE	Issue has not yet been resolved
AE	Has not heard of any outcome
AE	Pothole on the highway as in RFS has not yet been fixed by Fulton Hogan
AE	Rung back today, as road has not yet been swept
AE	No change, trees still the same as they were
AN	Unable to answer Question 2 as dogs has been found by the RFS caller at the river
AN	Unable to answer Question 2 as dog came home by himself
AE	Re-added RFS for blocked culvert
AE	Re-added RFS as potholes still there, not fixed right st time round
AE	Unable to answer Question 2 & 3 as not sure it has been fixed, not been passed
AE	Road still needs to be looked at, to be fixed once and for all
AE	Dairy farmers need to be told, it is a work safe issue
AE	Very impressed with how quick things were sorted
AE	Very happy, quick response
AE	Re-add RFS, as road still not ok
AN	Request for staff should have been quicker
WWS	Bin calendar needs updated
WWS	Since speaking with customer, Bonds has contacted her
BLD	Very quick outcome, very happy
AE	Still no resolve, advised to call police if still continues
AE	Re-add RFS to have grader go out to the road
AE	Community Engineer was wonderful
AE	No signs put up, re-add RFS
AN	Re-added RFS as dog still barking
PROP	Very happy
WWS	Very fast outcome
RF	No overly happy with outcome, but understood
AE	Fantastic job & fast
AN	Found dog herself, unable to answer Question 2 & 3
AN	Much better, is not getting out now
AN	Wasn’t happy with dog control, dog was around for further couple weeks, has been gone since
RD	Road much better
RF	Great service
RF	Very Happy
RF	Thought fire permit would be longer than 2 weeks
AE	Nothing is better
AN	Very happy with service
AN	Things are much better
WWS	Very fast service
RF	Very fast service
RF	Much better service than previous years
RF	Wonderful service
RF	Lady on phone was very helpful
AN	SDC staff very good
WWS	Very quick service
RF	Very happy
RF	end date of permit, was very hard to see
RF	Had to ring back a number of times to sort email address
RF	Very efficient
RF	Very happy
AE	Re-adding RFS
AE	Potholes back again, but will wait to see how they go, before ringing for RFS
AN	Everyone was great
AN	Unable to answer Question 2 as dogs came home on their own, otherwise good
AN	Found dog himself, unable to answer Question 2 & 3
AN	Not found, Customer was advised by a farmer that the dog was shot
AN	Very happy
RD	Not full road had been with gravel
RF	Very fast service
RF	Great, renewed permit also
RF	Very happy
RF	Good, but the location of the fire was wrong on the permit
RF	Very happy
RF	Great
AE	Road needs more regular grading
AE	Believes is was a blanket approach to issue
AE	Is not sure what happened to the car in the end, but is gone
AE	No difference in issue from last phone call
AE	Has not yet been fixed, but knows it will be this month as advised, unable to answer Question 2 & 3 at this time
WWS	Very happy
RF	Never received email
RF	Fantastic job by all
RF	Same day – great
RF	Very good all round
AE	Unable to answer Question 3 as has not been back to see if sorted, but believes it has been
AE	SDC at the Riverton Office was great, felt the contractor was fibbing a bit
AE	Cows now being taken off roadside at night
AE	Graded is ongoing maintenance, need more gravel, potholes need deeper grading
AE	Footpaths - haven't done job yet as they are testing the spray
AN	A bit better now the kennel has moved
WWS	Bins were there the next day
WWS	Great service, very happy
BLD	Had no response

Activities Performance Audit Committee

7 September 2016

sdclogo

Health and Safety

Record No: R/16/8/13472

Author: Janet Ellis, People and Capability Manager

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Purpose

1 To provide an update on health and safety activity within the Southland District Council.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Health and Safety” dated 31 August 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Notes the finalisation of the Health and Safety Toolkit.

Content

Due Diligence Responsibilities

2 As part of due diligence requirements, Councillors are required to keep up to date with health and safety matters, understand the nature of the business, audit its hazards and risks, ensure there are appropriate reporting and investigation processes in place and monitor and verify that appropriate actions are being taken.

3 An update on health and safety responsibilities for Community Board Chairs was included in their Quarterly meeting of 5 July 2016. Training for all elected members has been included in the 2016 Induction Programme for the new Council.

4 Venture Southland recently ran a series of Health and Safety Workshops for Community Organisations and Volunteers at various locations across Southland. A number of Councillors, Community Board members and Community Development Area Subcommittee members attended the workshops.

5 Work Safe New Zealand’s website (http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/) is a very good source of information on health and safety. It includes a section on the latest news and provides valuable tools and resources.

6 In September 2016, Southland District Council, with input from Union representatives will conduct an internal review of its Health and Safety practices. The internal review will be conducted using the ACC Workplace Safety Management Audit Standards.

7 In November 2016, Southland District Council will use an external consultant to undertake a Health and Safety Gap Analysis. The gap analysis will include a review of Southland District Councils Health and Safety Management System, discussions with key operational leaders and visit operational locations and talk with workers, this would include key contractors. The result of the gap analysis would be a written report covering findings including recommendations. The estimated cost for this gap analysis is $14,000 plus GST and applicable disbursements.

Health and Safety at Southland District Council

Accidents/Incidents/Near Misses

8 Please find below a summary of the accidents/incidents/near misses for the six month period from 1 January to 30 June 2016 and for July 2016.

Key Performance Indicator	1 January – 30 June 2016 (six months)	July 2016
Medical Treatment intervention required	6	2
Lost time due to injury	0	0
Near Misses	5	7

9 Since the last report to the Committee there has been a focus on near miss reporting and as a result there have been an increase in the number of near misses being reported for the month of July 2016. Seven near misses were reported in July 2016. This is a significant improvement from previous months. This will continue to remain a focus and a health and safety initiative in September 2016; “Safety September” is set to increase the reporting and awareness even further.

10 Following a number of incidents with the garage door opposite the Invercargill office, the Property team have been working with the Landlord of this building and have now installed a roller door to make access easier and safer for staff.

11 A number of our staff in the Animal Control team over their career have been threatened by a Dog Owner to ensure their safety, these staff, as well as a member of staff who is often out of cell phone coverage; have been given as part of their roles a Spot Device. The Spot Device is used when they are entering a dangerous property or where they are in a life threatening situations and can be used to call for assistance without cellphone coverage. Procedures are being put in place to ensure the right people are contacted if an emergency arises.

Southland Councils Health and Safety Management Group

12 The Health and Safety Toolkit for Southland District Council has been finalised and is now available for all staff. New staff, as part of their induction, will be taken through the toolkit. The toolkit is attached for your information.

13 On 13 July 2016, The Southland Times published an article regarding the Councils working together to create a health and safety toolkit. The article provided good coverage for the Councils and their commitment to ongoing health and safety. The article is attached for Councillor’s information.

14 A wellness day was held for Southland District Council staff at the end of June 2016. This was in conjunction with the other Councils. Positive feedback was received from the staff that participated in the day.

Contractor Health and Safety Management

15 Contractor Health and Safety Management has been a big focus for the last two years and has been defined as one of the top five health and safety risks for Southland District Council.

16 In order to manage this risk, a Subcommittee of Officers has been created to specifically focus on and manage the Council’s relationships with its contractors regarding health and safety matters including assessing contractual risk and ensuring increased collaboration.

17 The July 2016 Southland District Council Roading Operational Overview details the Alliance Operational Performance Overview and includes Health and Safety statistics, it was pleasing to note the number of near misses being reporting increasing(overall 11 near misses reported) as well as a significant number of site safety audits completed in the Waimea Alliance (9).

18 Over the past 6 weeks another three administrative “assessments” were completed on Primary Contractors namely PowerNet, McDonough Contracting and The Roading Company.

19 Any short comings were somewhat minor singular events such as administration errors and recently expired documentation. There were no major issues involving system failure or absence of process, arising from these assessments which would give concern as to these contractors remaining on our “Approved Contractors List”. They were all being pro-active regarding Health and Safety.

Attachments

a Toolkit 2016 ⇩

b Southland Times Newspaper Article (11.7.16) - Health and Safety Shared Services ⇩

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
Contract 16/17 - Operation of Lions Park Toilets. Recommendation of Tender	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.
16/15 - Manapouri Township Maintenance - Approval of Tender Evaluation Process	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	That the exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation.
Contract 16/16 - Te Anau Township Maintenance. Recommendation of Tender	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

Chairperson	Lyall Bailey
	Mayor Gary Tong
Councillors	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Paul Duffy
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
Committee Advisor	Alyson Hamilton