Agenda of Motueka Community Board - Tuesday, 15 February 2022

Tasman District Council Motueka Community Board Agenda – 15 February 2022

7 Reports

7.1 Motueka Dog Park

Decision Required

Report To:	Motueka Community Board
Meeting Date:	15 February 2022
Report Author:	Lynne Hall, Horticultural Officer - Motueka & Golden Bay
Report Number:	RMCB22-02-1

1 Summary

1.1 The Motueka Community Board requested Reserves and Facilities staff to investigate options for a Dog Park in the Motueka area. Several sites were suggested by staff at a workshop in December along with some of the possible requirements. There are three preferred locations for the Community Board to now consider.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Motueka Community Board

1. receives the Motueka Dog Park RMCB22-2-1; and

2. agrees in principle to develop a dog park at ..... ;

3. requests staff to prepare a project brief and costing for the proposed dog park.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report gives an overview of advantages and disadvantages of three potential locations for a dog park in Motueka. It also discusses some of the issues around creating a dog park.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The Motueka Community Board received community feedback on potential special projects. A dog park for Motueka was the highest supported project and as such, the Board is keen to explore and identify an appropriate site.

4.2 At the request of the Community Board, Reserves and Facilities staff investigated locations for a dog park, and six potential sites were presented at a workshop in December. These locations included the Motueka River Road Reserve, Riwaka Memorial Reserve and Brooklyn Recreation Reserve.

4.3 Three preferred sites were elected for further investigation – Mariri Landfill, Old Wharf Road Reserve and Courtney Street East. Advantages and disadvantages for each of these sites is discussed in this report to assist the Board to agree a preferred location.

4.4 Factors to be taken into account are; the cost to establish the park, distance from central Motueka, site drainage, proximity to sensitive habitats, neighbours, other conflicting activities, and water sources, buffer zones from roads, and amenities to be included.

4.5 Dog parks are generally well fenced with separate areas for large and small dogs, they require facilities such as water, bins, shade and parking. Agility equipment is likely to be requested by users as is seating and picnic tables.

4.6 By way of example, the dog park at Marsden Valley in Nelson is approximately 1.1ha (11,000m2) in area, it has all of the amenities outlined in section 4.5 above and was constructed at a cost of around $160,000. A survey of Nelson residents prior to construction of the Marsden Valley dog park showed that separate areas for large and small dogs, and water were the most requested items.

4.7 Depending on the size of the facility, the structures included and its location, resource and/or building consents may be necessary. At this stage, staff understand that, subject to compliance with the permitted activity conditions, including bulk and location requirements for any buildings and noise standards, a consent would not be required for the Rural 1 zoned sites (Old Wharf Rd and Courtney Street East), but would be required for the Open Space zoned site (Mariri).

4.8 The table below rates the suitability of each site:

2 = Good

1 = some existing pros or cons, or potential to establish eg shade, parking

0 = not ideal

The higher the overall score the more suitable the site. The grading is somewhat subjective but provides a useful means of comparing sites.

	Mariri Closed Landfill	Old Wharf Road	Courtney Street East
Size of area	2	0	2
Parking	1	1	1
Proximity to neighbours	2	1	0
Proximity to town	0	2	2
Water availability	0	1	1
Trees for shade	1	1	0
Environmental concerns	1	1	1
Toilets	0	2	0
Ease of fencing	0	0	2
Availability	2	1	1
Ground wetness	2	1	0
Other uses in vicinity	2	0	1
Total	13	11	11

4.9 Advantages and disadvantages are further discussed in the options section of this report.

5.0 Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Mariri closed landfill	No immediate neighbours Large open space Potential to carry out planting and site enhancement as part of overall project	Distance to town, including for servicing Native bird life in the vicinity No water on site Capped landfill – possible fencing issues Access point from road would need to be reviewed
2.	Old Wharf Road behind the skatepark, both the cat and old remote car areas	Close to town On the inlet walkway Some shade available Water supply reasonably close	Smallest area Predominantly a recreational area that includes youngsters on wheels. On top of cat pathway initiated by SPCA Capped landfill – possible fencing issues
3	Courtney Street East	Close to town On the inlet walkway Large site – easy to create two separate areas for large and small dogs Easier to fence Potential to carry out planting and site enhancement as part of overall project	Proximity to neighbours, including early childhood centre Leased for grazing until Oct 2023 Wet in winter Potential habitat for wildlife

5.2 The Community Board needs to determine their preferred option. Based on the table (section 4.8) the Mariri closed landfill site rates the highest, however, at this stage - the consent requirements are a little unclear. Travel distance to Mariri is a clear disadvantage, and this may outweigh other benefits of the site.

6.0 Strategy and Risks

6.1 The risks to establishing a dog park in Motueka are predominantly related to costs, and neighbours who may object to such a facility.

6.2 Other considerations will be proximity to wildlife and other existing amenities.

6.3 The park itself will need to provide suitable facilities and experiences for dogs and their owners to ensure it is well utilized.

6.4 Consultation with dog owners will ensure the park is well designed and meets objectives.

7.0 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 There are 2 policies that need to be considered in relation to this project, the TDC Policy on Dogs 2014 and the TDC Reserves General Policies 2015.

The TDC Policy on Dog Control 2014 includes an Objective (5) To have regard to the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. The Policies and Methods which are the actions to be taken to achieve the objectives includes a relelvant policy and method to this project.

2. Make Provision for Dog Access to Public Places

Dog owners must be provided with a reasonable level of access to public places without compromising the safety and comfort of members of the community generally.

Methods:

2.1 The planning or making of a bylaw controlling the access of dogs to public places by Council will include:

2.1.1 Recognising the dog owner as a user of public places.

2.1.2 Ensuring controls on access of dogs to particular areas are clearly defined and obvious on the ground to both dog owners and the general public by way of signage and maps.

2.1.3 Aiming to provide a range of opportunities for the control of dogs both on and off the leash.

7.2 The TDC Reserves General Policies 2015 defer to the Dog Control Bylaw and provides that, “No policy separate to the Dog Control Bylaw shall be developed in relation to dogs on reserves.”

8.0 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 Motueka Community Board have committed $5,000 to this project, the cost to develop a fit for purpose dog park could be as high as $150,000. There is currently no provision in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 for the development of a dog park.

8.2 The next steps in progressing this project are to prepare a scope and project brief, agree a suitable location, consult with the community and cost the project. This would then be included in the next Reserves and Facilities Activity Management Plan and the Long term Plan 2024-2034.

9.0 Significance and Engagement

9.1 The request for a dog park has been made through the Motueka Community Board’s special project engagement process and there is clearly a desire by members of the community for such a facility but agreeing to a site could be difficult due to competing interests.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Neighbours objecting. Conflicting views of dog owners and their needs/wants Other potential uses for the site/s
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	High wellbeing related to dog ownership and a shared social space for dogs and owners.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	Low	Vehicle use eg Mariri. Any hard surfaces that may be required.
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	Servicing would incur additional maintenance costs including mowing, bin emptying, fence maintenance etc
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	N/a
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/a
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/a
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/a
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	Yes	Iwi are likely to have an interest in the possible change of use of Council land

10.0 Conclusion

10.1 It is requested that the Motueka Community Board confirm whether it wants to proceed with development of a dedicated dog park and if so, the size and scope of the park, and a preferred location.

11.0 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 Depending on outcome of the Board’s decision, community and iwi consultation as necessary.

11.2 Budget to be allocated through the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

Attachments

1.⇩

Proposed locations - aerial view

Tasman District Council Motueka Community Board Agenda – 15 February 2022

7.2 Motueka Skatepark

Decision Required

Report To:	Motueka Community Board
Meeting Date:	15 February 2022
Report Author:	Lynne Hall, Horticultural Officer - Motueka & Golden Bay
Report Number:	RMCB22-02-2

1 Summary

1.1 In mid-January 2022 staff requested direction from the Community Board on a change of scope for the Motueka skatepark upgrade project following a grant funding offer from the Rata Foundation, ratification of the Board’s decision is sought.

1.2 A further update on this project is also provided.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Motueka Community Board:

1. receives the Motueka Skatepark report RMCB22-2-2; and

2. ratifies the Board’s informal decision to; “Contact the Rata Foundation to determine whether a significant change of scope would still qualify for the funding. If the Foundation are agreeable to the changes, Council would then accept the grant funding and sign the documentation. This would be followed by rescoping the upgrade to include improvements to the existing surface.”

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 For the Community Board to confirm its decision to accept funding of $80,000 for the Motueka skate park upgrade, rescope the project to reduce the scope and cost of the work.

3.2 The next steps in progressing the project are updated.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 Reserves and Facilities staff have been working towards an upgrade for the Motueka Skatepark which has involved seeking external funding.

4.2 Tasman District Council has a budget of $80,000 for the project which includes $30,000 of Motueka Community Board Funds.

4.3 An application was made to the Rata Foundation for $222,000 to redevelop the existing skate park to create areas to allow for differing levels of experience and capability. This included upgrading the existing park, creating a street/plaza area and other works.

4.4 A grant of $80,000 was approved by the Rata Foundation in December 2021 and although very generous, the combined amount of Rata and TDC funds is not sufficient to carry out the development as initially proposed.

4.5 In addition to this, it became apparent through the tender process that delivery of the concept plan as designed would not be achievable within the early price estimates, also that the existing skatepark requires resurfacing.

4.6 Due to a requirement from the Rata Foundation for documentation to be signed within 6 weeks of funding being approved, a memo from reserves staff was forwarded to the Motueka Community Board Chair on 21 January for circulation to the Board. The memo requested an urgent decision from four options.

4.7 A response from the Community Board was received 25 January 2022. Of the four options put forward, Board members elected Option A to ‘Contact the Rata Foundation to determine whether a significant change of scope would still qualify for the funding. If the Foundation are agreeable to the changes, Council would then accept the grant funding and sign the documentation. This would be followed by rescoping the upgrade to include improvements to the existing surface’.

4.8 One of the conditions of the Rata Foundation offer is that TDC finds the balance of funds to complete the project as submitted. As the application is for $222,000 this leaves a shortfall of $142,000. It is doubtful that we could raise that balance of funding.

4.9 Staff have since conveyed the issues to the Rata Foundation and have been advised to accept the grant but to investigate other options for funding as well as rescoping and quoting of the project in a way that the overall outcome is still achieved albeit on a reduced scale.

4.10 A report will be submitted to the Rata Foundation Trustees outlining the situation for their March 2022 meeting. The trustees may elect to confirm their commitment of $80,000 with a change of scope, or they could decline all or part of the funding.

4.11 The overall objective for the upgrade remains unchanged which is to provide a separate and safe area for beginners away from experienced users while still providing a challenging facility for experienced users.

4.12 Council should be able to achieve this objective for $160,000 with a scaled down option and can also seek further funding from other organisations.

4.13 The Rata Foundation’s March decision on funding will confirm the level of funding from this agency. In the meantime, staff propose to obtain a formal quote for a surface upgrade, investigate rescoping of the project and make enquiries for additional funding.

5 Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Ratify decision A	Decision was made, allows project to progress
2.	Do not ratify	Allows more time to consider options	Further delays to project, Rata have been advised of the Board’s decision

5.2 Option 1 is recommended - To make a resolution to ratify the decision of Option A

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 Skatepark users have an expectation of an upgrade and are keen to see this progressed. Funding is not available to deliver the original proposal, we will need to update the community on the current situation and possible solutions.

6.2 Proceeding with the ratification will allow staff to inform the community of the current situation and continue to advance the project.

6.3 Not ratifying the decision will further delay the project.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 Informal direction was sought from the Board in order to meet an external funding agency deadline. This decision needs to be formally ratified by the Board.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 TDC has committed funding of $80,000 and has potentially secured $80,000 of external funding. There is a risk to the external funding due to the change of scope needed to deliver works that are within the budget, however, resetting the project now would almost certainly result in the loss of external funds.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 <Enter text>

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Skatepark users have an expectation of an upgrade.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	no
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	no
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	no
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	no
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	no
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	no
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	no
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	no
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	no

10 Conclusion

10.1 It is requested that the Motueka Community Board agrees to ratify the earlier decision of Option A as detailed in recommendation.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 If the Community Board adopts the recommendation to ratify their earlier decision, staff will continue to liaise with the Rata Foundation to secure the funding, will obtain a formal quote for resurfacing, meet with park users and a contractor/consultant to rescope the project and make enquiries with other funders.

Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Motueka Community Board Agenda – 15 February 2022

7.3 Motueka Firefighting Rate

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Motueka Community Board
Meeting Date:	15 February 2022
Report Author:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RMCB22-02-3

1 Summary

1.1 This is an information report outlining the background to the Motueka Water Supply. It outlines the changes in the firefighting rate and the philosophy behind those changes. It also includes the financial statement for the last 3 years and the actuals costs to date for 2021/22.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Motueka Community Board receives the Motueka Firefighting Rate report RMCB22-2-3.

3 Background

3.1 Motueka has an urban water supply but only around 30% of the properties are connected to it. Only parts of the urban area are reticulated. Any connections to the public water supply are on a voluntary basis. Where there is no reticulated supply, shallow private bores are generally used by residents. Fire hydrants on the scheme provide water for firefighting.

3.2 In 2020/21 there were 1375 connections to the Motueka water supply. There are a total of 3,445 properties that were charged a firefighting rate. The 3,445 properties include the 1375 connected properties. The population of Motueka is approximately 7,200.

3.3 The 1375 connections were rated a fixed annual charge of $174.43 (incl GST) plus a volumetric charge of $2.06/m3 (incl GST). The water meters are read every 6 months and the connected properties invoiced accordingly.

3.4 All 3,445 properties are charged the firefighting rate of $17.88 (incl GST). This was to cover a share of the costs of maintaining the reticulation to provide firefighting capability.

3.5 The following table outlines the rating income for 2020/21;

3.6 The 1375 connected properties were funding around 96% of the total costs of operating the water supply. Conversely the 2070 properties were paying around 4% of the total costs of operating the supply.

3.7 Currently the reticulation maintenance costs are round 35 - 40% of the total costs. The remaining 60% to 65% covers the operating and maintenance costs of the treatment plant. The capital costs are generally funded by loan and the repayments are included in the respective operating costs.

3.8 In 2020/21 the firefighting rate contributed to around 18% to 20% of the reticulation costs. Therefore approximately 60% of the properties (2070 out of 3445) which had a firefighting service funded only 11% to 12% of the reticulation costs. Correspondingly the 1375 properties, which were connected, also had the firefighting service and funded 88%to 89% of the reticulation costs.

3.9 Council decided to address this disparity.

4 Long Term Plan 2021/31

4.1 In preparing its Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021/31, Council considered re-apportioning the share of costs. This was to better reflect the costs of maintaining the reticulation which not only supplies water to those connected but does have an important role in the provision of firefighting capability. The firefighting capability essentially governs the size and scale of the reticulation. Although the reticulation is not located in every urban street, Fire and Emergency NZ do access the nearest fire hydrants, when required, so it is important that all the fire hydrants are functional and can deliver the water at the required pressure and flow. The whole of Motueka benefits from the firefighting capability.

4.2 Council considered various options in re-portioning the firefighting rate. These options ranged from funding 50% up to 90% of the reticulation costs. It decided to propose 70% as the appropriate proportion of funding from the firefighting rate in the LTP 2021/31.

4.3 The change in the firefighting rate was considered as being too significant to be implemented in one year. Council decided to minimise the impact of the change and proposed to gradually increase it from the previous 20% to 70% over the first 3 years of the LTP 2021/31. The proportion being 40% in 2021/22, 50% in 2022/23 and then 70% in 2023/24.

4.4 This proposal was included in the LTP 2021-2031 which was consulted on in early 2021.

4.5 The Council received eleven submissions on the proposed Motueka Firefighting rate change. Nine appeared to support the change but had concerns with the rate increase.

4.6 It was note in the Council LTP deliberation minutes that this change was initiated to ensure that those that ratepayers who are not connected to the public supply in Motueka pay a fair amount towards the capacity for firefighting that they benefit from.

4.7 The following table outlines the income received from the various rates. It compares the 2020/21 year with the first three years of the LTP.

4.8 The following table outlines the actual rates proposed over the first 3 years of the LTP 2021/31 compared to what was rated in 2020/21.

4.9 The table above shows how the fixed charges vary over the three years with the fixed charge for connected properties dropping from $174.43 in 2021/22 to $73.47 in 2023/24. The firefighting rate increasing from $17.88 in 2021/22 to $70.62 in 2023/24.

5 Motueka Water Supply – Financial Statement

5.1 The Motueka Water Supply account is a closed account in that all income and costs are ‘ring fenced’ to Motueka. As at 30 June 2021 the Motueka Water Supply had a closing account balance of $431,509.00.

5.2 Council has utilised $200,000 of this balance over years 2 and 3 of the LTP to help mitigate the impact of the rate increases.

5.3 The table below outlines the financials for the Motueka water Supply for the last 3 years. The last column outlines the year to date actuals for 2021/22.

6 Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Motueka Community Board Agenda – 15 February 2022

7.4 Motueka Community Board Chair's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Motueka Community Board
Meeting Date:	15 February 2022
Report Author:	Emma Gee, Team Leader - Customer Services (Motueka)
Report Number:	RMCB22-02-4

1 Summary

1.1 This is the Motueka Community Board Chairperson’s regular monthly report.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Motueka Community Board receives the Motueka Community Board Chair's Report RMCB22-02-4.

3 Yellow Arrow Markings

3.1 There are several yellow arrow markings on our roads that I believe once marked fire hydrant points. I believe that these are no longer utilised, yet markings on road repairs see these repainted. Can these be clarified.

4 Security

4.1 I had a local business approach me last year who were concerned over three burglaries of local businesses and enquired how the Board may assist. I did advise that the Board provided support by way of funding to the Motueka Town Security Cameras and referred their location to Grant Heney.

5 Footpath – Ward Street to Trewavas Street

5.1 A proposal was submitted to consider installing a footpath from Ward Street to Trewavas Street by a local walking group.

5.2 Board to consider if exceptional circumstances exist to consider an extra-ordinary special project fund allocation.

6 Martin Farm Road

6.1 See attached correspondence and photos from Stephen Neave regarding Martin Farm Road.

7 Old Wharf Road

7.1 The service request for kerb and channel to be installed at the lower end of Old Wharf Road. has been closed off for now, Steve Elkington will arrange prices and forward more information towards the end of the financial year.

8 Great Taste Trail

8.1 See attached request from Ross Maley, Great Taste Trail Manager.

9 Cr Ogilvie Update

9.1 Update attached from Cr Ogilvie.

10 Operations Committee Report

10.1 Operations Committee February agenda has not yet been published, the meeting is to be held 17 February 2022 with the agenda and reports being available for viewing from 14 February 2022 via the meeting calendar on Councils website.

11 Items from Board Members

11.1 Any items from Board Members.

12 Motueka Youth Council

12.1 Any items from the Motueka Youth Council.

13 Items from the Public Forum

13.1 Any items raised in the Public Forum requiring further discussion.

Attachments

1.⇩	S Neave - Martin Farm Road	25
2.⇩	R Maley - Great Taste Trail	34
3.⇩	CR Ogilvie Update	39

Chairperson	B Maru
Deputy Chairperson	D Armstrong
Members	R Horrell
	J Tomsett
	Cr B Dowler
	Cr D Ogilvie
	Cr T Walker

1.⇩	Motueka Rec Centre	57
2.⇩	Nelson Tasman Fillipino Community Inc	61
3.⇩	Motueka Womens Support Link	69
4.⇩	TDC - Draft Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan	72
5.⇩	Whenua Iti Outdoors	73