sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Meeting of Southland District Council will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

11.30am

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Paul Duffy

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

 

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                   PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                           5

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                         5

4          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                          5

6          Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                5

Reports - Policy and Strategy

Nil

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1       Libraries Moving Forward                                                                                            7

8.2       New Road Maintenance Contracts                                                                            15

8.3       Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project Update and Procurement Options                                                                                                                                       29

8.4       Southland Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report for the 2016/2017 Year 37

8.5       Draft Southland Cycling Strategy                                                                              43

8.6       Management Report                                                                                                  121

Reports - Governance

9.1       Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project               153

9.2       Financial Report for the month ended 31 October 2016                                       167

9.3       Elected Members Remuneration - Positions of additional responsibility          203

9.4       2016 Local Elections Statistics                                                                                219

9.5       Minutes of the Matuku Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8 December 2015                                                                                                                                     235

9.6       Minutes of the Five Rivers Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8 December 2015                                                                                                                             237

9.7       Minutes of the Waikaia Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 11 May 2016                                                                                                                239

9.8       Minutes of the Athol Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016                                                                                                                     241

9.9       Minutes of the Garston Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016                                                                                                                243

9.10     Minutes of the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 3 October 2016                                                                                                245

9.11     Minutes of the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 July 2016                                                                                                     247

9.12     Minutes of the Balfour Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016                                                                                                           249

9.13     Minutes of the Riversdale Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016                                                                                                251

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                            253

C10.1  District Valuation Roll maintenance contract renewal                                          255

 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

Councillors are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a councillor and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Public Forum

 

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)      The reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)     The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)     that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)      that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)      the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)     no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6          Confirmation of Council Minutes

6.1         Meeting minutes of Council, 16 November 2016

6.2         Meeting minutes of Extraordinary Council, 30 November 2016  


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Libraries Moving Forward

Record No:        R/16/9/14380

Author:                 Lynda Hodge, Manager District Libraries

Approved by:       Trudie Hurst, Group Manager Customer Support

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

 Purpose

1        To provide a progress update to council on recommendations made in the Service Delivery Review tabled with Council in April 2016.

 

Executive Summary

2        Included in the Service Delivery Review – Library Services were a number of recommendations made to ensure that Southland District Libraries remain well positioned to meet both the current and anticipated information needs of the residents.

3        Some of these recommendations have already been acted upon with little, or no, budgetary impact whilst others will require significant funding to make them happen.

4        In the benchmarking section of the report Southland District Libraries (SDL) were shown to be providing a comparable level of services at the lower range of costs, offering a number of quality programmes and activities to suit community demands and had a high level of qualified staff to provide assistance as required.  With a good spread of the population already library members there is the opportunity to promote existing services and to deliver a range of enhancements with reasonable speed and economy. In all resident surveys our Libraries have always received a high level of user satisfaction.

5        Attachment A sets out the recommendations and progress to date.  Overall, 10 are completed, six require further funding and approval from Council and eight are in progress.

6        There were four significant recommendations made which have an impact upon the services available and particularly the ease of doing business. These are:

·          Join Kōtui for the provision of the Library Management System (LMS) and to take advantage of collaborative opportunities ($55,175).

·          Plan for and fund the introduction of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification of all resources) within the next three years: Budget $150,000 for the upgrade of the collection and technology including security gates, auto-return function.

·          Use Enterprise discovery layer as the SDL’s website and link this from the Council’s website: Budget $15,000 for a one-off design cost to get the template properly designed.

·          Seek opportunities to develop a new community hub and library/service centre for Winton in partnership with other community, commercial, health or educational organisations. Fund for this redevelopment in the next Long Term Plan.

7        Planning is underway to join the Kotui consortium for LMS as part of the Core Systems Review while the other work will be entered into the Long Term Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Libraries Moving Forward” dated 8 December 2016.

 

Attachments

a         Update on the recommendations    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

 

Library 17A Review progress of recommendations

 

Recommendation

Commentary

Progress

In conjunction with ICC and GDC develop a strategy that looks to promote the notion of “Southland Libraries for all” brought to you by ICC, SDC and GDC. 

Had first meeting with ICC, discussed opportunities which may exist and confirmed continuance of SummerReading programme, reciprocal membership agreement and exploring "one card" option. Will involve GDC in future meetings.

Under action

 

 

 

  Grow the depth and range of digital content and promote this service to rural residents as broadband spreads through the District.

Hold an extensive, and growing, collection of e-resources and hold classes to assist residents in the use of their devices.

Completed

 

 

 

Join Kōtui for provision of the LMS and to take advantage of collaborative opportunities; connect Stewart Island to the LMS at the time of going live with Kōtui or earlier if this is not likely to happen in 2016/2017.

The current partnership arrangement leaves SDC in a vulnerable position should there be any unusual event as we are solely reliant on a single ICC staff member for support. Membership of the Kotui group would provide on-going support 24/7, access to additional features, including enhanced reporting tools, and the integration of resources to a single search. There are one-off migration costs of $55,175 and a modest increase in annual support charges of $6000. Moving to Kotui would also allow the exploration of "latch-key" access across our libraries, benefitting those with reduced hours in particular.

Seek approval for funding

 

 

 

Use Enterprise discovery layer as the SDL’s website and link this from the Council’s website; budget $15,000 for a one-off design cost to get the template properly designed.

Absence of a fully functioning website inhibits communication and access in an on-line world. The use of the Enterprise model from the Kotui platform would allow for customisation and bring all content together in an easy-to-search place. One=design costs would be around $15,000 however it is proposed that by using the communications Dept. experience and expertise it would be possible to do this in-house.

Seek approval for funding

 

 

 

Plan for and fund the introduction of RFID within the next three years.

RFID terminals are becoming the industry standard for Libraries as they allow for autonomy and with circulation, free up staff for customer support and interaction and provide a much higher level of security for resources. The likely cost to install RFID for all resources, across six sites, and security gates at Winton and Te Anau would be in the vicinity of $150,000.

Seek approval for funding

 

 

 

 

  Introduce Wi-Fi on the Bookbus and use with tablets to promote access to eBooks and databases, and provide access to the internet for users of the Bookbus.

Wi-Fi available on the Bookbus and tablets have been introduced, on a loan basis, for residents in a “try before they buy" concept.

Completed

 

 

 

Investigate the slow connections to Council’s systems.

Appear to be little different to elsewhere in Council.

 

 

 

Completed

 

 

 

Increase the range of available eBooks and eMagazines and begin to promote this as a viable option particularly for those remote from libraries.  This will need a sustainable campaign and good education and training of SDL’s staff to be effective.  As part of this campaign have tablet and/or eBook readers available for use in libraries so that staff can demonstrate these to customers.

Recently entered a partnership agreement with Gore, Queenstown Lakes/Central Otago, Invercargill, Clutha and Dunedin Libraries to purchase a further collection of e-resources which adds approximately 4000 more items to our collections. PressReader has also been purchased for Southland District residents, giving access to 70 plus newspapers and 400 plus magazines in a variety of languages. In the first month uptake has been very significant.

Completed

 

 

 

Outsource up to 80% of collection supply to shelf ready and develop standing orders for fiction and selected non-fiction based on community profiles.  Phase this in over a two-three year period if necessary.

Investigations into this are on-going to ensure readiness following the introduction of RFID.

Will be undertaken following the

implementation of RFID

 

 

 

Reduce excessive duplication of fiction titles after consultation with affected community boards

Have introduced a "hot pick" collection of highly popular fiction which can be loaned to branches for eight weeks only and reduced the purchased number of these items by 33%.

Completed

 

 

 

Get comparative pricing from two or three magazine suppliers, including the local bookseller such as Paper Plus

Have changed magazines from subscription basis to "single copy supply" to ensure high turnover, lower cost demand is met. Will evaluate on a six monthly basis.

Completed

 

 

 

  Reduce stack collections in branches and return to central stack for selection by other libraries

Undertaken strict weeding regime at all branches and have investigated alternative disposal method for old/outdated stock, rather than offering all at book sales. Local schools to be approached regarding junior materials.

Completed

 

 

 

Seek opportunities to develop a new community hub and library/service centre in Winton in partnership with other community, commercial, health or educational organisations.  Fund for this redevelopment in the next 10 Year Plan.

A number of libraries and service centres have been visited to look at best operational sites with communities similar to SDC area. Seeking to incorporate the best of everything in any proposal which may be presented.

Under action

 

 

 

Consult with the Stewart Island community to investigate whether a self-service model in some form would be worth trialling at this library.

Moving the self-issue machine from Winton to Stewart Island and will be trialling local acceptance prior to looking at providing "latch-key access".

Completed

 

 

 

  In collaboration with the Nightcaps school and community investigate whether alternative service models would be acceptable. 

Community and school consultation will be undertaken over the coming months to establish the best service model to fit with community needs.

Under action, completion by June

2017

 

 

 

At such time as the Council may be reviewing the community and service needs of Tuatapere and surrounding districts, work with the community and the Waiau Memorial Trust to see how a wider range of library services could be offered.  In the meantime instigate a regular annual meeting with the Trust to support and review the agreement.

Consultation with the Waiau Memorial Trust will be undertaken during the coming months to ensure the best possible range of Library services is offered for their residents. A regular annual meeting with the Trust will be organised. 

Under action, completion by June

2017

 

 

 

The District Libraries Manager develops service delivery standards in collaboration with the Customer Support Team Leader and produces an Annual Plan for clarity around priorities.

 

 

To be part of the longer planning and development process.

Under action completion by

December 2017

 

 

 

A realignment of roles is done to clarify the responsibilities and skills needed to deliver the service following the Customer Support restructure and the out sourcing of collection supply.

Already undertaken with the appointment of Customer Support Partners and the realignment of specialist Library positions. Training in new roles is under action and will be an on-going process as demands require.

Completed

 

 

 

Ensure staff have the opportunity to participate in professional development and receive ongoing training.

Supporting staff to undertake training and personal development opportunities as they arise. Ensuring all staff are made aware of these opportunities and that any course attendance becomes part of the on-going training schedule.

Completed

 

 

 

Be open to partnership opportunities that are aligned with SDL’s objectives and bring new users to libraries, eg partnership with rural education institutions to provide resources and services from various library locations.

Promotional and outreach activities within local communities are a regular focus to ensure residents are informed of all resources and opportunities available for learning. Partnerships, both for specific events and life-long learning, are actively explored.

Under action

 

 

 

Develop a more comprehensive and systematic system for collecting, using and reporting on library data, particularly around electronic use.

Installation of Kotui, with 24/7 support, will provide more robust data and RFID will capture trends in stock usage and people movement through our buildings.

Will be undertaken following the

implementation of Kotui and RFID

 

 

 

Use focus groups of non-users, telephone surveys, use data and other mechanisms to gather information on user and non-user needs for the various communities of interest to inform service development.

 

 

 

The next stage of development.

Will be undertaken following the

implementation of Kotui and RFID

 

 

 

Consider reviewing the current funding mechanism for libraries to determine whether the mix of uniform annual charge and targeted local rate is the most equitable way of funding libraries.

For the next report.

Under action, February 2017

 

 

 

  Develop a 10 year investment plan, both operational and capital for the next 10 years to phase in the recommendations in this report.

On-going.

Part of 2018-2028 LTP

 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

New Road Maintenance Contracts

Record No:        R/16/7/11945

Author:                 Joe Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        The aim of this report is to detail the outcomes required to optimally sustain the needs and delivery of the Southland District Council roading services and infrastructure in the coming years.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the proposed way forward for the current road maintenance contracts which are all up for renewal by 30 June 2017. Council endorsement is sought to commence the procurement of the new maintenance contracts and that these contracts are to continue in a similar format as the current maintenance contracts.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)      Receives the report titled “New Road Maintenance Contracts” dated 6 December 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)      Notes the outcome of the LGA s17A review endorsement of the Alliance Contract model.

e)      Approves the scope of the Alliances will include all works within the road corridor, fence to fence including designated township works except street lighting, pavement marking, pavement rehabilitation, reseals and other major construction works which will be separately (externally) tendered.

f)       Approves that procurement proceed for three new Alliance Style contracts to the point that the Transport Team can report back to Council with a recommendation on the preferred supplier for each contract.

 


 

Content

Background

3        This report covers the outcome of further consideration on how Council delivers its Roading Services.

4        This follows on from the review of the delivery of Roading Services carried out last year and the recommendations of the Morrison Low Report “Optimisation of Roading Service Delivery Structure” of June 2015. Further consideration has been given to how service delivery may be streamlined and strengthened.

5        Council’s Local Government Act section 17a review for Roading Services endorsed and affirmed the value of the Alliance Contract Model and that the future needs are being delivered.

6        All of Council’s current term road services contracts expire on 30 June 2017 including the current Waimea, Central and Foveaux Alliance road maintenance contracts.

7        It is necessary to determine now what key changes, if any, are required ahead of scoping what is to be put to the market in the next tender rounds.

8        As part of this process a workshop was held with the current alliance partners (Fulton Hogan and SouthRoads), SDC’s professional services advisor (MWH) and Council staff to canvass optimisation opportunities and issues across the board.

9        Also considered is information extracted from the Final Draft of the Road Maintenance Procurement Guidelines report by The Road Efficiency Group in relation to alliances generally and additional comment on their application in Southland.

Issues and Discussion

10      As part of the review the main points that need to be considered include;

·    How many road maintenance contracts?

·    What activities should be included or excluded as part of the road maintenance contracts?

·    What is the ideal term of the contract? How can Council better deal with the two recent market disruptions of the Highway Network Outcome Contracts (NOC) with 9 year terms. Consequently, each services delivery requirement (renewal and maintenance activities) was reviewed.

11      Some of the key considerations and market limitation included;

·    The large size of each Contract (regions) and that there will never be gargantuan and unwieldy ‘ONE’ alliance to cover our vast network.

·    Full Service Maintenance Integration and tailored to operate within each unique geographic location dictates what key services are dominantly required by each Alliance contractor to deliver and master.

·    Market Limitations: there are only three established and experienced Maintenance Alliance contractors in the region, of which only two resident sealing contractors, and only two professional Engineering Consultants that are active and solvent.

·    The mission critical need for the contract model is to remain as flexible as possible. Where success is the ability to quickly adapt to rapid changing needs of the commercial environment, ever changing global warming environmental limitations, existing and growing coastal erosion risks, increasing freight demand and vehicles with heavier loads, and conversely lesser private vehicle use, due to urbanisation and sought service migration.

This dictates the need to ensure the ‘Alliance Contract Model’ is market ‘AGILE’ and contract change ‘NIMBLE’. Thereby affording Council to shift and move with the increasing technology advances, increasing costs with diminishing funding.

·    The vast size of Councils network, encourages a split by three or more distinct Alliance Contract regions to tailor the service required by each, to fit their service environments and limitations.

12      In this Alliance Service Model it expected that the contractor will service and satisfy the clients directly, – or service Councils ratepayers. This vastly improves the client and community service satisfaction ‘end result’, and ensures the future client identity and service ownership is upheld by all of the alliance contractors.

13      Intuitively, we originally believed that less contracts and associative administrations would be more efficient. However, we soon realised that with a larger diversified number of alliance 2-3 or more contracts would allow council to be more flexible as to how to rebalance the budget outcome by reassembling and restructuring service categories to match the optimal service required – hence deliver the optimal result sought.

14      Conversely, with one alliance contract we would lose our ability to adaptively redistribute funds to match environmental service outcomes as they presented themselves. Which reminded us that maintenance is a hugely variable service that is very dependent on many environmental variables that are essentially unpredictable and never able to forecast.

15      Considering the issues of an ever increasing ‘competitive market’ for Roading Contract Services made it essential for Council to never award all three alliances to one contractor. This option was favoured by all unanimously including the contractors.

16      For capital works some contrasting views were expressed regarding whether capital renewals should be included in the Alliances (one way or the other), or kept outside the Alliances and separately tendered.  Some key considerations included service integration and the opportunity for transparent competitive pricing.

17      Roading Capital Renewals were found to be primarily dependent on ‘Volumetric SCALE, to achieve optimal pricing. It was decided they remain outside of the Alliance Contract and tendered independently as required. Alternately, Alliance Partners will be entitled to bid on these renewals independently.

18      Other activities such as pavement marking and road signs maintenance service have also considered in length.

19      Pavement marking is very similar to the reseal market with only two local suppliers. As this is also a specialised activity it is proposed that this be best kept outside the Alliance contract unless, the contractors can provide Council the convincing confidence that service quality and safety standards will be ultimately achieved and met.

20      Previous Alliance Maintenance contracts terms have historically been limited to five years. Yet recently there has been a shift with recent 9 Year NOC Contract Terms. In recent years there has been a move to match NZTA NOC Highway longer term contracts.

21      This is to compete with keeping our ‘A’ Team Preferred suppliers that are more drawn to long term stable contracts which de-risk their plant and resource (staff) relocation investments required. As an example the new NZTA NOCs have potential term of 9 years and so Transport wish to have the same maximum contract term as our market resource competitors.

22      Attachment A from Morrison Low has also been included with this report as it provides additional information and detail of the new alliance contracts.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

23      No unusual legal consideration are involved with this activity or the procurement. As with all large value project or term contracts there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the results and market tensions realised by unsuccessful offers.

24      To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team will diligently follow the NZ Transport Agency and Council’s procurement procedures and mandatory NZTA accredited tender evaluator.

25      As the Tender Process of the past, Council will continue to engage commercial ‘Probity’ is adhered to by utilising a recognised Probity Auditor from Audit New Zealand. We expect this to remain as s critical element of the tendering and evaluation process for the Alliance Contracts.

Community Views

26      Although no specific community views have been sought, feedback has been sought and received from a range of stakeholders as indicated in the report.

Costs and Funding

27      The works form part of the overall roading programme and will be delivered as part of this programme.

28      It is proposed that the Road Maintenance Contracts continue to be based on cost recoverable model with an agreed total out turn cost per contract.  In other words the work will be delivered within the approved budgets.

Policy Implications

29      There are no expected policy implications as the work does not involve any out of the ordinary activity beyond that already currently undertaking as part of Councils road maintenance activates.

Analysis

Options Considered

30      General two main points, the number of contracts operational and what should be included in the contracts as part of the total scope of work.

Analysis of Options

Number of Maintenance Contracts (Two versus Three)

Option 1 – Two Contracts

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Potential improved administration efficiency.

·        Reduces flexibility to respond and redirects funds between regions for events such of weather, etc.

·        Potentially reduces tendering competition.

 

Option 2 – Three Contracts

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Better recognises uniqueness of the district

·        Provides greater flexibility and responsiveness to network needs

·        Allows for more discrete management including additional resources management needs.

·        Does not detract from one Contractor providing tender for up to two contract areas

·        Potentially increased administration efficiency however this can be mitigated by joint Alliance Leadership Teams.

 

Scope of Work

Option 1 – Fence to Fence Delivery

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Improved service integration between maintenance and renewal activates

·        Reduces council’s direct management and tendering cost as there are will be less contracts to manage.

·        Removes the price tension that currently exist with the renewal activates.

·        Potentially reduces market competition long term.

·        Reduces the ability to fully optimise the renewal programmes to provide what is best for the network as a whole compared to contract area.

 


 

Option 2 – Status Quo excluding Major Renewals

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Maintains the opportunity for transparent competitive tendering (test the market) and expenditure.

·        Recognises some market limitation of services such as pavement marking and reseals.

·        Helps maintain a healthy market.

·        Enables Council to optimise renewals across the district versus by contract area.

·        Don’t have full service integration between maintenance and renewal.

·        More contracts for Councils to manage.

 

31      Some of the disadvantages noted above can be managed by closer involvement and interaction by the various teams through co-location and improved integration of work programmes.

32      Another possibility to consider dedicated specialised roles for activities such as traffic services. While the physical works can be carried by the respective alliance contractors one person is dedicated to the programming, service management and quality assurance across the district.

 

Assessment of Significance

33      While the dollar value of this activity is high the activity and cost associated with this activity are not considered significant as this is part of routine service deliver.

Recommended Option

34      The report provides an outline of the proposed approach to go to market and discover by working with each tendered offer to determine and ensure the optimal service cost and most flexible delivery model is delivered.

35      The way forward for the Council’s road maintenance and renewal activities requires some discovery of alternate service offers proposed by our incumbents and other potential local providers. Council will continue to strive to achieve the best service (optimal) for funding available in spite of expected change in freight demand to increased heavier transported loads on Councils aging pavements.

36      It is recommended that the Council endorse the status quo of the three alliance contracts for a period of up to 9 years dependent on contractor performance.

37      It is also proposed that the performance including safety of the alliances will continue to be reviewed and guided by an Alliance Leadership team which is chaired by an appointed Councillor. This model has worked well with the existing alliances model.

 

Next Steps

38      That procurement will proceed through the tendering process until the Transport Team is in a position to report back to Council. The tendered findings and alternate service offers will be analysed and processed to provide the Council a clear recommendation as to the preferred supplier/s and investment solutions for each of the three Alliance Contracts.

39      The Council tender evaluation results will be reported to the Council including recommendations to let the contracts.

 

Attachments

a         New Alliance Model 2017 - Roading Maintenance Contracts    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

 

SOUTHLAND NEW ALLIANCE MODEL 2017

Decisions on the future model

Following on from the review of delivery of Roading Services last year and the recommendations of the Morrison Low Report “Optimisation of Roading Service Delivery Structure” of June 2015 further consideration has been given to how service delivery may be streamlined and strengthened.  All of the current Waimea, Central and Foveaux Alliance contracts expire in June 2017.  It is necessary to determine now what key changes if any are required ahead of scoping what is to be put to the market in the next tender round.

Accordingly, a workshop was held with the current alliance participants (Fulton Hogan and South Roads), SDC’s professional services advisor (MWH) and Council staff to canvass optimisation opportunities and issues across the board.  Following the workshop two feedback opportunities were provided and the submissions considered in detail.  The active participation and objective contribution of all involved has been highly appreciated.

The result is that a set of conclusions and decisions have now been reached as to how the SDC Roading Services Delivery model can be enhanced and put in place from July 2017.  These conclusions and the resulting decisions are set out below.

Also included is information extracted from the Final Draft of the Road Maintenance Procurement Guidelines report by The Road Efficiency Group in relation to alliances generally and additional comment on their application in Southland.

Finally, the paper summarises specific matters that need to be addressed in the new alliance contracts to be tendered for commencement in July 2017.

 

1.  Capital Renewals

Some contrasting views were expressed regarding whether capital renewals should be included in the Alliances (one way or the other), or kept outside the Alliances and separately tendered.  Key considerations here are:

·    SDC has a preference to maintain the opportunity for transparent competitive pricing which will only be achieved by SDC managing the ‘go to market’ open bid tendering process and the resulting contract being managed by SDC or its consultant.  It is acknowledged that while this is not ideal from a services integration perspective, for there are complications in terms of accountability for the advance preparation and precise readiness required for renewals by the Alliance Maintenance contractor, this can be managed as described below.

·    The use of nominated subcontractors (whereby SDC tenders the work and selects the supplier who then is invited to enter into a subcontract with the Alliance Partner) has been considered but not favoured due to performance accountability complications.  In addition, such arrangements would normally only be used in a situation where there was a clear mutual construction dependency between the head contractor and nominated supplier (e.g. a proprietary bridge joint to be supplied and installed during bridge construction). 

·    Given that there will not be ‘ONE’ Alliance for District-Wide Renewals and the programme for renewals can be very unpredictable over time both in quantum and location, there is a very real risk if included in each of the alliances that the programme will fall well short of the level required to satisfy plant and staff utilisation for this requirement.

·    Consideration has been given to a design and construct approach however the renewals programme is now so small (~4km) that it is not worth putting out in this way at this time.  Until there is a viable programme level (say 14 – 20km) SDC should continue with status quo i.e. Consultant design and tender outside the alliances as a single annual package.  This is limited to a limited single year package unless a multi-year package can be developed. 

IT is therefore necessary to maintain the renewals contractually separate from the alliances.

In order to achieve the levels of service integration sought the Alliance Management Team (AMT) must have a significant involvement in developing the renewals programme.  This should extend to identifying the most appropriate metal sources and what support can be provided to the renewals contractor and these written into the tender documents.  This needs to benefit from the combined knowledge of the Asset Manager, Consultant and AMT.  When awarded the renewals contractor will be required to mesh with the AMT to achieve operational integration.  There is an opportunity here for a suitable alliance KRA/KPI.

2.  Reseals

Again contrasting views were evident as to the wisdom of including the reseal programme within the alliances.  SDC has a requirement to ensure this significant area of expenditure is transparently and competitively tendered.  Accordingly, for this reason reseals will be better served if they remain outside the alliances and go to Council selected local bidders as two packages which could be won separately or combined.  We must recognise that there are only two resident sealing contractors available and the offering of two separate packages both of which can be won together by a single contractor helps retain the required commercial tension that exists in a duopoly market.  The procurement strategy argument remains that in the interests of maintaining some future local market viability the selected tendering process are completely justified.  Selective tendering is subject to sign off by NZTA and by Council APAC. 

To enable Council to remain in control and optimise resealing programmes the combined history and asset condition knowledge of the Asset Manager, Consultant, Road Engineers and AMTs should contribute to determining the reseal programme.  The aim must be to achieve the ideal maximum Practical End of Life (non-theoretical) for future reseal programmes and manage the pre-seal repair integration with the Alliance delivery programme.  In future this team will identify the optimum sealing chip sources in advance of preparation of sealing tender documents to reduce risk and enable production ahead of requirement.  When the awarded the reseals contractor will liaise with the AMT to achieve operational integration with pre-seal repairs.  This will remain a challenge and will require full co-operation of the Alliance and Council Roading.  Again this integration can be incentivised and monitored through an alliance KRA/KPI Outcomes – (one entire year in advance pre-seal repairs will enable the most efficient cost and service delivery of our future sealing programme due to no dependency delays.  This has now been achieved following a strategic investment for Council which took over two years to put in place by taking the opportunity where renewal work was at a lull offering Council a better price.)

3.  Management and Planning

There is a recognised need for a closer involvement of the Asset Manager and Consultant with the Alliance AMTs to enable the developing of more robust integration of work programmes and optimised service delivery.  Accordingly, the Asset Manager and Consultant will keep attending the AMTs meetings routinely allowing increased accuracy and clarity of renewal programmes being co-developed or input into other issues or required interventions.

4.  Scope

With the exceptions of Professional Services, street lighting, capital renewals (rehabs and reseals) and major capital projects, all activities within the road corridor will be included within the alliances.  In order to realise the overall integration of services within the corridor the involvement of the Asset Manager and Consultant with the Alliances will be necessary to ensure the renewals and reseal contractors are able to operate efficiently without unnecessary conflicts with overall service quality or network safety.

5.  Co-location

There is strong support from the Alliance Team and SDC Transport management for co-location of appropriate resources with Services partners.  This has been variously interpreted from co-location of the whole Transport Team to co-location of dedicated Roading Engineers to offices of each AMT.

The SDC Transport Team as a whole should not be co-located as they would be put in a conflicting situation as Client and have other necessary district wide responsibilities.  Nevertheless, the importance of the now consolidated and holistic Roading Team/Alliance/Professional Service relationship must not be under estimated and is bringing rewards to all parties through “effectiveness by connectedness”. 

After much consideration, given the inescapable reality is that there remain two or more alliance partners (and in the future are also likely to be) and two or three AMTs, the real benefit would come from co-location of dedicated Roading Engineers and Alliance Partner’s management teams to best enable a combined focus as the Alliance Management Team to optimise service delivery and cost efficiency.  In addition, it would be valuable to provide for “hot desks” to enable members of Council’s Roading Team to spend some crucial time directly involved with each AMT.  This would lift the communication levels and better inform them of issues and enable their input as needed.  It is noted however that it this is not intended to manage or direct the AMT routinely.  It remains important that commercial effective service sovereignty of the transferred ‘Trusted’ decision empowerment and cost efficiency must remain intact within the AMT and Governed by the ALT. Nevertheless, periodic local presence would afford the opportunity for immediate guidance, assistance and support generally and for emergency situations or event management where direct Council management will likely become more intimately involved.

6.  Regions

The three Southland Road Network Regions are believed to have been historically improved and refined due to their uniqueness in regard to: dominating topography and terrain, commercial service locations, dominant climate and conditions (ice/snow, flooding) freight demand, dairy collection, tourism and network density.  While it is tempting to intuitively believe that two administrations are more efficient and therefore better than three or four as being more efficient, it has been recently realised by Roading Management that the larger number of regions provides far greater flexibility to redirect funds between regions for reasons of weather events, shifts in freight loadings, unpredictable forest harvesting, etc.

The previously unrealised higher number and unique diversity of each Alliance Region, allows Council financial forecasting resolution to have finer granularity in decisions to redistribute funds and resource and a finer resolution of the effects across the whole network. 

The retaining of the current three regions does provide the opportunity for seeking alternative bids that allow tendering of each region separately or tendering an alternative of two regions combined with associated benefits in finer discrete management and additional resource efficiency. 

In considering the issue of sustainability of market the strategy that is required for Southland includes the following:

1.    No party should be awarded all three regions.  This option is favoured by all.

2.    The ongoing tendering opportunities for existing established contractors and sub-contractors is paramount for the future existence of full market “Commercial and Competitive” sustainability.  Any strategy that promoted or enabled the establishment of duopolies or monopolies in our very limited contractor environment is ‘competitive suicide’ and a commercial travesty.

3.    Council’s Roading Team and the Alliances believe the ‘Road to Commercial Sustainability’ is to protect both small and larger Contractors in our region. If we force them out of work by single alliance contract models (i.e. NOC type contracting – as recently released by NZTA HNO) having one single provider for the entire region or district would result in future competitive failure where small operators are placed at high commercial risk and the remaining one or two larger contractors will withdraw from our region and restrict their focus to areas of work continuity and better margins.

 

In the event that Gore DC participates in the future there is are options of treating it as a separate region or to incorporate it into the Foveaux Region.  This would need further consideration.

7.  Governance

There is general support for the principle of having a common combined governance body (alliance Leadership Team or ALT) to which each alliance, through their respective AMTs reports.  This would provide a level of significant transparency around performance against a common set of outcome measures and increase contractor accountability.  This would also support the needed accountability required by NZTA and OAG in their routine audits.  This new model ALT should be the vehicle to promote improved resource management and market sustainability achievement across the district.

The issue here is to develop a TOR for such a combined ALT that provides these benefits but also respects and does not compromise the clear commercial independence and competitiveness of the two or more alliance partners.  The TOR needs to be completely agreed to by all parties at all levels.  Assuming this is achieved it is proposed that the combined ALT should be trialled and refined over the remaining terms of the current alliances.

A draft TOR is attached.  It is proposed that this be finalised in consultation with each of the alliance partners.

 

8.  Summary

The conclusions of this paper are summarised as:

1.    Capital Renewals to be tendered by SDC with design and supervision by SDC’s Professional Services Provider (currently MWH) as at present

2.    Reseals to be similarly tendered by SDC and supervised by MWH

3.    Integrated development of renewals and reseal programmes is to be achieved by coordinated inputs from Council’s Asset Engineer, MWH and the respective AMTs

4.    Work programmes to be similarly integrated to ensure smooth operational delivery by renewals and sealing contractors

5.    Council’s Asset Manager and MWH representative to regularly attend the alliance AMT meetings

6.    With the exceptions of Professional Services, street lighting, capital renewals, reseals and major capital works, all activities within the road corridor will be included within the alliances.

7.    There is a strong case for co-locating SDC dedicated Roading Engineers with the relevant Alliance Partner’s management team to achieve a most efficient and effective AMT

8.    The current three road network regions should be retained.  In the event that Gore DC participates in the future the district could be added to the Foveaux Region of kept as a separate region to be determined in discussions with GDC.

9.    Tenders for the next alliance contracts to allow for up to two alliances being won by a single tenderer but no tenderer being permitted to win all three

10.  The strong support for a combined Alliance Leadership Team is noted and a terms of reference (TOR) is to be prepared and adopted

 

9.  National Use of Alliances for Maintenance

The Road Efficiency Group is finalising its “Delivery Model Guidelines” which will be published later this year.  While only in draft[1] at present and of course subject to change it is worth while noting some specific factual and draft findings in respect of alliances.  Other comments have also been added touching on matters that are not noted in the draft.

·        Maintenance alliances are currently being used in Waikato, Hamilton, Auckland Motorway Alliance, Central Otago and Southland with the common key drivers/objectives being the desire of the client to work collaboratively to understand the cost structures for making cost savings, to improve value for money and target continuous improvement”.

·        The optimum circumstances for the use of particular delivery models includes “The Alliance model for flexibility, risk sharing in a structured, incentivized and formalized one team client/contractor approach to focus on network outcomes and to understand cost structures for optimizing investment”

In addition, it is noted that the market has been constrained due to reducing programme levels and more recently by the effects of NZTA’s NOC contracts which is seriously impacting the sustainability of the market in Southland and Otago.  For contractors to continue to be viable they need to have a solid baseload of work from which they can launch bids for more lucrative opportunities when they present.  Southland is in a good position to benefit from this by providing long term stability of cashflow and resource use providing a level of investment certainty for contractors and in return benefit from very competitive margins.  It is worth noting also that the strongest incentive for high performance of Southland’s Alliance Partners is continuity of work and cashflow and that is achieved by excellent performance that leads to contract renewals and a better opportunity of winning in the next round of alliance tenders.

10.       Implications for the Next Alliance Contracts

The three alliance contracts will need to be tendered to the market in time for the alliances to be mobilised and ready to commence service delivery on 1 July 2017.  It is proposed to modify the documents for scope and specific contract conditions to align with the findings listed above and invite tenders by October 2016.

Specific matters to be addressed in the new contracts are:

·    An increase in the contract term to provide for a maximum of 9 years[2] made up of:

Up to a 1 year (maximum) period of an Interim Project Alliance Agreement (IPAA) (developed with the preferred alliance partner prior to service commencement) during which time the alliance must demonstrate it has the capability to perform at the required levels of service before the full Project Alliance Agreement (PAA) is entered into.

Following entering into the PAA a term of the balance of year 1 plus 4 years and the opportunity for two 2 year extensions at the discretion of Council after taking in to account the performance of the Alliance Partner giving a maximum term of nine years

OR

Following entering into the PAA a term of the balance of year 1 plus 6 years but with provision for a reduction in term of up to 2 years (-1-1) for substandard performance and the opportunity of up to two 1 year extensions (+1+1) at the discretion of Council after taking in to account the performance of the Alliance Partner giving a maximum term of nine years

·    The inclusion within the alliance work scope subject to excellent performance of:

pavement line marking

signs maintenance

·    Provisions for a new alliance governance arrangements including:

the use of a common Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) that will harness the combined skills of all parties to monitor the performance of all three alliances and provide “best for network” direction in terms of resource optimisation and maintenance strategies

the reporting of each alliance on progress and performance through its Alliance Management Team (AMT) to the ALT

a terms of reference (TOR) for the common ALT that enables it to achieve the higher levels of performance accountability desired and strategy direction while accepting and respecting the commercial and competitive needs of each alliance partner.

·    The refinement (currently in hand) of outcome performance measure including a specific KRA relating to network safety

·    Recognition of the changing national road network performance measures[3]

·    Recognition of the need to incorporate the role of Professional Services Consultant into the regular meetings of the AMTs to improve information exchange and issue understanding and to reinforce the overall “Roading Team” culture of service delivery and achieve integrated programmes and standards

·    A requirement in the alliance agreements and those of the renewal and reseal contractors to collaborate to optimise the efficiency and safety of operational delivery

·    Provision for co-locating of dedicated SDC Roading Engineers with the respective Alliance Management Team members to achieve a more efficient and effective partnership

·    Tendering provisions that prevent all three alliances being won by a single contractor but provides for alternatives that would provide advantages in terms of economies in the event two alliances are won by a single contractor

·    Provisions that may be required in the event that there is a future shared services arrangement with an adjacent road controlling authority


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project Update and Procurement Options

Record No:        R/16/11/19380

Author:                 Joe Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To outline to the Council the proposed Tourist Route Improvements Project and seeking endorsement for the project to be publicly tendered.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the proposed Tourist Route Improvements that have been surveyed and designed along with the proposed procurement methodology. Council’s endorsement is sought on this programme of work and the planned procurement processes.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)      Receives the report titled “Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project Update and Procurement Options” dated 7 December 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 project proceed to the tender stage and that the results of the tender evaluation process be reported back to Council for consideration of awarding a contract.

 

Content

Background

3       This project involves the Sealing, Otta sealing and associated improvement of approximately 23 kilometres of road on the last unsealed section of the alternative coastal route along the Southern Scenic Route and the two main side journeys of this section.

4       Currently tourists are put off travelling on these roads and those that do use them, often get into difficulties. The purpose of this project is to make access to these points of interest easier and safer, without necessarily making travel on the road that much faster.

5       At the 28 September 2016, Activities Performance Audit Committee were presented with a report outlining the status of the project including confirmation of NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) funding.

6       At this meeting it was resolved that the detailed design work be completed and reported be presented back to Council prior to the project being put out to tendered.

Discussion

7       The total road length is split into three routes. The main route involves the unsealed sections of Otara Haldane Road, Tokanui Haldane Road and Haldane Curio Bay Road and will complete the sealing of the Alternative Coastal Route.

8       The route is to be fully constructed and bitumen sealed for the majority of its length, apart from a tidal flood prone section of approximately 1800 metres directly adjacent to the Haldane Estuary, which is proposed to be Otta sealed.

9       The reason for the use of Otta seal in this location is to reduce the amount invested in this section, which may need to be raised in the future to cope with rising sea levels.

10     The first side road is Slope Point Road which leads off the Haldane Curio Bay Road to Slope Point, the southernmost point of the mainland of New Zealand. The route is to be fully constructed with a bitumen seal for its full length to the first car park.

11     The second side road is the route to Waipapa Lighthouse which consists of Otara Waipapa and Waipapa Lighthouse Road.

12     This route runs off the sealed section of Otara Haldane Road and involves the full length of Otara Waipapa and Waipapa Lighthouse Roads. It is proposed that the bulk of the construction for this section to involve limited construction (reshaping, shoulder widening and construction) and Otta sealing.

13     It is proposed that the three main curves and start of the road will be fully constructed and sealed as these areas would be under the greatest stress for an Otta seal.

14      The choice of Otta seal on this road has been driven by funding, as this section is considered the third priority of the three routes for seal extension.

15      This route could also be treated as provisional tender item as a means of managing SDC’s overall budget for this project. There is also a possibility with this section that, if prices come in well below estimate, Council may consider a full construction and seal option for this road.

16      As the engineering design has neared completion a Registration of Interest request was placed. Four companies officially registering an interest, these were;

·    The Roading Company

·    SouthRoads

·    Fulton Hogan Southland and

·    Wilson Contracting.

17      Current design information and quantities have been supplied to the companies who registered an interested. The aim is to provide these organisation with an indication around the scope and scale of work involved so that they can start considering items such resource requirements including gravel sources and supply.

18      Being a road that will have a higher proportion of tourist drivers than other Council roads, extra work will be required to provide a roadside with safe pull-off parking areas at points of interest to reduce the likelihood of vehicles stopping in the roadway to take photos.

Issues

19      It has been established there exist risks in using Mairs Pit – particularly as is. From discussion with potential tenderers options have be discussed around how this material could be utilised.

20      Based on the evidence available it is possible to successfully construct pavements that perform long term and deliver the thirty year life design requirement. There is significant cost savings in using alternate Mairs Pit material – as follows.

21      Acceptance of a tender using this material would be subject to a tenderer demonstrating appropriate management, surveillance and quality assurance - that they will select, process and handle the material in a way that maximises the chances of success and that there is a very substantial saving in using this material to make the residual risks worth accepting. 

22      It is not expected that there will be any unusual resource consenting requirements with the work, as the work will take place either on road reserve or on land purchased for the purpose of creating a road reserves.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

23     No significantly unusual legal considerations are involved with this project.  As with all larger value projects, 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 NZ Transport Agency and Council’s procurement procedures.

24     It is also intended to engage probity auditor as part of the evaluation process.

25      The Requests for Tender will state that the Principal reserves the right to consider or reject any alternative tender, at the Principal’s sole discretion.

26      While most of the curve easing will be within the legal road alignment, several of the potential curve realignments may involve the need to purchase private land to expedite the new road line. These will be discussed with the Council’s Property Management as soon as the need is determined.

Community Views

27      During the Strategic and Indicative Business Cases specific community views were sought and included into those reports. These reports formed the basis for the design work being carried out with the concerns noted.

28      During consultation on the Annual Plan, there was strong public support for sealing these roads to aid tourism and to increase safety on these roads.

Costs and Funding

29      The project has been allowed for in the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan with the project cost to be funded via a loan. The overall project estimate is $7.15M (+/- 25%) with approved co-funding from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) based on using some of Southland ‘R Funds’.

30      Based on the engineering design the latest construction costs are estimated in the range of $7.6M to $8.3m which are within the original estimated range. These costs are based on the two options below;

·    This estimate is made up of $7.6m - Mairs Pit material with 80% of fill material from cut on site.

·    $8.3m - Mairs Pit (Sub Base) Edendale (Base Course) with 50% of fill from cut on site.

 

31      In order to best maximise the opportunities for the construction to come in below the engineering estimate, tenderers will be asked to supply alternative options for consideration. Potential alternative could be modification of aggregate to reduce cartage costs and temporary road closure to reduce traffic management costs.

32      NZTA are still fully supportive of this project and acknowledge that the current costs are based on engineering estimates and as such are likely to vary from tendered rates. On this basis NZTA are amenable to additional funding if required. 

Policy Implications

33      The road sections form the Southland District Council Tourist Route Improvements Project which has received updated approval as part of the Annual Plan and was initially approved as part of the Long Term Plan.

Procurement Considerations

34      As there are several out of the ordinary risks currently identified with this project particularly in relation to the Mairs Pit material, a Price Quality procurement method is proposed.

35      The standard assessment weighting for the price quality is 70/30 respectively. The price receiving a dominant 70% weighting is to push the market for aggressive pricing while still providing for due consideration for optimal methodology and quality.

36      It is proposed the 30% non-price attributes have greater emphasis on the methodology component and work quality assurance to help select a supplier that has the capabilities to best mitigate risks associated with construction projects.

37      As part of the procurement it is also proposed to allow for alternative options as mentioned above to be considered. These alternatives can then be evaluated and considered on a NPV basis to assess the benefits of accepting an alternative against conforming tenders.

38      Attachment A provides an indication of the current procurement timeline as general information.

Analysis

Options Considered

39      The two main procurement methodologies assessed are Lowest Price Confirming and the Price Quality method.

Analysis of Options

40      Tendering Options

Option 1 - Lowest Price Confirming

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Quicker to evaluate as only the lowest price tender is assessed to confirm conformance to the tender requirements

·        Reduced evaluation time and cost

·        Does not take account of non-price attributes.

·        Makes no allowance for potential added value that tenderers may offer.

·        Unlikely to produce the best value for money solution for the Council

 

 

Option 2 - Price Quality

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Focus is on both price and quality

·        Non price attributes are considered and assessed as part of the tendering process.

·        Can allow for ‘added value’ of a proposal to be considered

·        The cost of risks is more transparent and a balance of risk allocation can be achieved.

·        Requires a longer timeframe to evaluate as all tender proposals need to be reviewed and assessed.

 

 

Assessment of Significance

41      The Tourist Route Improvements Projects has been specifically consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan and more recently as part of the Annual Plan.

42      The additional detail in this report is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

43      The proposed procurement methodology of Price Quality has been chosen to balance obtaining competitive prices, managing risks and price certainty.  The overall aim is to obtain value for money.

44      It is also recommended that the Council endorse both the proposed programme of work and procurement methodology which allows for alternative proposals to be considered.

Next Steps

45      That the project proceed to the procurement stage, utilising a Price Quality Method and that the outcome of the tender evaluation be reported back to Council. The report will also cover sources of funding and any changes in scope to reduce cost, if required.

 

Attachments

a         Alternative Coastal Route- Attachment A, Tendering Timeline    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project – Tender Timeline

 

·    Council Approval to go to market                    14 December 2016

·    Put out to Tender                                              15 December 2016

·    Close Tender                                                    24 January 2017

·    Read / Review Tender                                     27 January 2017

·    Complete tender scoring                                  1 February 2017

·    Open Prices and review                                   3 February 2017

·    Complete Tender Evaluation                                     7 February 2017

·    Report back to Committee / Council Meeting           22 February 2017 (TBC)

 

 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Southland Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report for the 2016/2017 Year

Record No:        R/16/11/19388

Author:                 Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1       The Invercargill City Council has supplied the attached report relating to the operations of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust Board Incorporated (hereafter SMAG) for the first quarter of the 2016/2017 financial year, ending 30 September 2016. 

2       The report outlines status of performance in relation to the projects and service levels outlined in the 2016/2017 SMAG Statement of Intent.  It also provides additional information on levels of use of the museum itself, and exhibitions which have occurred or are occurring.

3       The Trust is incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

4       Council appoints two representatives to the Trust in terms of the Trust Deed, with these being Councillors MacPherson and Patterson.

5       It is also worth noting Pages 3 and 4 of the report itself, in the “Future Issues” section, which refers to the $600,000 request which has been made to the Southland Regional Heritage Fund for additional funding.  This is proposed, if approved, to be “used by SMAG to employ curators and technicians who will carry out the conservation, storage, cataloguing, interpretation and construction work required to provide captivating and educational exhibitions” (see Page 3 of the report) of items in the SMAG collections.

6       This Quarterly Report is hence presented for Council’s information only.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Southland Museum and Art Gallery Annual Report for the first Quarter of the 2016 /2017 financial year ended 30 September 2016.

 

Attachments

a         Southland Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report for the 2016/2017 Year    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

TO:                                         SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

                                                GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL

                                                SOUTHLAND REGIONAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE

 

FROM:                                   THE CHAIRMAN

                                                SOUTHLAND MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY TRUST BOARD

 

MEETING DATE:                  THURsday 3 NOVember 2016

 

quarterly report – southland museum and art gallery

 

Report Prepared by:            Paul Horner - Manager, Building Assets and Museum

 

 

Summary

 

Report on the operation of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery for the First Quarter of the 2016-2017 financial year.

 

 

Recommendations

 

That the report be received.

 

 

Implications

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Ø   Expenditure variance is $83,684 underspent at the end of September 2016.  This is due to an increase of funding from the Regional Heritage Committee for 2016/2017 ($171,000) and a slow start to operational expenditure for the year.

Ø   An application to seek an increase of operational funding for the 2017/2018 financial year and beyond has been forwarded to the Southland Regional Heritage Committee

Level of Performance

 

Target Levels of Performance Required by the Statement of Intent are:

 

Service Level

Achievement, First Quarter

Prepare for building refurbishment and extension to enable internal environmental conditions to meet national/international guidelines.

Redevelopment plan completed and approved by Trust Board. 

Presentations provided to councils and funders.

Discussions with Southland Regional Development Strategy project managers.

No irreparable loss or damage is caused to collections or objects on loan.

No irreparable loss or damage detected

100% of objects acquired entered into Vernon database and verified

50% of new acquisitions entered.

Review of collection information urgently required.

100% records on Vernon database maintained

100% maintained.

Review of collection information urgently required.

Project planned to review, update and verify records on database

Review of 73,200 collection objects information urgently required.  This project is dependent on achieving a $600,000 p.a.  increase of funding

Three semi-permanent exhibitions are delivered.

A minimum of 12 short-term exhibitions, including 8 in the community access gallery, are presented annually.

Six semi-permanent exhibitions at present.

5 short term exhibitions opened by end of first quarter including 3 in the Community Access gallery.

Over 25 education programmes delivered to 4000 school students, including curriculum-linked and exhibition-related programmes.

3 programmes delivered to 692 pupils by end of first quarter

Iwi Liaison Komiti (representing the four Southland Runanga), meets four times a year.

 

One by end of first quarter.

Annual visitor numbers exceed 200,000/annum

52,561 by end of first quarter.

 

 

Operational Comments

 

The museum is operating well with high people-counter numbers at the front door.  With 52,561 people counted in the first quarter of the year the museum is the most visited tourist attraction and community heritage organisation in Invercargill. 

 

Data gathered since January 2016 shows that 16% of visitors make purchases at the café, 10% make enquiries or purchases at the i-SITE and 6% make purchases at the shop.  Additional door-counters will soon be installed to analyse movement of visitors within the museum.

 


 

Exhibitions which have been held in the Community Access gallery during the first quarter of the year have been:

 

Ø   Hokonui Fashion Awards show.

Ø   Polyfest 2016 (schools)

Ø   Together We Travel Day Activity Centre clients of SDHB

 

 

The art exhibitions which have opened during the first quarter of the year were:

 

Ø   In Residence.  An Exhibition of Art from the Southland Art Foundation Collection

Ø   Something Borrowed, Something Blue.  An Exhibition of Wedding Dresses from the Southland Museum and Gallery collection.

 

The semi-permanent exhibitions at present are:

 

Ø   Roaring 40’s

Ø   History Gallery

Ø   Maori Gallery

Ø   Natural History Gallery

Ø   Victoriana Gallery

Ø   World War 1 Exhibition

 

Staff

 

Kimberley Stephenson, our new Collection Curator began work on 26th September.

 

Future Issues

 

The Southland Museum and Art Gallery is important to Southland.  It is the first museum to be developed in Southland and the only one to hold a significant collection of the natural and human history of the province.  The collection includes about 14,000 geology, flora and fauna objects, over 900 archaeology objects and over 4,000 taonga Māori objects. 

 

The core exhibitions of SMAG are the geology, geography and natural history of Southland, southern Maori history (pre-European contact), Sub-Antarctic Islands, early coastal and nautical history and the history of Invercargill.

 

A collection the size of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery is extremely important on a national and international scale, both as a reference collection for research and for curation of exhibitions.  The museum Trust Board is ethically obliged to preserve and interpret, through its displays and research, our history and culture as revealed by the collections for present and future generations.   However some of the collections are without curators to do this work.   Additional funds, if obtained, will be used by SMAG to employ curators and technicians who will carry out the conservation, storage, cataloguing, interpretation and construction work required to provide captivating and educational exhibitions.

 

Employment of sufficient staff at Southland Museum and Art Gallery will also enable support and assistance to be given to the smaller museums of Southland to help with their collections and displays.  This will be of benefit to the whole province.

 

There are about 24 smaller museums throughout Southland which have been developed since about the 1950’s.  Each of these has a unique collection and story to tell about their local community or specialisation and they generally collect and show the social history of Southland (post-European contact). 

 

The Southland Museum and Art Gallery has made a request to the Southland Regional Heritage Committee for a grant increase of $600,000 (compared with the 2015-16 year) in the 2017–18 financial year and beyond to employ the additional staff discussed above.   

 

It is anticipated that the increased grant would be used as follows:

 

Employment of two curators                                                           $150,000

Employment of two collection technicians                                      $100,000

Employment of one exhibition construction technician                     $60,000

Associated costs for staff training, equipment                                   $40,000

Exhibition costs: materials, technology, contract labour                 $100,000

Collection costs: storage equipment, archive materials                  $100,000

District Museum support, travel, materials                                        $25,000

Education (LEOTC), provide mobile service to district schools        $25,000

 

                                              Total expenditure per.  annum           $600,000

**********


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Draft Southland Cycling Strategy

Record No:        R/16/11/19569

Author:                 Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1        The Southland Cycling Strategy was developed in consultation with the region’s councils, government agencies, cycling organisations and the community.

2        Venture Southland managed a process whereby an experienced consultant was procured via a competitive tender process.  The successful consultant was TRC Tourism.  The TRC team has been working in the fields of tourism, recreation, conservation and culture for over 25 years.

3        The process TRC used involved analysis of Southland’s population, social, economic and tourism situation.  Previous plans and studies on cycling in the region were reviewed. An audit was conducted of the existing cycling infrastructure, services, experiences and organisation in Southland and competitor cycling destinations. Local and visitor cycling markets and their cycling needs and references were also analysed to identify the market segments and types of cycling with most potential for the region.

4        Community views and input on directions for cycling were provided through interviews with major stakeholders and community open house sessions.  Stakeholders were also invited to comment on a paper setting out a proposed strategic approach to cycling development.

5        The views of Southland’s cyclists were sought through an online survey that received 339 responses.

6        This process lead to the compilation of the attached draft strategy.

 

Purpose

7        “The Southland Cycling Strategy is a guide for government, the community, cycling organisations, the tourism industry and business at the local, district and regional levels to develop and invest in cycling opportunities in a consistent, collaborative and sustainable way.”

8        This will be a useful document for the Southland District Council to use as the base planning document for cycling initiatives of all types.  Whether it be on-road or off-road cycling.  Whether it be NZTA funded, local funded, private funded or District funded.

 

Vision Statement

9        The vision statement in the draft strategy is quoted below;

10      “Our aim is to provide quality safe cycling infrastructure and increase cycling participation so that the people of Southland will gain in health, quality of life and appreciative use of their outstanding natural environment.

11      Cycling opportunities will contribute to Southland’s socio-economic and population development by increasing the attractiveness of the region as a family friendly place to live and visit.”

 

Process

12      The proposal from here is for each of the Southland region’s authorities to adopt the draft strategy and that it be distributed for further public consultation.

13      Venture Southland will manage this consultation process.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Draft Southland Cycling Strategy” dated 8 December 2016.

 

b)         Endorses the draft Southland Cycling Strategy 2016-2026 and approve that it can be distributed for further public consultation.

 

c)         Appoint two council representatives (a councillor and a staff member) to the proposed Southland Cycling Governance Group which will oversee implementation of the strategy.

 

 

Attachments

a         Draft Southland Cycling Strategy    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Management Report

Record No:        R/16/12/19780

Author:                 Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Chief Executive

Southland Regional Development Strategy (SoRDs)

1        The SoRDs project has been developed over the last two years with the overall goal of attracting 10,000 more people to Southland by 2025.

2        Over the 2016 calendar year there have been nine SoRDs Teams developing Action Plans to advance the overall SoRDs goal. These action plans have now been developed into a consolidated Action Plan document which was launched publicly on 30 November.

3        The launch attracted around 500 people including Ministers Joyce and Guy. At the launch Central Government indicated its strong support for the project by:

·    Announcing funding support for upto $2.4 million for a range of initiatives to be advanced as part of the Action Plan. This includes some $950,000 for the Aquaculture development project and $250,000 for the first phase of the Milford Opportunities Project.

·    Indicating very strong support for the overall Action Plan, the range of initiatives within it and the work that Southland has done to bring it to this stage of development.

4        The final Action Plan will be brought to Council for formal endorsement at its meeting in February 2017. At that time there will also be a report outlining the structures that are seen as being needed to lead the overall implementation of the final SoRDs Action Plan.

5        The Governance Group highlighted in the final Action Plan a number of principles that they see as being important for the next phase of work. To a significant degree these reflect the ‘Southland Inc’ approach that has been a key feature of the first two phases of SoRDs to date.

6        Work to develop the recommended implementation structures has been developed under the leadership of the Mayoral Forum.

Local Government Reform

7        The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which implements the Better Local Services reforms, is currently before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee. The date by which the Select Committee is due to report back to Parliament has been extended to 31 March 2017.

8        The extension of time reflects the strength of concern relating to the proposal that the Local Government Commission (LGC) be given the power to initiate reforms at an individual service level without a ratepayer referendum or support from the local authorities involved. There is a level of discussion occurring between the sector and Government about what might constitute appropriate provisions in this area.

9        While it is likely that changes will be made it is important to recognise that there are a number of changes included in the Bill which are very positive and have a strong level of support across the sector. It is also important that the underlying message about the need for the sector as a whole to improve its performance and change the way in which it works to ensure that it meets the changing needs of the communities it serves is not lost. In particular, it is clear that Central Government remains committed to the need for local government to deliver ‘more for less’ and ensure that rates remain affordable.

Local Government Risk Agency

10      A business case has been put to Central Government seeking support for the development of a Local Government Risk Agency (LGRA), which would be responsible for promoting the development of sound risk management practices across the sector.

11      A decision on whether Government will support the business case is not expected to be made until the first half of 2017. There is a strong linkage between the potential formation of this agency, the review of the 60:40 principle for the funding of recovery costs following a natural disaster and the management of the 3 waters infrastructure. The findings from the Havelock Water Inquiry are likely to have an impact on the development of future government policy in these areas.

12      Ahead of decisions being made in these LGNZ has work underway to develop a high level risk framework which will provide the sector with a common way of speaking about, and applying risk assessment and management tools and concepts. Ideally the framework will be applied across all council functions, including hazard management. It is expected that this work will be released early in 2017.

Road Speed Management

13      During November the Ministry of Transport and NZ Transport Agency released a new Speed Management Guide, which replaces the former Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits.

14      The Guide combines a wide range of information to help councils, the New Zealand Transport Agency and other road controlling authorities decide where and when to make safety improvements or changes to speed limits. The Guide attempts to recognise that conditions vary significantly between different locations and that it is also important to have local community input to the speed setting process.

Rural Broadband and Mobile Blackspots

15      The Crown has recently released a further Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Rural Broadband Extension and the Mobile Black Spot Fund programmes to extend the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) and provide mobile coverage to black spots on state highways and in tourist areas. This includes a number of areas within Southland including the Milford Road corridor.

16      The development of broadband and cell phone coverage on the Milford Road corridor is seen as a high priority by Milford Sound Tourism Ltd and other tourist operators in at Milford.

National Policy Statement – Urban Development

17      The NPS on Urban Development has now been issued by Government and comes into effect from 1 December 2016.

18      The NPS provides direction on planning for urban environments and requires local authorities to both enable urban environments to grow and change in response to the changing needs of the communities, and future generations and provide enough space for their populations to happily live and work. While the NPS will particularly affect medium to high growth communities it does apply across all local authorities.


 

Services and Assets

Stewart Island Wharfing Infrastructure

19      As indicated previously Southport have written to Council indicating that they no longer wish to retain the ownership and operating responsibility for the Golden Bay wharf on Stewart Island. The wharf simply does not generate the revenue needed to ensure that it remains commercially viable.

20      Following discussions with Southport, officers have developed a project definition to look at the medium – long term needs for the provision of wharfing infrastructure on the Island and how these needs are best met and funded.

21      A report seeking support for a comprehensive review of the current and future needs for wharfing infrastructure is being submitted to the Community Board and Council for formal approval and the allocation of funding needed to enable the project to progress. Note that it is important that the project proceed with a degree of urgency given the pending withdrawal of Southport from the Golden Bay facility.

Te Anau Wastewater

22      Council was granted consent for discharge of treated wastewater at the Kepler block in 2015. The consent was subsequently appealed to the Environment Court by Fiordland Sewage Options (FSO) and two other appellants. While the FSO appeal remains live the other two appellants have withdrawn their appeal.

23      Officers attended Environment Court assisted mediation with the appellants to the Kepler resource consent appeal process in June and October. While the discussions were productive the parties were unable to reach an agreed settlement position.

24      The Environment Court has now set the appeal down for a hearing in the weeks commencing 29 May and 6 June 2017. The parties will now need to work towards the preparation and exchange of evidence in accordance with this timetable. 

Around the Mountain Cycle Trail

25      The Environment Court released its decision on the appeal by Fish and Game against the consent that was granted for section 8 of the ATMCT on 14 November.

26      In its decision the Court has upheld the Fish and Game appeal meaning that the consent has now been declined. Officers have had work completed to analyse the decision and provide advice for Council on the options that it has for responding to the decision including whether to lodge an appeal.

27      In parallel with decisions around whether or not to appeal the decision there is also a need for the Council to complete a ‘stocktake’ of the options that might exist for moving forward in light of the Environment Courts decision. Officers are scoping this work and will be looking to engage with the Project Governance Committee early in the new calendar year.

Curio Bay Project

28      Development of the new Curio Bay wastewater treatment plant is well advanced and proceeding in accordance with the project plan.

29      The Council application to the Mid-Sized Regional Tourism Facilities Fund was not successful. The feedback received that the application was of a high quality and that the project fitted the criteria apart from the fact that it was approved after 13 May, when the scheme was announced and was reliant on the funding to enable it to proceed.

30      It is important, for any future applications, that Council adopt a high level strategic approach to the development of facilities that will support growth from tourists/visitors to the district.

 

Resource Management

31      Mediation is being scheduled for the remaining appeals on the Proposed Southland District Plan. It is likely that mediation will occur in the first few months of 2017. There are five remaining appeals as four have already been resolved through previous mediation. It is likely that mediation will occur at the end of January or during February.

32      Council has declined a subdivision consent to create five new lots on Charles Nairn Road, Te Anau. An Independent Commissioner was appointed to hear and make a decision on the application. His reasons for declining the decision focused on maintaining the rural amenity of the area, the intensity and cumulative effects of development. The proposed average allotment size in the application was 1ha whereas the current average allotment size along William Stephen Road was approximately 2.9ha.

33      Council has recently approved resource consent for a commercial airport approximately 2km south of the Kingston Township. The application seeks to establish a hanger, grass strip and operate up to 10 aircraft and 10 helicopter movements per day. The closest dwelling (who has provided approval) is approximately 1.1km from the airstrip.

Resource Consents and Other Resource Management Act Items - April to October 2016

34      Attached to this report is a schedule of the non-notified resource consents and other Resource Management Act items processed by the Resource Management Department staff, under delegation from the Council during April to October 2016.

April 2016

35      An average processing time of 17.42 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 14 non-notified consents processed.  Eleven consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe. The 3 consents processed outside of the statutory timeframe were as a result of applicants wishing to view a draft decision prior to issue and all provided a section 37 timeframe extension.

36      Also processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified application; (1) Certificate of Compliance application; (2) Withdrawn applications; (1) Section 348 Right of Way Extension of timeframe application; (1) Section 243(e) Cancellation of Easement application and (2) Section 241 Cancellation of Amalgamation applications. 

37      The number of applications processed was average this month with 14 non-notified consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application. 

May 2016

38      An average processing time of 13.86 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 22 non-notified consents processed.  All consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.

39      Also processed during this timeframe was (1) Section 348 Right of Way application; and (1) Section 241 Cancellation of Amalgamation application. 

40      The number of applications processed was higher this month with 22 non-notified consents being processed.

 

 

June 2016

41      An average processing time of 18.11 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 17 non-notified consents processed.  Twelve consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe. Of the 5 consents processed outside the statutory timeframe 2 consents were granted Section 37 extension of timeframe while the applicant reviewed the draft decision; 1 consent was historic (lodged in 2007) and the 20 working day timeframe is not applicable and 2 consents were subject to a discount for going overtime by 1 day.

42      Also processed during this timeframe were (2) Certificate of Compliance applications and (2) Section 243(e) Cancellation of Easement applications. 

43      The number of applications processed was average this month with 17 non-notified consents being processed.

July 2016

44      An average processing time of 19.14 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 14 non-notified consents processed.  Eleven of the resource consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.

45      The higher average processing time was a result of one application taking much longer to process - the information lodged was insufficient and it was thought the application had been returned to the applicant under Section 88(3), but due to internal miscommunication this had not occurred.

46      Also processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified Land Use application; (2) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice applications; (1) Section 243(e) Cancellation of Easement application and (1) Section 127 Change or Cancellation of Condition application. 

47      The number of applications processed was lower this month with 14 non-notified consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application.  July is traditionally a quieter month.

August 2016

48      An average processing time of 16.45 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 11 non-notified consents processed.  All of the resource consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.

49      Also processed during this timeframe was (1) Section 127 Change or Cancellation of Condition application and (1) Withdrawn application. 

50      The number of applications processed was lower this month with 11 non-notified consents being processed.  August is traditionally a quieter month being winter, with less activity.

September 2016

51      An average processing time of 18.08 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 12 non-notified consents processed.  Three consents were processed outside of the 20 working day statutory timeframe. In all three instances this was due to the applicant wishing to review the draft decision and a Section 37 timeframe extension was granted by the applicant.

52      Also processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified Land Use application; (1) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice application and (2) Section 88 applications returned to the applicants as incomplete. 

53      The number of applications processed was lower this month with 12 non-notified consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application. 

October 2016

54      An average processing time of 17.64 working days from receipt of all required information was achieved for the 28 non-notified consents processed.  21 consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe. Those that were processed outside of the statutory timeframe were all as a result of applicants wishing to review the decision before issue - with the exception of one consent where issue was delayed as a result of staff illness.

55      Also processed during this timeframe were (2) Section 127 Change of Condition applications; (2) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice applications; (1) Section 139 Certificate of Compliance application; (3) Section 243(g) Cancellation of Easement applications and (1) Section 241 Cancellation of Amalgamation Condition application. 

56      The number of applications processed was higher this month with 28 non-notified consents being processed. 

 

Community and Futures

Strategy and Policy

57      The 2017/18 annual plan is currently being developed and local estimates meetings are underway. A Councillors’ workshop will be held on 15 December 2016 to discuss issues affecting the development of the plan.

58      Progress on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) continues. The infrastructure strategy and financial strategy are in the process of being developed and will be presented to Council in early 2017. Activity planning has commenced whereby all activity managers review their activities in preparation for the LTP. There are a number of work streams occurring as part of the LTP project including the review of policies, budgeting, community board and CDA planning, the review of performance measures and community engagement. A Council workshop is planned for 15 December 2016 to review arising policy issues.

Governance

59      Introduction workshops were completed for all Community Boards, with support from CPLs, during November. There was good turnout with discussion amongst Board members at each meeting on how they wished to operate. The inaugural Board meetings were held in late November and early December.

60      There has also been a significant level of work required to support the Council induction process and establishment of the new Council Committee Structure. A number of Councillors attended the LGNZ Elected Members induction programme held in Gore on 8 December 2016.

61      A two day Councillor tour of Western Southland was also completed.

Community Partnership Leaders

62      The CPLs will be working with each of their Community Boards and CDAs to develop Community Leadership Plans outlining the key goals and strategic priorities that each Board/CDA wants to see progressed their community. The development of these plans will comment following the CDA elections in March 2017.

63      Work has been progressed to finalise a Southland District Community Facilities Assessment project brief. This project is looking at how we might complete an assessment of the current range of facilities and what might be needed in the future. The project definition is complete and with Venture Southland for action.

64      Involvement with Ministry of Education concerning possible Western Southland Community of Learning initiative.

 

Building Control

65      Building Consent numbers for October 2016 were back by 14% and Project Values back by 19% from those of the corresponding 2015 period.  Four months into the new financial year, total Building Consent numbers are up by 3%, but Project Values are back by 15%. All Building Category consent numbers were back slightly with the except for Commercial, Heating Unit and Houses for Removal consents which were up on the corresponding period for last financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.

                  2016

                        $

 

No.

                 2015

                       $

 

1.

Dwellings

12

3,193,600

16

4,189,800

2.

Additions to Dwellings

8

239,000

10

432,000

3.

Commercial/Industrial Buildings

8

2,015,154

8

1,582,212

4.

Swimming/Spa Pools

0

0

0

0

5.

Heating Units

10

40,500

2

7,250

6.

Garages

3

18,000

12

327,400

7.

Farm Buildings

10

392,340

12

621,500

8.

Houses for Removal

6

151,000

3

10,000

9.

Cowsheds

0

0

1

200,000

10.

Miscellaneous

3

23,500

4

63,565

11.

Certificates of Acceptance

0

0

2

42,000

 

TOTAL

60

6,073,094

7070

7,475,727

 

 

2016

2015

Variation %

Total consents for month

60

70

-14.29

Total consents for year

346

335

3.28

Total project values for month

6,073,094

7,475,727

-18.76

Total project values for year

24,622,676

28,800,675

-14.51

 

 

 

 

Average Residential Cost

290,327

261,863

 

Average House Area (m2)

183.09

247.83

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Inspections Carried Out

350

397

 

 

66      Building consent numbers for November are up by 21% from 90 in 2015 to 109 in 2016. However the total value of work is down by .66% and the project value is down 11.3% from the corresponding period last year. The total number of consents for the year is up 7% from 425 in 2015 to 455 in 2016. There were 15 applications for new dwellings most of these were in the Te Anau area. There were 9 commercial consent applications which were distributed around the district and 18 farm buildings which included tanks for effluent storage.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

No.

                  2016

                        $

 

No.

                 2015

                       $

 

1.

Dwellings

25

5,227,000

20

4,829,000

2.

Additions to Dwellings

21

764,580

17

1,690,000

3.

Commercial/Industrial Buildings

9

647,458

6

228,000

4.

Swimming/Spa Pools

1

35,000

0

0

5.

Heating Units

21

76,200

7

28,626

6.

Garages

7

133,600

7

127,200

7.

Farm Buildings

19

1,176,800

20

1,192,000

8.

Houses for Removal

4

104,350

3

200,000

9.

Cowsheds

1

308,850

1

200,000

10.

Miscellaneous

2

8,000

7

36,000

11.

Certificates of Acceptance

0

0

2

7,500

 

TOTAL

11010

8,481,838

9090

8,538,326

 

 

2016

2015

Variation %

Total consents for month

110

90

22.22

Total consents for year

455

425

7.06

Total project values for month

8,481,838

8,538,326

-0.66

Total project values for year

33,104,514

37,339,001

-11.34

 

 

 

 

Average Residential Cost

435,583

241,450

 

Average House Area (m2)

250.90

199.54

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Inspections Carried Out

331

417

 

 

67      Attached to this report are the detailed statistics for Building Consents.

 

Information Services

Property File Digitisation

68      Currently, we are still working in ‘Pilot’ mode which means that only a small part of the paper property files have been sent away to be scanned (approximately. 2400 property files).  This is allowing us to refine the various quality assurance processes that are required to ensure that the scanning process is meeting the standard we need. 

69      The recent North Canterbury earthquakes have created a challenge with the movement of property files to be scanned given the pressure that is now on transport services. An interim solution has been found which will allow some files to be moved with a major shipment delayed until the first part of 2017. This risk will continue to be monitored.


 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Management Report” dated 8 December 2016.

 

 

Attachments

a         Resource Consent Activity April - October 2016

b         Consents Database Graph - October 2016

c         Building Consents Issued Numbers - October 2016

d         Building Consents Issued Values - October 2016

e         Consents Database Graph - November 2016

f          Building Consents Issued Numbers - November 2016

g         Building Consents Issued Values - November 2016    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

April 2016

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2013/53051

C J Lindsay

385 Feldwick Road, Feldwick

Waiau Aparima

Indigenous vegetation modification - three small degraded peat bogs as part of a development programme

24

1,000.00

Marcus Roy

22/04/2016

withdrawn

2015/53178

Enterprising Faith Limited

85 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Operate scenic and fishing boat trips on Lake Te Anau with guided walks in Fiordland National Park

13

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

20/04/2016

withdrawn

2015/53210

Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited

10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau

Waiau Aparima

Establish and operate a Rural Supplies Store

80

11,098.00

Jennifer Green

29/04/2016

Limited Notified

2016/53017

A C O'Meara and

T W Sorensen

29 Weir Road, Waianiwa

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - three lots - Split consent see 360/10/16/39

25

584.25

Theresa Cameron

1/04/2016

2016/53019

I C Ward

69 Palmerston Street, Riverton North

Waiau Aparima

Subdivide to create two lots

15

540.00

Olivia Krielen

28/04/2016

2016/53028

Carran Scott Contracting Company Limited

580 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Earthworks - Gravel extraction

9

1,826.00

Jennifer Green

5/04/2016

2016/53031

Southern Centre Dairies Limited

851 Hokonui School Road, Browns

Winton Wallacetown

Earthworks - Gravel extraction - 7,000 m3 per year as a commercial quarry

22

870.00

Marcus Roy

20/04/2016

2016/53035

Apolima Farms Limited

1264 Riverton Otautau Road, Gummies Bush - Gropers Bush

Waiau Aparima

Rural subdivision -Two lots

13

500.00

Marcus Roy

4/04/2016

2016/53036

Two Degrees Mobile Limited

1103 Woodlands Invercargill Highway, Woodlands

Waihopai Toetoes

Establishment and maintenance and operation of telecommunications facility.

15

500.00

Olivia Krielen

1/04/2016

2016/53039

A C O'Meara and

T W Sorensen

29 Weir Road, Waianiwa

Winton Wallacetown

Building platforms within 150 m separation

25

584.25

Theresa Cameron

1/04/2016

2016/53040

Alliance Group Limited

225 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

Industrial Subdivision - Six lot subdivision - Split consent see also 360/10/16/41 and 360/10/16/42

19

310.00

Marcus Roy

21/04/2016

2016/53041

Alliance Group Limited

175 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

S348 approval to create an Easement for Right of Way - Split consent see also 360/10/16/40 and 360/10/16/42

19

310.00

Marcus Roy

21/04/2016

2016/53042

Alliance Group Limited

175 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

Land use - cancellation  of existing S241 (2) certificates - Split consent, see also 360/10/16/40 and 360/10/16/41

19

310.00

Marcus Roy

21/04/2016

2016/53043

R L McNaught and

D G McNaught

136 Forbes Road, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

11

5,500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

6/04/2016

2016/53046

Kendalvale Farms Limited

159 Teviotdale Road, Isla Bank

Waiau Aparima

Erect a wintering shed

12

500.00

Theresa Cameron

12/04/2016

2016/53047

Glenfalloch Limited

63 Waikawa Valley Road, Waikawa Valley

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

19

500.00

Olivia Krielen

21/04/2016

2016/53049

Castlerock Dairies Limited

109 Double Road, Castlerock

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

20

500.00

Olivia Krielen

20/04/2016

2016/53050

The Power Company Limited

253 Sinclair Road, Browns

Winton Wallacetown

Certificate of Compliance - NES - Cabinet and antenna as now PA'S under the INF.1 Rule

14

500.00

Marcus Roy

13/04/2016

2016/53051

Castlerock Dairies Limited

647 Sutherland Road, Castlerock

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two allotments

20

740.00

Olivia Krielen

20/04/2016

2016/53053

T A D O'Brien and

K A O'Brien

94 McLean Road, Garston

Mararoa Waimea

Section 226 - split consent see 360/10/16/54

19

255.00

Marcus Roy

28/04/2016

2016/53054

T A D O'Brien and

K A O'Brien

94 McLean Road, Garston

Mararoa Waimea

Cancellation of a Section 241 certificate - split consent see 360/10/16/53

19

255.00

Marcus Roy

28/04/2016

2016/53065

Manildra Stockfeeds

NZ Pty Ltd

226 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

Section 234(e) approval to cancel an existing easement

12

240.00

Marcus Roy

21/04/2016

 

 


 

May 2016

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2015/53249

N D Cleaver and

B S Cleaver

144 Colac Foreshore Road, Colac Bay - Tihaka

Waiau Aparima

Build new dwelling within 1 metre if the side boundary

6

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

3/05/2016

2016/53004

P A Buick

589 Ryal Bush Wallacetown Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

Two Lot Subdivision - Buick Subdivision

14

500.00

Jennifer Green

5/05/2016

2016/53018

Blue Sky Meats (NZ) Limited

729 Woodlands Morton Mains Road, Morton Mains

Waihopai Toetoes

Construct an effluent pond

13

500.00

Olivia Krielen

6/05/2016

2016/53021

Haurua Farm Limited

435 Orion Road West, Makarewa West

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision

13

1,359.00

Theresa Cameron

31/05/2016

2016/53030

Te Anau Lodge (2007) Limited

229 Milford Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Erect a sign to advertise our Bed and Breakfast.

10

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

4/05/2016

2016/53034

Opus International Consultants Limited - Dunedin

966 Athol Five Rivers Highway, Five Rivers - Parawa

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - To facilitate the disposal of former Kingston Branch Railway land

4

750.00

Theresa Cameron

31/05/2016

2016/53045

Longwood Farms Limited

142 Endowment Road, Pebbly Hills

Winton Wallacetown

Earthworks - Gravel extraction - up to 11,000 m3 per year for 15 years

18

840.00

Kelwyn Osborn

30/05/2016

2016/53048

W M Renton

17 Lyne Street, Nightcaps

Waiau Aparima

To keep two horses on site.

15

500.00

Olivia Krielen

25/05/2016

2016/53052

Ralph Moir and Associates

65 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood

Waiau Aparima

Section 348 application to create a Right of Way

18

540.00

Theresa Cameron

10/05/2016

2016/53055

D R Bleasel

361 Great North Road, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Urban Subdivision - Two new allotments - split consent see 360/10/16/74

19

600.00

Olivia Krielen

5/05/2016

2016/53057

A Irving and M A Irving

205 Blondell Road, Kennington

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Three new allotments

16

500.00

Jennifer Green

2/05/2016

2016/53059

Quarter Moon Limited

59 Lynwood Road, Hillside

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

14

500.00

Marcus Roy

5/05/2016

2016/53060

R J Flynn

52 Orbell Crescent, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Urban Subdivision - Boundary adjustment

13

740.00

Kelwyn Osborn

6/05/2016

2016/53061

Seaview Trust

746 Rimu Seaward Downs Road, Oteramika

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two allotments

14

1,147.10

Theresa Cameron

13/05/2016

2016/53062

Two Degrees Mobile Limited

25 Scenic Reserve Road, Edendale

Waihopai Toetoes

Telecommunications installation

14

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

23/05/2016

2016/53063

W J Gill

63 Northview Avenue, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Construct a dwelling that is in breach of the front yard setback

20

500.00

Olivia Krielen

13/05/2016

2016/53064

Paddock 186 Limited and G K Hull

186 Waimatuku Flat Road, Waimatuku - Wrights Bush

Winton Wallacetown

To operate a commercial kitchen and dining activity

29

1,403.00

Olivia Krielen

31/05/2016

2016/53066

B R Gray and G K Gray

197 Collinson Road, Ryal Bush

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

16

500.00

Jennifer Green

17/05/2016

2016/53069

Jayal Trust

36 Moana Crescent, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To increase the car parking area at FreshChoice Supermarket-Te Anau

18

600.00

Olivia Krielen

31/05/2016

2016/53071

Aurum Farming Limited

2533 Wreys Bush Mossburn Road, Dunrobin

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - split consent see 360/10/16/72 - cancellation Section 241 certificate

16

250.00

Kelwyn Osborn

24/05/2016

2016/53072

Aurum Farming Limited

2533 Wreys Bush Mossburn Road, Dunrobin

Mararoa Waimea

Cancellation of Section 241 certificate - split consent - see 360/10/16/71- subdivision

16

250.00

Kelwyn Osborn

24/05/2016

2016/53073

P J Balneaves and

V J Balneaves

36 Taramea Bay Road, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

Erect a garage on the boundary

13

500.00

Marcus Roy

18/05/2016

2016/53081

R K Imlach and

P R Imlach

31 Towack Street, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

Construct a single level dwelling that breaches the height recession plane

13

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

31/05/2016

2016/53090

R G Horrell and

L S Horrell

52 Breaksea Street, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Construction of a carport

8

500.00

Marcus Roy

31/05/2016

 

 


 

June 2016

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2007/53172

G W Keen and

R A Keen

185 Devereux Road, Lady Barkly

Winton Wallacetown

To create two new allotments

28

550.00

Jennifer Green

16/06/2016

2016/53056

Land Information New Zealand

Unassessed land at Lumsden

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

18

500.00

Jennifer Green

29/06/2016

2016/53067

C E F Kidd

10 Thomsons Crossing Road West, Thomsons Crossing

Winton Wallacetown

Construct a dwelling and two sheds which are workshops for building company.

15

720.00

Marcus Roy

28/06/2016

2016/53068

The Carrington Trust

1157 Garston Athol Highway, Athol

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - spilt consent see 360/10/16/92- breach of recession plane.

14

370.00

Kelwyn Osborn

3/06/2016

2016/53075

R J W Faulkner

140 North Makarewa Grove Bush Road, Ryal Bush

Winton Wallacetown

Section 139 Certificate of Compliance - Moving the approved building platform

20

360.00

Olivia Krielen

2/06/2016

2016/53079

LM Rentals Limited

43 Mary Street, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Urban Subdivision - Two new allotments

19

250.00

Olivia Krielen

7/06/2016

2016/53080

Alliance Group Limited

225 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme

Winton Wallacetown

Section 127 Change of Condition -Variation to Subdivision 360/1016/40 / 360/1016/41 and 360/10/16/42

17

750.00

Marcus Roy

7/06/2016

2016/53083

Bare Hill Limited

2700 Otapiri Mandeville Road, Hokonui Hills

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

19

540.00

Theresa Cameron

13/06/2016

2016/53085

M I Hagen

415 Weir Road, Freestone - Mararoa

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Three new allotments

24

750.00

Theresa Cameron

20/06/2016

2016/53086

C M Adams and

P A Adams

(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 250 Carmichael Road

Waiau Aparima

New transportable dwellings - The dwellings are within 200 m of a designated gravel pit.

17

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

10/06/2016

2016/53088

J Lewis

7 Carlyle Street, Tuatapere

Waiau Aparima

Urban Subdivision - Three Lots - Split Consent see 360/10/16/89

20

657.60

Marcus Roy

20/06/2016

2016/53089

J Lewis

7 Carlyle Street, Tuatapere

Waiau Aparima

Section 243(e) - Cancel easement - Split consent see 360/10/16/88

20

657.60

Marcus Roy

20/06/2016

2016/53091

C M Withington and

S C Howden and

M S Thomas

30 Counsell Road, Makarewa

Winton Wallacetown

To shift the approved building platform 360/10/15/62

21

500.00

Jennifer Green

29/06/2016

2016/53092

The Carrington Trust

1157 Garston Athol Highway, Athol

Mararoa Waimea

Breach of recession plane - Split consent see 360/10/16/68

14

370.00

Kelwyn Osborn

3/06/2016

2016/53094

B. & M. Scammell Limited

4 Price Road, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Two allotments- split consent see 360/10/16/95

21

250.00

Kelwyn Osborn

29/06/2016

2016/53095

B. & M. Scammell Limited

4 Price Road, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

To locate a dwelling within the building platform identified on Lot 2 - Split consent see 360/10/16/94

21

250.00

Kelwyn Osborn

29/06/2016

2016/53096

B M Brand

750 Woodlands Invercargill Highway, Longbush

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Three lots - split consent see 360/10/16/97

16

500.00

Olivia Krielen

23/06/2016

2016/53097

B M Brand

750 Woodlands Invercargill Highway, Longbush

Waihopai Toetoes

Section 139 Certificate of compliance -To locate a dwelling within the identified building platform on Lots 1-3 - split consent see 360/10/16/96

16

500.00

Olivia Krielen

23/06/2016

2016/53099

LM Rentals Limited

43 Mary Street, Otautau

Waiau Aparima

Existing shed to breach recession plane and side yard requirements - Split consent see 360/10/16/79

19

250.00

Olivia Krielen

7/06/2016

2016/53100

Bob's Concrete & Building Limited

52 Home Street, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement

16

240.00

Marcus Roy

22/06/2016

2016/53105

A L van Uden and

J D MacManus

9 McGregor Court, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Carport which breaches the side yard boundary and height recession plane.

5

500.00

Olivia Krielen

21/06/2016

 

 

 


 

July 2016

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2016/53077

Department of Conservation Invercargill Office

601 Waikawa Curio Bay Road, Slope Point - Curio Bay

Waihopai Toetoes

To undertake an amenity upgrade at Curio Bay incorporating construction of a new visitor car park, realignment of part of Mair Road and construction of the new road alignment.

25

1,350.00

Jennifer Green

21/07/2016

2016/53078

A L McCracken

1 Dover Street, Orepuki

Waiau Aparima

“Off-site signage”

85

249.98

Marcus Roy

4/07/2016

2016/53082

E A Stephens

32 Otahuti Wrights Bush Road South, Waimatuku - Wrights Bush

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment - Bundle consent with 360/16/124

16

562.50

Theresa Cameron

20/07/2016

2016/53093

Pahia Point Limited

87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood

Waiau Aparima

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/129 and 360/10/16/130

24

580.66

Theresa Cameron

29/07/2016

2016/53101

L F Strang

98 Waimatuku Township Road, Waimatuku

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Three new allotments

18

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

1/07/2016

2016/53103

J L Meikle

51 Tokanui Gorge Road Highway, Gorge Road

Waihopai Toetoes

(Opus) Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

16

740.00

Dianne Williams

4/07/2016

2016/53108

B J Irwin and R M Irwin

83 Dejoux Road, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

(Opus) Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

7

740.00

Dianne Williams

5/07/2016

2016/53109

Fiordland Outdoors Company Limited

12 Paton Place, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To locate a four bay shed and office building

20

720.00

Olivia Krielen

19/07/2016

2016/53110

Firdale Farms Limited

377 Edendale Seaward Downs Road, Menzies Ferry

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

11

740.00

Kelwyn Osborn

8/07/2016

2016/53113

C J Jane and T D Jane

473 Waikawa Curio Bay Road, Waikawa

Waihopai Toetoes

To build and extension to an existing dwelling

8

500.00

Kelwyn Osborn

20/07/2016

2016/53114

I J Maher

2 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To operate a bed and breakfast accommodation

7

744.00

Theresa Cameron

27/07/2016

2016/53114

I J Maher

2 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To operate a bed and breakfast accommodation

7

744.00

Theresa Cameron

27/07/2016

2016/53116

J W Caldwell and

A J Caldwell

16 Douglas Street, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Section 348 - Right of way easement

17

360.00

Theresa Cameron

22/07/2016

2016/53117

Fiordland Trails Trust

234 Golf Course Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Section 348 - Right of way easement

20

360.00

Marcus Roy

27/07/2016

2016/53118

P H van Berkel

(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 75 Brightwater Road

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent see 360/10/16/119 - cancellation of easement

19

709.50

Kelwyn Osborn

27/07/2016

2016/53119

P H van Berkel

(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 75 Brightwater Road

Mararoa Waimea

Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement - Bundle consent see 360/10/16/118

19

240.00

Kelwyn Osborn

27/07/2016

2016/53125

L J Rule

948 Wilsons Crossing Road, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

(Opus) To construct an additional dwellinghouse and accessory building on the site of an existing dwellinghouse.

3

1,020.00

Dianne Williams

27/07/2016

2016/53125

L J Rule

948 Wilsons Crossing Road, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

(Opus) To construct an additional dwellinghouse and accessory building on the site of an existing dwellinghouse.

3

1,020.00

Dianne Williams

28/07/2016

2016/53126

G P Robson and

B J Robson

58 Achison Road, Ryal Bush

Winton Wallacetown

(Opus) To erect a garage within the 4.5 metre front yard setback

6

600.00

Dianne Williams

27/07/2016

2016/53129

Pahia Point Limited

87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood

Waiau Aparima

Section 127 - Cancellation of conditions - upgrade to SH intersection no longer required as part of Resource Consent 60/3/05/180 - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/93 and 360/10/16/130

24

580.66

Theresa Cameron

29/07/2016

2016/53130

Pahia Point Limited

87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood

Waiau Aparima

Section 221(3) - Part Cancellation of easement of consent notice 60/3/05/180 - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/93 and 360/10/16/129

24

580.66

Theresa Cameron

29/07/2016

2016/53124

E A Stephens

32 Otahuti Wrights Bush Road

Winton Wallacetown

Section 221(3) - Cancellation of Consent Notice

1

562.50

Theresa Cameron

19/07/2016

2015/53182

Winton Skate Park Trust

37 John Street, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Develop and construct a multi use skate park

123

TBC

Kelwyn Osborn

10/08/2016

Limited Notified

 

 

 


 

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2016/53102

Nelson Petroleum Distributors Limited

37 Devon Street, Mossburn

Mararoa Waimea

Establishment of a 24-hour self-service fuel facility

20

3,065.00

Theresa Cameron

15/08/2016

2016/53104

Fiordland Outdoors Company Limited

1000 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Surface water activity - Commercial jet boat with two boats on the upper Waiau and the Waiau Arm of Lake Manapouri down to the Mararoa Weir and a commercial water taxi service on the Upper Waiau River and the Waiau Arm of Lake Manapouri down to the Mararoa Weir

9

930.00

Kelwyn Osborn

11/08/2016

2016/53111

Pahia Point Limited

375 Frentz Road, Pahia

Waiau Aparima

(Opus) Rural subdivision - Three allotments - Bundle consent 360/10/16/112 - Land use consent to erect dwellings on proposed building platforms A and B

16

1,779.00

Dianne Williams

8/08/2016

2016/53112

Pahia Point Limited

375 Frentz Road, Pahia

Waiau Aparima

(Opus) To erect dwellings on proposed building platforms A and B - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/111 - Subdivision three lots

16

240.00

Dianne Williams

8/08/2016

2016/53122

R J Miller and

T E V Miller

499 Riversdale Waikaia Road, Waipounamu

Mararoa Waimea

Build within 150 metres of neighbours’ dwelling

17

600.00

Theresa Cameron

22/08/2016

2016/53127

J S Burrows and

Y M Campbell-Burrows

128 Rocks Highway, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

Build new dwelling and detached garage

20

600.00

Olivia Krielen

16/08/2016

2016/53128

Southland District Council

120 Stevens Road, Niagara

Waihopai Toetoes

Earthworks - Develop and extract further material from existing historical Mairs quarry site

20

1,507.25

Kelwyn Osborn

26/08/2016

2016/53132

N P Terpstra and

D E Terpstra

392 Kennington Roslyn Bush Road, Roslyn Bush

Waihopai Toetoes

Section 127 - Removal of Condition 8 from Resource Consent 360/10/08/353

6

500.00

Olivia Krielen

5/08/2016

2016/53133

L A Smith

136 Howden Street, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Dwelling that breaches the recession plane on the east side

7

0.00

Olivia Krielen

5/08/2016

withdrawn

2016/53134

P B Smith and

S A Smith

202 Mona Bush Road, Longbush

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

17

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

23/08/2016

2016/53135

M J Gill

95 Gill Road, Merrivale

Waiau Aparima

Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

13

600.00

Olivia Krielen

17/08/2016

2016/53136

Tralee Vale Farm Limited

465 Kennington Waimatua Road, Waimatua

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

15

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

23/08/2016

2016/53142

Real Journeys Limited

74 Waiau Street, Manapouri

Mararoa Waimea

To operate upto four commercial vessels on Lake Manapouri

18

570.00

Marcus Roy

29/08/2016

August 2016


 

September 2016

 

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2016/53058

Waipounamu Contracting Limited

69 Riversdale Waikaia Road, Riversdale

Mararoa Waimea

Rural contractors storage yard

83

TBC

Theresa Cameron

30/09/2016

Limited Notified

2016/53098

Driffield Farming Limited

209 Hamlyn Road, Barnhill

Mararoa Waimea

Earthworks - Gravel extraction upto 20,000 m3 over a five year period

13

600.00

Olivia Krielen

5/09/2016

2016/53139

Gap Road Services Limited

83 Dejoux Road, Winton

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

23

600.00

Jennifer Green

6/09/2016

2016/53140

D J Richardson and

J E N Gray

889 Lorne Dacre Road, Rakahouka

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Three new allotments - Bundle consent see 360/10/16/153 - two new building platforms

15

300.00

Jennifer Green

6/09/2016

2016/53141

Driffield Farming Limited

30 Hamlyn Road, Barnhill

Mararoa Waimea

(Opus) Redpath Steel Framed Standoff Shelter

14

600.00

Dianne Williams

9/09/2016

2016/53145

S J Stock and

M T Stock

348 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/146- cancellation of consent notice

24

300.00

Kelwyn Osborn

27/09/2016

2016/53146

S J Stock and

M T Stock

348 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Section 221(3) - Cancellation of consent notice - Bundle consent 360/10/16/145

24

300.00

Kelwyn Osborn

27/09/2016

2016/53150

J A Macmillan Armstrong and S J Macmillan Armstrong

135 William Stephen Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Shift the building platform and build new dwelling.

20

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

19/09/2016

2016/53151

Tower Peak Holdings Limited

1793 Blackmount Redcliff Road, Whare Creek - The Key

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment

26

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

28/09/2016

2016/53153

D J Richardson and

J E N Gray

889 Lorne Dacre Road, Rakahouka

Winton Wallacetown

Two building platforms - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/140 - Subdivision

15

300.00

Jennifer Green

6/09/2016

2016/53156

R R Burgess and

B M Burgess

17 Orbell Crescent, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To establish visitor accommodation for up to nine people.

11

600.00

Olivia Krielen

9/09/2016

2016/53157

Southern Centre Dairies Limited

560 Browns Otapiri Road, Browns

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - four new allotments

20

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

28/09/2016

2016/53159

P Senior and

K Senior

85 William Stephen Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Create new building platform

20

600.00

Theresa Cameron

30/09/2016

2016/53160

R M Jones and

M R Jones

(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 50 Young Road

Winton Wallacetown

Build a dwelling within 150 m of neighbour’s property

16

600.00

Theresa Cameron

22/09/2016

2016/53162

J W McMillan and

R D McMillan

10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri

Mararoa Waimea

To erect a building platform

9

N/A

Dianne Williams

13/09/2016

Sec 88

2016/53174

G B Lawrence and

T A Hanna

23 Diana Street, Lumsden

Mararoa Waimea

To run a Sunday market between the hours of 9.30 am and 1.30 pm

5

N/A

Dianne Williams

26/09/2016

Sec 88


 

October 2016

Application Number

Applicant

Address

Ward

Description of Application

Working Days (from receipt of all information)

Total Costs Incurred

Processing Officer

Decision Date

2015/53253

T W Young

38 Manse Street, Edendale

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Three new allotments- split consent - land use consent - residential dwelling that does not meet the meet the 150 m separation

17

570.00

Marcus Roy

17/10/2016

2015/53254

T W Young

38 Manse Street, Edendale

Waihopai Toetoes

New dwelling breaches 150 m separation - spilt consent - see 360/10/15/253- subdivision

17

570.00

Marcus Roy

17/10/2016

2016/53026

GreenOcean Limited

2 Neva Street, Fortrose

Waihopai Toetoes

Subdivision - Create two lots - Split consent see also 360/10/16/27

27

918.75

Theresa Cameron

21/10/2016

2016/53027

GreenOcean Limited

2 Neva Street, Fortrose

Waihopai Toetoes

Residential dwelling - Split consent , see also 360/10/16/26

27

918.75

Theresa Cameron

21/10/2016

2016/53044

Bathurst Coal Limited

571 Sinclair Road, Opio

Waiau Aparima

Bathurst Coal Limited - Consent application for Black Diamond Mine, Tinkertown

39

3,734.50

Jennifer Green

6/10/2016

2016/53106

C W McCullough and

J M McCullough

76 Walker Street, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

(Opus) Rural subdivision - nine allotments - Bundle consent see 360/10/16/107 - Land Use Consent for building platforms

22

2,660.80

Dianne Williams

10/10/2016

2016/53107

C W McCullough and

J M McCullough

76 Walker Street, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

Building platforms- Bundle consent see 360/10/16/106 - Subdivision - nine allotments

22

2,660.80

Dianne Williams

10/10/2016

2016/53121

Riverton Racing Club Incorporated

2236 Riverton Wallacetown Highway, Riverton Racecourse

Waiau Aparima

Operate a parkover camp

20

500.00

Marcus Roy

31/10/2016

2016/53131

M L Dobbins and

B J Dobbins

7 Wohlers Road, Stewart Island

Stewart Island Rakiura

To build a garage

11

600.00

Jennifer Green

3/10/2016

2016/53147

S Dawson

46 Bungalow Hill Road, Colac Bay

Waiau Aparima

Rural boundary adjustment subdivision - Two new allotments

19

746.00

Olivia Krielen

11/10/2016

2016/53155

K M Martin

22 Boston Street, Riversdale

Mararoa Waimea

New dwelling - breach of 150 metre setback rule

15

600.00

Olivia Krielen

6/10/2016

2016/53158

P G Coats

208 Dryden Road, Colac Bay - Pahia

Waiau Aparima

Extension to existing dwelling

7

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

19/10/2016

2016/53161

A J Pope and

A M P Pope

1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

20

187.50

Theresa Cameron

3/10/2016

2016/53163

P M Callahan

160 Sinclair Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Rural subdivision - Two lots - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/164

20

386.00

Marcus Roy

11/10/2016

2016/53164

P M Callahan

160 Sinclair Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Section 139 Certificate of Compliance - To locate a 30 m x 30 m building platform on Lot 2 and to locate a dwelling within the building platform. Bundle consent with 360/10/16/163

20

386.00

Marcus Roy

11/10/2016

2016/53165

R D McMillan and

J W McMillan

10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri

Mararoa Waimea

Section 127 Change of Condition - To alter side of building platform - Bundle consent see

20

600.00

Theresa Cameron

12/10/2016

2016/53166

C M Stalker

(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 35 Tihaka Beach Road

Waiau Aparima

Application to change the farm shed to a dwelling.

5

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

27/10/2016

2016/53167

PF Olsen Limited

100 Rowallan Road, Rowallan

Waiau Aparima

Undertake exotic species harvest and cartage

20

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

11/10/2016

2016/53168

R P Murdoch and

K L Murdoch

31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Rural Zone - Boundary adjustment - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/169 (surrender of easements) and 360/10/16/170 cancellation if existing easement

22

300.00

Theresa Cameron

18/10/2016

2016/53169

R P Murdoch and

K L Murdoch

31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Section 241(2) - Surrender of easements for right of way- Bundle consent with 360/10/16/168 and 360/10/16/170

22

300.00

Theresa Cameron

18/10/2016

2016/53170

R P Murdoch and

K L Murdoch

31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Section 243(e) - Cancellation of the existing easement - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/168 and 360/10/16/169

22

300.00

Theresa Cameron

18/10/2016

2016/53171

Southland Educare

51 Pounamu Drive, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Early childcare centre

19

1,033.00

Jennifer Green

31/10/2016

2016/53172

W I Dawson and

J M Dawson

543 Flora Road East, Makarewa

Winton Wallacetown

Section 243(e) - Cancellation of a right of way easement

16

360.00

Theresa Cameron

12/10/2016

2016/53173

B R Gray and

G K Gray

197 Collinson Road, Ryal Bush

Winton Wallacetown

Construct a residential building within the proposed building platform

20

600.00

Theresa Cameron

20/10/2016

2016/53175

A J Pope and

A M P Pope

1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

Section 127 Change of Condition - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/76 and 360/10/16/177

20

187.50

Theresa Cameron

3/10/2016

2016/53176

A J Pope and

A M P Pope

1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

Section 221(3) - Part cancellation of consent notice - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/175 and 360/10/16/177

20

187.50

Theresa Cameron

3/10/2016

2016/53177

A J Pope and

A M P Pope

1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel

Winton Wallacetown

Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement - bundle consent with 360/10/16/175 and 360/10/16/176

20

187.50

Theresa Cameron

3/10/2016

2016/53178

N K Farm Limited

200 Progress Valley Road, Progress Valley

Waihopai Toetoes

Section 226

22

360.00

Theresa Cameron

27/10/2016

2016/53179

A J Hamilton and

J A Hamilton

217 Mayfield Road, Drummond

Waiau Aparima

Rural subdivision - two new allotments

19

600.00

Theresa Cameron

31/10/2016

2016/53180

J B Hopcroft and

J E Hopcroft

27 Hamlet Street, Riverton Rocks

Waiau Aparima

To create a building platform on Lots 1 and 2

19

600.00

Jennifer Green

31/10/2016

2016/53181

Southern Stars Early Learning Centre

18 Luxmore Drive, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

Extend existing building and refit areas internally.

12

600.00

Dianne Williams

18/10/2016

2016/53183

S J Cave

277 Horseshoe Bay Road, Stewart Island

Stewart Island Rakiura

Build a kitset shed

15

600.00

Olivia Krielen

27/10/2016

2016/53184

H N Laurie

787 Te Anau Mossburn Highway, Hillside

Mararoa Waimea

To build a shed/workshop

12

600.00

Olivia Krielen

18/10/2016

2016/53186

R D McMillan and

J W McMillan

10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri

Mararoa Waimea

Section 221(3) - Variation of consent notice - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/165

20

211.00

Theresa Cameron

12/10/2016

2016/53188

N A List

37 Kirkbride Street, Wallacetown

Winton Wallacetown

Versatile garage 1 m from the west boundary

11

600.00

Olivia Krielen

25/10/2016

2016/53189

D J Johnston and

D J Johnston

63 Howden Street, Te Anau

Mararoa Waimea

To construct a dwelling 3 m from the frontage

7

600.00

Olivia Krielen

18/10/2016

2016/53190

South Pro Woodlands Limited

262 Trotter Road, Longbush

Waihopai Toetoes

Rural subdivision - Two new allotments

8

600.00

Kelwyn Osborn

19/10/2016

 

 

 


Council

14 December 2016

 


Council

14 December 2016

 


 


Council

14 December 2016

 



Council

14 December 2016

 


Council

14 December 2016

 



Council

14 December 2016

 

 


Council

14 December 2016

sdclogo

 

Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project

Record No:        R/16/11/18406

Author:                 Michelle  Stevenson, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        This report provides an overview of a project around the medium to long term wharfing infrastructure needs of Stewart Island.  The wharves identified for consideration and involving wider community and stakeholder engagement are Ulva Island, Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory, Port William (all Southland District Council owned), and Golden Bay (Southport).

2        Staff are seeking approval for an allocation of unbudgeted expenditure to undertake this project.

Executive Summary

3        This is a project of strategic importance and has Local, District, Regional and National interest.  The project will include a Stewart Island community and stakeholder engagement process, and discussion around how and by whom these facilities are best delivered and how they might be funded. 

4        Southport NZ has approached Southland District Council (SDC) to consider the future ownership of Golden Bay wharf, which has prompted the need to consider a more strategic approach to the current and future provision of wharves on Stewart Island.

5        A marine engineering report of Golden Bay wharf has determined that the wharf is close to the end of its physical life, and requires immediate and short term maintenance to get it to a fit-for-purpose standard, and will require full replacement within five years.

6        Halfmoon Bay wharf is owned and operated by Southport NZ and is the principal wharf on the Island.  Halfmoon Bay wharf is outside the scope of this project and will not require additional revenue resources from SDC or the Island residents. Southport will, however, work with commercial users to ensure that the facility remains commercially viable.

7        Currently, the five SDC owned wharves and Golden Bay wharf do not generate sufficient revenue to cover the basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal.

8        The project identifies three key objectives to evaluate the current situation and assess future options and strategies, involving community and stakeholder engagement.

9        Staff recommend commissioning an independent facilitator to undertake the engagement process, and engage with an external agency for an independent business operations plan. 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project” dated 7 December 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)         Endorse the scope of the project and approves Council to engage in Community and Key Stakeholder consultation around wharfing provision and future requirements.

e)         Approves unbudgeted expenditure from the CEO’s Consultancy Budget up to a maximum of $25,000 for an external agency to carry out a business operation plan and to engage an independent facilitator to undertake the community and stakeholder engagement process.

 

Content

Background

10      Golden Bay Wharf:

Southport NZ has approached SDC to consider the future ownership of Golden Bay wharf, which has prompted the need to consider a more strategic approach to the current and future provision of wharves on Stewart Island.

11      A marine engineering report of Golden Bay wharf has determined that the wharf is close to the end of its physical life, and requires immediate and short term maintenance to get it to a fit-for-purpose standard, and will require full replacement within five years. The estimated cost over a five year period to repair, maintain and replace Golden Bay wharf is $255,000.00 + GST.

12      The current annual revenue received towards Golden Bay wharf is estimated at $12,710.00 of which $12,060.00 was obtained through a Southport administered $5 per passenger levy for the cruise ships that visit Stewart Island.  Due to the current condition of Golden Bay wharf, all cruise ships for the 2016/17 season will tender to the Halfmoon Bay wharf.

13      Ulva Island, Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory, Port William:

The five wharves currently owned by SDC are in varying states of condition, with two having known maintenance issues within the next two years, and one scheduled for full replacement in 2018/19 (Ulva Island). The remaining two are in very good condition.  There is not currently an annual maintenance programme in place, and the recommended maintenance expenditure for the five SDC owned wharves should be $21,250.00 pa.  The estimated cost of a single SDC jetty disposal or removal is $25,000.

 

14      The current sole revenue for SDC owned jetties is through the local tourism operators who pay a total combined Jetty User Licence fee of $14,257.00 pa. for the use of SDC owned jetties.

15      Ulva Island wharf receives approximately 65% of all annual visitors to the Island.  The remaining four SDC owned wharves are primarily utilised by DOC and local tourism operators.

16      Halfmoon Bay Wharf

 

Halfmoon Bay wharf is owned and operated by Southport NZ and is the principal wharf on the Island.  Halfmoon Bay wharf is outside the scope of this project and will not require additional revenue resources from SDC or the Island residents.

 

17      Southport NZ have indicated their commitment on a long-term basis to own, operate and maintain Halfmoon Bay Wharf and the Bluff Ferry Wharf. They will ensure that a commercial return is made via the user charges they impose upon users of these facilities.

18      Key stakeholders – tourism

There are a number of key public stakeholder organisations who have responsibility for and management of land and ventures on Stewart Island (DOC, Environment Southland and Rakiura Maori Land Trust).  All rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.

19      There are a number of local Small-Medium Enterprise tourism operators who all rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.

20      Fishing and tourism as the two main sources of livelihood for those living on Stewart Island, generating employment of approximately 158 full-time equivalent positions (roughly 61% of the working age population).

21      Local tourism operators make up the sole Jetty revenue for SDC on the Island.  The operators utilise approximately $1.1m of asset for $1,350 each pa.

 

22      Golden Bay wharf – Aquaculture

Aquaculture on the Island currently consists of Mussel, Oyster and King Salmon farming, and workers are transported to their facilities by freight vessel accessed by Golden Bay wharf.  Due to the limited roading infrastructure and isolation of Stewart Island, existing aquaculture (and any new aquaculture opportunities) rely heavily on sea or air based support – suggesting compromised access to wharves on Stewart Island may directly compromise existing and future aquaculture on the Island.

 

Issues

23      Approach taken to determining the future of wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island

Currently, the five SDC owned wharves and Golden Bay wharf do not generate sufficient revenue to cover the basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal. The project identifies three key objectives to evaluate the current situation and assess future options and strategies:

·    Identify the current use, user and owner needs of the wharfing infrastructure, and what opportunities need to be developed to support future provision requirements

·    Determine a community engagement and consultation process that will determine the short, medium and long term user needs of the wharves.  This will include an understanding of how the wharves are perceived by the community, the perceived and actual value of the wharves, the implications for community of any reduction or privatisation in wharf access

 

·    Determine a key stakeholder engagement process that will include tourism industry users, aquaculture users and freight companies; identify actual and perceived implications for any changes to the current wharfing infrastructure.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

24      There are no legal or statutory requirements to consider.

Community Views

25      Community and key stakeholder views will be considered during the community engagement process.

Costs and Funding

26      Staff are seeking approval for unbudgeted expenditure from the CEO Consultancy budget to cover the costs of an external business plan and workshop facilitation to a limit of $25,000.

27      Engaging an independent agency to provide a business operational plan allows for an equitable and independent report of the current state and expected future needs of the wharfing infrastructure.

28      Engaging an independent facilitator to undertake the community and stakeholder engagement and consultation process, provides Council the opportunity to seek independent feedback lowering any perceived Council agenda around the future of wharfing infrastructure needs on the Island. 

Policy Implications

29      There are no immediate policy implications for this project.

 

Analysis

Options Considered

30      Council could consider the following three options:

·    Option 1: Undertake the project with existing Council resources

·    Option 2: Engage with an external and independent facilitator and agency

·    Option 3: Not undertake the project

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Undertake the project with existing Council resources

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Unbudgeted expenditure not required

·        Utilise existing skill base within Council

 

·        High risk of actual and perceived bias towards a Council desired outcome

·        High risk of dissention throughout the engagement process

·        Risk that outcomes are not supported by the community or key stakeholders.

 

Option 2 – Engage with an external and independent facilitator and agency

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Engagement with the Stewart Island community and key stakeholders in an unbiased discussion

·        Assist to rebuild trust within the Community through an independent and transparent process

·        Expertise in community engagement and business planning available to a very high standard.

·        Unbudgeted expenditure required

·        Risk that outcomes are not supported by the community or key stakeholders

·        Greater emphasis on managing community and stakeholder expectations.

 

Option 3 – Not undertake the project

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Staff time and resources not required to further the engagement process

·        Unbudgeted expenditure not required.

·        Golden Bay wharf will be available for sale on the open market and may have significant implications for local operators and tourism on the Island

·        For the five SDC owned wharves a maintenance plan and budget will still need to be established

·        Risk to Council of the actual and perceived inaction around significant infrastructure that caters to the majority to visitors to the Island (Golden Bay Wharf and Ulva Island).

 

Assessment of Significance

31      The project is not considered significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

32      The project is of strategic importance at Local, District, Regional and National level in relation to the wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island.  In determining future strategies for the wharves, there is direct relationship to the impact on tourism, local operators and aquaculture on Stewart Island.

33      This importance will also need to be offset by the ability of tourists, local operators, key stakeholders and rate payers to financially support the existing and future wharfing infrastructure on the Island.

Recommended Option

34      Option 2 – engage with an external and independent facilitator

35      Based on the degree of risk to Council in actual and perceived bias towards a Council desired outcome, it is recommended that external facilitation and business plan agency be engaged.

Next Steps

36      Community and key stakeholder engagement process will ideally be completed by the end of March 2017.  Following this, a final report and recommendations will be presented to Council in May 2017.

 

Attachments

a         FINAL Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project Definition    

 


Council

14 December 2016

 

 

STEWART ISLAND WHARFING PROVISION AND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

 

PROJECT DEFINITION

 

1.       Project Outline

1.1        PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor:       Steve Ruru

Project Manager:                   TBA

Project Name:                       Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements

 

Project Start Date  

14 October 2016

Project Finish Date  

May 2017

 

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

7 October 2016

Michelle Stevenson

Rex Capil for comment

2

14 October 2016

Michelle Stevenson

Steve Ruru for comment

3

19 October 2016

Michelle Stevenson

SDC staff for review

4

28 October 2016

Southport

Southport for review and comment

5

4 November 2016

Michelle Stevenson

FINAL report to Steve Ruru & Southport before submission to Council

 

 

 

 

1.2        PROJECT PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this project is to determine the medium to long wharfing infrastructure needs for Stewart Island, and how and by whom these facilities are best delivered and how they might be funded.  

 

1.3        PROJECT OVERVIEW

 

The request from Southport  NZ for SDC to consider Golden Bay wharf ownership has prompted the need to consider a more strategic approach to looking at the current and future provision of wharves on Stewart Island, demand for such, the quantity and quality of provision requirements and an overall medium to long term capital development provision and maintenance plan.

 

The following summary information relating to the respective wharves provides some initial context for the project.

 

Overview of Golden Bay Wharf

·          Golden Bay wharf is currently owned by Southport NZ and is a key wharf for Cruise ship tenders to Stewart Island, the gateway to Ulva Island, wharf of departure for aquaculture staff vessels, and a primary wharf for local tourism operators who operate water taxis around the island

·          The engineering report of Golden Bay wharf[4] has determined that the wharf is close to the end of its physical life and immediate repairs of $60,000 are required to get it to a suitable standard to receive passengers – further annual maintenance of $4,000 for 5 years is also recommended.  The wharf has significant deterioration of critical structural components…and the wharf, with the exception of the approach is in poor condition[5]

·          Southport have provided a costing of $45,000 plus GST to undertake immediate repairs to the wharf, which would allow cruise ships to tender there in the upcoming season

·          Any repair and maintenance will only be a temporary measure and the wharf will need to be replaced in no more than 5 years’ time at an estimated cost of $3,000 per m2.  Southport have provided an estimated cost of $185,000 plus GST to replace Golden Bay wharf to a similar size[6]

·          Marine Engineers for Southport have since confirmed that one cruise ship in January may tender to the wharf under specific restrictions, which would postpone immediate repairs until the end of the 2016/2017 season

·          The total revenue received in 2015 by Southport NZ for the Golden Bay wharf was $12,710  Of this $12,060 was received by way of a cruise ship levy for use of the wharf by ship tenders to the Island (A Southport NZ administered $5 per passenger levy for the cruise ships that visit Stewart Island)

·          The remaining $650.00 pa is a fee paid by Rakiura Adventures for a floating pontoon tied to the wharfing structure

·          Local tourism operators utilising this and other wharves pay an annual Jetty User Licence Fee ($1,350 per operator)

·          Golden Bay wharf does not currently generate sufficient revenue to justify maintaining or rebuilding

 

Overview of all other wharves on Stewart Island

·          There are six wharves identified for further discussion in this brief.  SDC own five wharves including Ulva Island, Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory and Port William.  Golden Bay is owned and operated by Southport NZ

·          Of the seven wharves on Stewart Island (including Halfmoon Bay), three have known maintenance issues within the next two years[7], one is scheduled for full replacement in 2018/19, one has recommended replacement within five years, and two remain in fit-for-purpose condition

·          The current maintenance schedule budgeted for the five SDC wharves is $5,000 pa with no current annual maintenance programme in place.  The recommended maintenance expenditure for the five jetties should ideally be calculated at $5,000 each for Ulva Island and Port William; $3,750 each for Fred’s Camp, Little Glory and Millars Beach at a total of $21,250 pa

·          The estimated cost of a single SDC jetty disposal or removal is $25,000

·          The current sole revenue for SDC owned jetties is through the local tourism operators who pay a total combined Jetty User Licence fee of $14,257 pa for the use of SDC owned jetties.  The benefit/cost ratio is currently very poor; for every $1 invested there is a return of just under $0.20[8]

·          The Stewart Island Jetties Subcommittee have, up to now, approved a number of wharfing repairs and rebuilds, however no longer-term funding vision or options are in place

·          The five SDC owned jetties do not generate sufficient revenue to cover the basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal

 

Halfmoon Bay Wharf

·          Halfmoon Bay wharf is owned and operated by Southport NZ and is the principal wharf on the Island.  It services the primary passenger and freight facilities between Bluff and Stewart Island.  The passenger ferry service, operated by Real Journeys between Bluff and Stewart Island accounts for 75-85% of all visitors pa to the Island[9]

·          Southport NZ have indicated their commitment on a long-term basis to own, operate and maintain Halfmoon Bay Wharf and the Bluff Ferry Wharf.  These wharfing infrastructures will be outside the scope of this project and not require additional revenue resources from the Island residents. Southport NZ will liaise directly with their key stakeholders.  In the next five years there is an unconfirmed maintenance cost of $766,000 to Halfmoon Bay Wharf, and $1,176,000 to the Bluff Ferry Wharf

 

Key stakeholders - tourism

·          There are a number of key public stakeholder organisations who have responsibility for and management of land and ventures on Stewart Island (DOC, Environment Southland and Rakiura Maori Land Trust)[10].  All rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.

·          There are a number of local SME[11] private tourism operators who all rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.

·          DOC has responsibility for managing 92% of the forest and wildlife of Stewart Island land, and administration of Ulva Island.  These are the primary attractions for tourism to the Island

·          Environment Southland has responsibility for all cruise ship landings on the Southern Coastline, including Stewart Island

·          Rakiura Maori Land Trust has responsibility for the remaining 8% of land on Stewart Island and administer hunting blocks and have recently embarked on a joint tourism venture with Real Journeys for a ‘Wild Kiwi Encounter’ that will begin November 2016

·          Fishing and tourism as the two main sources of livelihood for those living on Stewart Island, generate employment of approximately 158 full-time equivalent positions (roughly 61% of the working age population[12])

·          Local tourism operators make up the sole Jetty revenue for SDC on the Island.  The operators utilise approximately $1.1m of asset for $1,350 each pa 

Golden Bay wharf - Aquaculture

·          Aquaculture on the Island currently consists of Mussel, Oyster and King Salmon farming, and workers are transported to their facilities by freight vessel accessed by Golden Bay wharf.  There are additional consents issued for farming, however they are not currently operational

·          Aquaculture requires a skilled labour force and can attract workers with the right conditions.  Stewart Island currently produces 3% of NZ’s mussel production and 29% of NZ’s King Salmon production at an estimated annual value of $44,800,000[13]

·          Due to the limited roading infrastructure and isolation of Stewart Island, existing aquaculture (and any new aquaculture opportunities) rely heavily on sea or air based support – suggesting compromised access to wharves on Stewart Island may directly compromise existing and future aquaculture on the Island

1.4        PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this project is to determine how wharfing infrastructure should be provided and funded on Stewart Island to ensure that the long term needs are met in a sustainable manner.  

The three key objectives to be achieved will assist in evaluating the current situation and assess future options and strategies. 

1.   Identify the current use, user and owner needs of the wharfing infrastructure, and what opportunities need to be developed to support future provision requirements

·          Identify the primary function and users of the current wharfing infrastructure (who uses the wharves, what they are used for, current and projected future volumes, are they fit-for-purpose, do the wharves meet the requirements of the local community, tourist industry, and freight companies, are the number of current wharves sufficient, too little or too many)

·          Location (where are the wharves located on the Island, are they in appropriate locations for their use, could their use be further developed taking into account the environment they exist in, identify any land based infrastructure that may have impact or be important to consider in the future for wharfing infrastructure on the Island)

·          Description and condition (determine the current physical state of the wharfing infrastructure on the Island, give a brief description of what annual maintenance would be required and the cost of full replacement for each wharf)

·          Determine the current funding streams and future funding opportunities for the wharves.  This should include but not be limited to; investigating an increase in revenue received through use of the wharves, or from those who might benefit from the wharfing infrastructure, and implications for current users; and investigate an increase in the Stewart Island Visitor Levy to cover the cost of maintaining and replacing existing and future wharves (how are the wharves currently funded to operate, identify all revenue associated with the wharves, identify any funds allocated to maintenance or replacement of existing wharves, determine what has been spent on the wharfing infrastructure in the last five years, develop a strategy for capital expenditure around the repair, replacement or removal of each wharf on the Island)

·          Ownership and operation (who currently owns and operates each wharf, are the requirements of the owners currently being met through existing infrastructure, what opportunities do the owners see for the future ownership and operation of the wharves, does the current ownership fit with the core business of the owner, are there opportunities for additional ownership of existing infrastructure)

·          Investigate what wharfing infrastructure is required to best meet current and future tourism, aquaculture, freight and community needs on the Island.  This may include but not be limited to; prioritising the wharves by order of capital and community value, investigating the closure of unviable wharves and the potential community and economic impacts

2.   Determine a community engagement and consultation process that will determine the short, medium and long term user needs of the wharves.  This should include but not be limited to; an understanding of how the wharves are perceived by the Islanders, the perceived and actual value of the wharves, the implications for Islanders of any reduction or privatisation in wharf access

·          Audience (identify who on the Island are key community stakeholders which may include but not be limited to tangata whenua, residents’ association, local residents, government agencies.  Determine their varying levels of understanding and interest in the wharfing infrastructure)

·          Methodology (what structure will community engagement take, and may include all or none of the following; workshops, focus groups, social media, public forums.  Determine how any background information will be delivered and any planned developments will be consulted on.  Determine appropriate timeframes for community engagement)

·          Communication (identify an appropriate communication strategy around community engagement)

3.   Determine a key stakeholder engagement process that will include but not be limited to; tourism industry users, aquaculture users and freight companies; identify actual and perceived implications for any changes to the current wharfing infrastructure

·          Methodology (what structure will key stakeholder engagement take; workshops, focus groups, social media, workplace forums.  Determine how key draft developments will be consulted on.  Determine appropriate timeframes for stakeholder consultation)

·          Audience (identify who on the Island are key stakeholders which may include but not be limited to local and District tourism operators, aquaculture, freight companies, other local business owners impacted by wharfing infrastructure on the Island, DOC, Environment Southland,. Determine their varying levels of understanding and interest in the wharfing infrastructure)

·          Communication (identify an appropriate communication strategy around stakeholder consultation)

 

 

 

2.       Project Scope

2.1        IN SCOPE

 

a)   All wharves owned by SDC on Stewart Island

b)   Golden Bay Wharf, currently owned and operated by Southport NZ Ltd

c)   Transport affecting wharf infrastructure decisions, including roading and pedestrian access.  This will include but not be limited to; Golden Bay Rd, Elgin Terrace and the upcoming Roading Bylaw consultation around parking at Halfmoon Bay wharf

d)   All current users (community, tourism, commercial both direct and indirectly) and uses of the wharves

e)   Determining future ownership, operating and maintenance responsibilities for in-scope wharfing infrastructure servicing Stewart Island.

 

2.2        OUT OF SCOPE

 

·          All other wharves owned and operated by SDC not listed above

·          Halfmoon Bay Wharf

·          Bluff Ferry Wharf

·          All other wharfing infrastructure owned and operated by Southport located off Stewart Island

·          All other infrastructure on Stewart Island that is not specifically identified above

·          Implementation of any new ownership, operating or maintenance regimes that might be agreed through this project will be addressed

 

2.3        ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

 

·          The total revenue from the wharves can be increased to a sufficient level to justify maintaining or rebuilding the wharfing infrastructure

·          Tourism to the Island is increased or remains at its current numbers

·          Aquaculture on the Island is maintained or grown

·          The population of Stewart Island is sufficient to sustain a future wharfing infrastructure.

 

2.4        RISKS

 

·          Tourism to the Island takes a steep decline in the short-medium term rendering investment in wharfing infrastructure to be continued financially unviable

·          Closure of the Golden Bay wharf would have significant negative impact on the future of Ulva Island tourism and aquaculture ventures currently operating from the wharf – local, district, regional and national impacts

·          Aquaculture on the Island and across New Zealand declines

·          The population of Stewart Island declines and becomes unsustainable to maintain and operate from wharfing infrastructure

 

 


 

3.       Project Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

 

3.1        TIMEFRAME

2017

 

 

3.2        KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·          SDC report, with the support of Southport NZ, that will provide an assessment and analysis of the short, medium and long term future of wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island

·          A capital expenditure plan for any and all maintenance and replacement of wharves on the Island

·          Issues and options report that outlines options and recommendations for future ownership, maintenance, operation and funding of each wharf

·          Completion  of a community engagement process that will achieve the outcomes defined in 1.4.2

·          Completion of a process to engage with key stakeholders as identified in 1.4.3