Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Use same process for approving the Joint Regional Public Transport Plan and Joint Regional Land Transport Plan.	Retains both plans in a single document. Ensures coherence between the two joint plans. More efficient, with single process for each council.	There is some risk of the two councils seeking changes to the Joint Regional Land Transport Plan.
2.	Separate plans and use a different adoption process for each plan – Joint Regional Public Transport Plan being approved individually by each council and the Joint Regional Land Transport Plan being approved by the Joint Committee.	Minimises risk of the two councils independently seeking changes to the Joint Regional Land Transport Plan.	Separates plans, risking coherence. Duplicates approval process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No	This decision is about how statutorily determined decision making authority is exercised.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	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
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.4 Quarterly Financial Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	Paul Egan, Senior Management Accountant
Report Authorisers:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Number:	RCN24-05-4

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This nine-monthly financial report provides an update on key financial information as at the end of March 2024. The Council’s borrowing position, compliance with covenants and projected debt levels are provided in the separate Treasury report to this meeting.

1.2 This report updates actual revenues, expenditures, and the financial position for year to date, 31 March 2024.

1.3 In the nine months to March 2024, there have been events with several impacts on the headline financial performance. These arose from changes to operating revenue and expenditure items, sources of funding for capital expenditure and market valuations. Combined, these have a large impact on the reported Accounting Surplus result, even though some are unrealised non-cash items or are capital related.

1.4 As indicated in the reforecast report presented at the Council meeting on 28 March 2024 (RCN23-03-9), market driven lower fees and charges revenue and higher maintenance expenditure are driving an operational budget deficit.

1.5 The reforecast indicated a likely slight breach of the current net debt cap of $250 million, this may end higher due to additional expenditure requests in progress and timing of cashflows related to capital projects. Additional funding requests and timing changes are contained in other reports to this meeting. Increases in the forecast debt and operational deficit levels will change the forecast opening position for the Long-Term Plan 2024-34, putting more upward pressure on the rates and debt levels.

1.6 The year to date (excluding Joint Ventures) Accounting Surplus is $4.2 million versus budget of $19.4 million, a variance of $15.2 million. The controllable portion of this variance is $1.9 million, and the non-controllable portion is $13.3 million.

1.7 Capital expenditure is tracking higher than the average of the last three years but is also tracking less than original Annual Plan and revised budgets. It should be noted that the Annual Plan debt levels did not anticipate all capital expenditure eventuating within the budget year.

1.8 Additional unbudgeted capital expenditure approved during the year is now $18.1 million, compared to $15.9 million in the reforecast.

1.9 Table 1 below provides a reconciliation of the accounting result compared to the operational position. The operational position strips out non-cash items and items that can only be used to fund capital expenditure e.g. swap revaluations, vested assets, and capital subsidies. This is then a proxy for running a balanced budget where operational expenditure is covered by operational income.

Table 1

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Quarterly Financial Report for the nine months to 31 March 2024,
RCN23-04-4; and

2. notes the likely breach of the $250 million net debt limit prior to 30 June 2024; and

3. retrospectively authorises $100,000 of underspending in the 2022/23 year within the Information Services activity for file scanning to be brought forward into the 2023/24 financial year.

3. Purpose of the Report

3.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the financial performance for the nine months to 31 March 2024.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1 This is the third financial report for the 2023/2024 financial year and covers financial performance for the nine months to 31 March 2024.

4.2 Controllable operating income for March 2024 YTD is $125 million. This is a YTD favourable variance of $7 million against a March 2024 YTD budget of $118 million, higher Operating Subsidies and lower Fees and Charges being the key drivers.

4.3 Controllable operating expenditure for March 2024 YTD is $147.6 million. This is an unfavourable variance of $8.9 million on the March 2024 YTD budget of $139.7 million.

5. Statement of Comprehensive Financial Performance

Table 2

5.1 Commentary on the above is included in the Operating Surplus/Deficit Commentary in section 9.

6. Income Analysis

Table 3

6.1 Commentary on key income variances is in section 9 Operating Surplus/Deficit Commentary.

7. Operating Expenditure Analysis

Table 4

7.1 Commentary on key income variances is in section 9 Operating Surplus/Deficit Commentary.

8. Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet)

Table 5

8.1 Commentary related to the above is included in section 10 Net Debt, and section 11 Capital Expenditure Analysis.

9. Operating Surplus/Deficit Commentary

9.1 In this quarter’s report, the commentary focuses on key activity areas that have budget variances, relevant in providing an overall understanding of the financial performance of the Council.

Building Assurance

9.2 Building Assurance has been impacted by the downturn in the residential construction market, with building consents for new dwellings tracking approximately 47% of the 2022/23 year, leading to a $1.6 million reduction in fees and charges income.

Transport

9.3 Maintenance is the major cause of the overspend in transport at $1,050,000 above full year budget as at the end of March and forecasting to be $3,650,000 over budget by year end. This is due to ongoing road maintenance costs to repair ongoing damage caused by weather related events in previous years, including items such as landslips where damage was done by a past weather event, and a small trigger event later released the landslip. Higher costs in both materials and labour due to inflationary pressures are also contributing.

9.4 The public transport local share portion of additional costs is approximately $180,000 arising from revised forecast and final costs to give effect to the successful roll-out to the new e-Bus public transport service.

Water Supply

9.5 Maintenance is also the major cause of overspend in Water Supply at 88% of full year budget as at the end of March and forecasting to be $1,264,000 over budget by year end. This is primarily due to a significantly larger amount of reactive maintenance forecast to be more than $1 million over budget. There is also a mix of routine maintenance cost increases, greater routine maintenance requirements stemming from water reforms.

9.6 Water by meter revenue is higher than budgeted by $887,000. This is partially made up of actual charges and partially an estimate as water usage is read, and charges are billed on a six-monthly basis. There is a reasonable degree of uncertainty in these figures due to the yet unquantified impact on usage of water restrictions over the summer period on some of the water supply schemes. The largest water supply scheme, the Urban Scheme, which encompasses most urban areas within the District is invoiced in April and has five months of estimated usage in the current figures.

Wastewater

9.7 Operations is the largest forecast overspend in Wastewater, driven by Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) User Charges and Quota. These are tracking at $420,000 above full year budget as at the end of March and forecast to be $691,000 over budget at year end. A portion of this will hopefully be offset as NRSBU is a joint venture.

9.8 Maintenance is a major cause of overspend in Wastewater at 87% of full year budget. This is forecast to be over budget by $386,000.

Stormwater

9.9 Maintenance is a major cause of overspend in Stormwater at $143,000 above full year budget as at the end of March and forecasting to be $276,000 over budget by year end.

Rivers & Coastal

9.10 Rivers Fees and Recoveries revenue is significantly below budget to date and forecast to be $616,000 below budget at year end, as both gravel revenue and berm rental income are expected to be substantially below budget.

9.11 Coastal operating costs are below budget by $93,000 year to date due to the Māpua Boat Ramp progress being slower than expected, resulting in grants being paid out on a slower basis.

Reserves & Facilities

9.12 Maintenance is a major cause of overspend in Reserves & Facilities at 84% of full year budget as at the end of March and forecasting to be $724,000 over budget by year end.

Forestry

9.13 Accelerated harvesting due to clearance of storm felled trees last financial year, has brought forward re-establishment, and reinstatement activity and related costs within forestry. Harvesting trees earlier, and a decline in log prices, has reduced forecast revenues.
A balance has been sought by maintaining forestry operations on reduced volumes to maintain work to forestry crews and the economic contribution that makes and not putting higher volumes through in a period of lower log prices. Year to date forestry’s contribution to the Council’s financial performance is behind budget by approximately $3.6 million and is forecast to end the year $4.4 million behind budget.

Information Services

9.14 As was noted in a previous report, file scanning activities - digitising physical records did not obtain a carry forward of operational expenditure underspent last financial year due to an oversight. This activity is forecast to go over budget by approximately $100,000. It is recommended that additional operational expenditure of this amount be approved to offset some of the amount not carried forward.

9.15 The Digital Innovation Programme is forecast to be underspent this year. A new baseline budget has been set in the draft Long-Term Plan 2024-34. A carry forward is expected, this being largely due to the mix of work undertaken this financial year.

10. Net Debt

10.1 Net Debt is $228.3 million as at 31 March 2024, compared to a full-year budget of $249.9 million. The increase from an opening Net Debt of $201.4 million is due to the funding of capital expenditure during the first three months of the year. The quarterly rates’ take impacts on cash flow movements and, therefore, Net Debt. (Net Debt is gross debt less cash on hand and other liquid financial assets). Updated figures as at March 2024 are available in the Quarterly Treasury Report.

· Opening Net Debt July 2023 $201.4 million

· Net Debt 30 September 2023 $207.4 million

· Net Debt 31 December 2023 $225.4 million

· Net Debt 31 March 2024 $228.3 million

· Net Debt June 2023 per 2023/24 Annual Plan $249.9 million

10.2 The reforecast indicated a likely modest breach of the current net debt cap of $250 million; this may end higher due to additional expenditure requests in progress and timing of cashflows related to capital projects. Additional funding requests and timing changes are contained in other reports to this meeting. Increases in the forecast year end debt and operational deficit levels will change the forecast opening position for the Long Term Plan 2024-34 putting additional upward pressure on both the rates and debt levels.

11. Capital Expenditure Analysis

Table 6

11.1 The Council’s approval of additional capital expenditure over and above what has been budgeted has resulted in a significant increase in total budget for the year compared to the Annual Plan 2023-2024. This total budget is far greater than what has been delivered in previous years.

11.2 Overall, capital expenditure (including approved unbudgeted expenditure) is tracking at 53% of full year budget including Joint Ventures and, on a straight-line basis this is $25.3 million below the nine-month YTD revised capital budget. Excluding Joint Ventures on a similar straight-line basis, the programme is tracking at 52% and $24.6 million behind for nine months.

11.3 Capital expenditure YTD exceeds the three-year average (see Figure 1). This has been influenced by $18.1 million of additional expenditure approved during the year, however, it is still well below what is required to achieve what has been budgeted.

11.4 After considering what is forecast to be carried forward to future years or to no longer occur (e.g. a portion of the Transport Choices programme) the total forecast would still require more than $9 million in currently budgeted capital expenditure every month for the next three months to be achieved. The average for the past nine months has been $5.9 million.

Figure 1 s*Budget and Forecast Cumulative totals are based on full year figures straight-lined over the applicable periods

11.5 During the year to date, additional capital expenditure has been authorised by resolution and this has been added to capital budgets and is shown in the summary below:

11.6 The total capital budget is now summarised as follows.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.5 Treasury Quarterly Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	James Bagnall, Financial Analyst
Report Authorisers:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Number:	RCN24-05-5

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This report provides an update on the Council's Treasury operations, reporting on compliance with the Treasury Policy, along with a finance market update.

At 31 March 2024, Council's total debt had increased to $332.6 million and its Net debt stood at $228.3m against a policy limit of $250m.

1.2 The Council is compliant with most limits in the Treasury Risk Management Policy: §4.2 Borrowing Capacity; §6.2.2 Liquidity Funding/Risk Position; and §6.3 Counterparty Risk.

1.3 The current interest rate risk position is temporarily non-compliant with §6.1.2 Interest Rate Risk limit in future years. The debt forecast includes fixed-rate loans for pass-through lending to Waimea Water Limited (WWL), including re-financing existing advances. However, those WWL loans had not been re-financed at this report's date, so didn’t bring the Council back into compliance until April 2024.

1.4 The interest rate differential between the amount the Council has pre-funded from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), and the amount re-invested in term deposits is a current side benefit and not the driver of the pre-funding strategy. Currently, the average term deposit rates for all maturities six months or greater is higher than the LGFA borrowing cost, but term deposit rate quotes are solicited from banks as there can still be variation between them.

1.5 The Council’s cost of borrowing (loan interest, swaps interest differential, facility fees) is 4.785% on Total Debt, compared to a budget of 4.40% (2021-22 budget was 3.63%). The Treasury (internal bank) cost centre now has an operating deficit, despite lower than forecasted monthly debt levels. Since most of our fixed-rate borrowing is pass-through funding, the increased cost is mostly due to our average interest rate after swaps being above budget. Without the use of these swaps to fix interest rates the average cost of borrowing would be higher at 4.987%. The additional financing costs will be passed on to the activities with loans, so the treasury operation does not run a deficit for the year.

1.6 Inflationary pressures have caused the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) to make larger increases to the OCR (Overnight/Official Cash Rate), which has been at 5.50% per annum since May 2023. The OCR influences the price of borrowing money in New Zealand and allows the RBNZ to influence the level of economic activity and, therefore, inflation. Although previously predicted OCR rises haven't happened, further rises are now more likely as inflation
(4.66% y/y) is still too high for the RBNZ's only goal: 1-3% inflation per annum. Interest rates being offered indicate an expectation of a steady decline in the OCR starting in a couple of months; this does not match the RBNZ's own forecast.

1.7 The Council has now pre-funded most of the next 12 months of scheduled LGFA loan repayments (excluding pass-through shareholder advance lending to WWL) being
$16.6 million due in April 2024 and $9.0 million due in July 2024. Pre-funding improves the Council’s liquidity position and is seen as positive from a credit-rating perspective as it helps reduce refinancing risk. Staff continue to monitor cash flows closely. This monitoring will inform the timing of any drawdown of additional borrowing.

1.8 Crown Irrigation Investments Limited (CIIL) interest-free facilities total $25.5 million following repayment of the first $2.5 million tranche. They were provided to assist with funding and cost over-runs for the Waimea Community Dam. Additional advances for this project are now all sourced from the LGFA.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council receives the Treasury Quarterly Report, RCN24-05-5.

3. Treasury Activity

At 31 January 2024, the Council's total debt was $327.0 million. The key activities since the last report were:

· February 2024

o $2.6 million borrowing to fund shareholder advances to WWL

· March 2024

o $15 million to fund 2023-24 summer CapEx

o $2 million borrowing to fund $1 million loan to NRSBU and $1 million loan to NTRLBU

Since the date of this report, there has been significant WWL re-financing activity:

· April 2024

o Re-finance $31.4 million of shareholder advances to WWL (irrigator capacity)

o Re-finance $18.8 million of shareholder advances to WWL (TDC capacity)

o $2 million borrowing to fund March 2024 new shareholder advances to WWL (irrigator capacity)

4. Treasury March 2024

Borrowing

4.1 The Council is compliant with the 2023 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §4.2.

§4.2: Borrowing	Mar 2024	Within Limits	Possible Limit
Net external debt ≤20% of equity*	10.5%	ü	$436m	Net Debt
Net external debt ≤225% of total operating revenue*	141.0%	ü	$365m	Net Debt
Net interest* ≤15% of total revenue*	5.4%	ü	$24m	Net Interest
Net interest* ≤25% of total rates*	9.7%	ü	$22m	Net Interest
Liquidity ≥110% of total external debt	121.2%	ü	$652m	External Debt
* Latest audited results: Annual Report 2023, published 31-Oct-23

4.2 Available Financial Accommodation – the "liquidity ratio" – is back above threshold following repayment of bank facility drawdowns.

4.3 The actual result closest to the limit sets the indicative maximum borrowing amount. The debt-to-revenue limit would be the first one reached if external debt (total debt minus pre-funded loans) rose to $365 million.

4.4 The interest-to-revenue and interest-to-rates limits are sensitive to movements in borrowing costs. The current high limit on potential borrowings is due to the historically low interest rates (perpetuated using interest rate swaps).

4.5 LGFA financial covenants continue to be the same or less onerous than 2023 Treasury Policy limits.

Debt Levels

$332.6m	Total Debt	All borrowing
$236.8m	Gross Debt	Total Debt, minus pre-funded and pass-through loans
$228.3m	Net Debt	Gross Debt, minus all other deposits

Cost of Borrowing and Cost of Funds

4.987%	Cost of Loans	Interest, as % of Total Debt
-1.116%	Benefit of Swaps	Interest differential (w.a. -0.248%), as % of Total Debt
0.387%	Cost of Facilities	Line fees (w.a. 0.047%), as % of Total Debt
4.785%	Cost of Borrowing	Total interest and fees, as % of Total Debt

Interest Rate Risk Position

4.6 This shows a snapshot of the current fixed-rate debt – fixed-rate loans and floating-to-fixed swaps – with a maturity greater than 12 months, charting its maturity over time against a corridor of the policy maximum and minimum levels (as a % of forecast Gross Debt). "Fixed- rate" is defined as having an interest rate resetting maturity/expiry date greater than 12 months away.

4.7 The current debt forecast includes fixed-rate loans for pass-through lending to WWL. However, those loans have not all been borrowed yet, or mature in April 2024 (therefore dropping out of the metric entirely) even though forecast to be re-financed, making the current position non-compliant in some future years.

For context, this is the same chart, but including the re-financing of the shareholder advances to WWL that happened in April 2024.

§6.1.2: Interest Rate Risk	Minimum	Maximum	Fixed*	Within Limits
Current	40%	90%	49%	ü
Until Mar 2025	40%	90%	41%	ü
Until Mar 2026	35%	85%	37%	ü
* Fixed-rate loans and swaps still available at future date ÷ forecast debt at future date

Interest Rate Swaps

4.8 The Group Manager Finance has delegated authority to enter into interest rate swaps on behalf of the Council, on the proviso that such transactions are reported back to the Council. The Council’s approval is required before entering into long-dated swaps with a maturity over 12 years.

4.9 The Council's swap coverage will not currently exceed potential floating-rate debt (FRNs, short-term commercial paper, facilities) for several years.

Liquidity

4.10 The liquidity ratio calculation represents the total committed bank facilities and term debt amounts, together with liquid investments – the Available Financial Accommodation – over the external debt amount (total debt minus pre-funded loans). The liquidity ratio is 121.2% (target: >110%) and represents the debt headroom available within the Council’s facilities, along with cash available over and above its existing external debt.

Funding Maturity Risk Position

4.11 This chart groups loan maturities in 12-month blocks. Also shown are available facilities, deposits linked to pre-funding loans, and pass-through loans. The shaded background shows the maximum and minimum liquidity maturity bands (including facilities) in the 2023 Treasury Risk Management Policy:

*§6.2.2: Liquidity/Funding Risk**	Minimum	Maximum	Mar 2024	Within Limits
0 – 3 Years	15%	60%	51%	ü
3 – 7 Years	25%	80%	43%	ü
7+ Years	0%	60%	6%	ü
* Including facilities, and net of linked deposits

4.12 Ensuring a spread of maturities reduces the risk of having to find large amounts of capital, or refinance loans, at a time in the future in which market conditions may be unfavourable.

Counterparty Credit Risk

4.13 The 2023 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §6.3 requires that New Zealand registered banks (as counterparties) must have a minimum S&P (or equivalent) short-term rating of A-1+ or long-term rating of AA-. All the Council’s counterparty banks are S&P AA- rated.

§6.3: Counterparty Risk – $30m	Deposits*	Swaps**	Mar 2024	Within Limits
ANZ	-	$2.2m	$2.2m	ü
ASB	$8.5m	$1.6m	$10.0m	ü
BNZ	$9.0m	-	$9.0m	ü
Westpac	$16.6m	$6.8m	$23.4m	ü
* 100% of principal ** 3% of notional value × remaining years

Current Borrowings

Counterparty	Fixed*	Floating	Mar 2024
LGFA	$96.2m	$181.8m	$278.0m
LGFA (short-term Commercial Paper)	-	$29.1m	$29.1m
Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd (interest-free loans)	$25.5m	-	$25.5m
ASB Facility/Overdraft	-	-	-
Westpac Facility	-	-	-
Total	$121.7m	$210.9m	$332.6m
* Having an interest rate resetting maturity/expiry date greater than 12 months.

Local Water Done Well

4.14 Future debt forecasts include the affordable waters activities remaining with the Council and are based on the draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan projections.

5. Investments

5.1 The Council’s cash investments total $34.1 million with an average interest rate of 5.996%. In line with the Treasury Policy, specific reserves are not kept as cash. The Council continues to maintain adequate cash reserves and committed bank facilities to support any drawdown against specified reserves.

5.2 The individual investment balances are as follows:

Counterparty		Mar 2024	Interest
ASB	Call Account	$8,469,519	5.50%
BNZ	Call Account	$99	-
Westpac	Call Account	$2,243	2.30%
ASB	On-call Money-market	$3,155	5.35%
Westpac	Term Deposit (238 Days)	$16,600,000	6.03%
BNZ	Term Deposit (254 Days)	$9,000,000	6.40%
Total		$34,075,016	5.996%

5.3 Since October 2021, ASB has included the Council in the all-of-government arrangement which pays interest on call account balances at the previous day's OCR. This is currently better than the ASB on-call money-market account rate that other customers receive. This account was previously used for daily surplus cash.

6. Emissions Trading Scheme

6.1 The objective of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon credit policy is to minimise the impact of the movements in the carbon credit prices on the Council.

6.2 ETS risk is managed under the limits in the 2023 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §6.4.

§6.4: Forward Cover Risk	Minimum	Maximum	Oct 2021	Within Limits
Committed*	80%	100%	100%	ü
Forecast Period
0 – 1 Years	0%	80%	80%	ü
1 – 2 Years	0%	50%	50%	ü
2 – 3 Years	0%	30%	0%	ü
* Exposure becomes committed in Jan-Mar (quarter following emission period as the Council must report emissions from the previous year)

6.3 Consultation has started on proposed amendments to the ETS. There are two sets of proposed amendments to strengthen the ETS framework and to reduce the complexity around the forestry scheme. The Council has no direct exposure to landfills' ETS liabilities as these are managed through the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit.

7. Market Update

7.1 The LGFA's latest bond syndication was their largest ever, reflecting the expected large-scale escalation of council borrowing across New Zealand in the coming years. The syndication was also over-subscribed, with nearly twice as many offers as there were bonds being offered. A possible interpretation of this is that investors are expecting interest rates to go down, so want to lock in good returns now.

7.2 Interest and swap rates currently on offer indicate a market expectation of gradually decreasing interest rates in the short to mid-term, followed by a gradual increase in later years. This does not match the RBNZ's forecast of slight increases in the OCR (5.5% since May-23) followed by slow easing. The RBNZ now only has one target –1-3% y/y inflation – and inflation is still relatively high at 4.66% y/y. ANZ Chief Economist, Sharon Zollner, explained the disconnect as the market psychology of "if it's not going up, it must be going down".

8. Treasury Cost Centre

8.1 The Treasury cost centre operates as the Council’s internal bank. It manages the external costs of borrowing and allocates them across internal loans within individual activities. It also pays/charges interest on reserves and activity balances. In accordance with the Treasury Risk Management Policy, these interest rates are set quarterly. For the quarter starting January 2024, interest is charged on loans and overdrawn closed account balances at c5.0% and paid at c4.0% on credit balances for the next quarter. With the unbudgeted increase in borrowing costs these internal rates are still being finalised to ensure that the annual increased cost of borrowing is reflected in activities with loans and the Treasury Cost centre is forecast to end the year without a deficit.

9. LGFA ESG Borrowing

9.1 The LGFA is looking to borrowing councils to support its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting and funding initiatives. Investors are increasingly applying these non-financial factors as part of their analysis to identify material risks and growth opportunities. Councils who can align their new borrowing to these factors get a slightly reduced interest rate from the LGFA. Council staff will be reviewing how we can assist with reporting tracking ESG factors and borrowing over the next 12 months.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.6 Funding the Port Motueka Structure Plan

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	Jeremy Butler, Team Leader - Urban and Rural Policy
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-05-6

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To seek approval from the Council to utilise $100,000 from the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund for the purpose of completing the Port Motueka Structure Plan.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Port Motueka needs an overall structure plan to guide its operations and further development into the future. There are a wide range of pressures on the use and operation of the Port as well as community and stakeholder aspirations for its future. Work on a structure plan had commenced but is currently paused due to lack of funds to progress it to completion.

2.2 A completed structure plan will also guide possible changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan to provide bespoke rules and a more streamlined and cost-effective planning framework. Also, several long-term leases are coming up for renewal so completing the structure plan now can ensure the outcomes of the plan are reflected in any renewed leases.

2.3 The Mayor and Councillors have indicated informally that they consider that the work is a priority, and that it could be funded out of the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund (the fund).

2.4 Use of the fund is guided by the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund policy and using the fund for this purpose is consistent with the policy.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Funding the Port Motueka Structure Plan report, RCN24-05-6; and

2. approves the use of up to $100,000 from the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund for the purpose of completing the Port Motueka Structure Plan.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Council holds or manages on behalf of the Crown a sizable area of land in and around Port Motueka. The Council leases a significant portion of that land to recreational and commercial organisations. There are also private land holdings within the port area. The use and land ownership of the port is complex:

4.1.1 the boat clubs (Motueka Power Boat Club, Motueka Peninsula Marina Society, Motueka Yacht and Cruising Club) have developed marine facilities on leased land;

4.1.2 the Harbourmaster’s office and storage shed are located within the port;

4.1.3 the residents of Jackett Island lease garages from the Council near the Harbourmaster’s office;

4.1.4 Talleys own a significant area of land within the port, including the main wharf. They operate a factory, carparking, distribution centre and administration block; and

4.1.5 the saltwater baths, coastal track and recreation areas are owned or managed by the Council and are highly valued by the Motueka community.

4.2 Several landowners and port users have indicated they wish to increase their use of the port:

4.2.1 Talleys have indicated they wish to grow their presence at the port;

4.2.2 a report has identified the port as the best location to develop a regional boat ramp;

4.2.3 the boat clubs have continued to express a desire to reclaim part of the estuary;

4.2.4 the boat maintenance operation at the port has become restricted by the recent marina development. For biosecurity and environmental reasons, there is a need for appropriate boat maintenance services;

4.2.5 recreational and non-powered boat users, including waka ama are not well catered for; and

4.2.6 upgrades are required to meet the requirements of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP).

4.3 In short, there is a complex tapestry of users, uses and ambitions within an increasingly constricted area.

4.4 A 10-year development plan for the port was completed in 1997 and no further strategic planning appears to have been done since then. The key elements of the 1997 plan have been completed.

4.5 In early 2023 the Council commenced work on a structure planning project for Port Motueka. The Council agreed to undertake the work because of:

· feedback from the community;

· the opportunities presented by the TRMP plan review;

· renewal of the community leases; and

· the need to finalise the location of the regional boat ramp at Port Motueka.

4.6 The first round of community consultation has been completed (Attachment 1). However, due to a reset of the Environmental Policy work programme, no funding is available to enable the structure plan work to continue.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The scale of the structure planning task is considerable but presents the opportunity to create a sound strategic vision and actions to unlock more potential from the port, and to guide the Council spending and TRMP planning into the future.

5.2 Funding of $100,000 is necessary to enable this planning work to be completed within a reasonable and useful timeframe. The timing is important to enable structure planning work to be undertaken before leases are re-signed, thereby locking in land uses before there is an opportunity for change.

5.3 The Council has indicated informally that:

5.3.1 the work could be funded out of the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund;

5.3.2 the structure planning work is a priority; and

5.3.3 a report should be brought to the Council seeking a resolution to allocate funding.

5.4 This report is being presented to get a formal Council decision on the use of funds for this purpose.

Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund (the fund)

5.5 The Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund (formerly the Port Motueka Endowment Fund) can be utilised to fund the structure plan.

5.6 The question regarding the use of the fund was clarified through a report to the Council on 23 November 2023.

5.7 The fund policy (1 February 2023) currently applies (Attachment 2). A revised version has been referred to the Motueka Community Board for consideration. However, the revision has little relevance to the funding that is sought here.

5.8 According to the policy, any unbudgeted expenditure above $50,000 requires the Council’s approval.

5.9 The policy identifies three key uses for the fund:

5.9.1 the maintenance and improvements of any of the assets held as part of the fund;

5.9.2 any maintenance and development of the Motueka Harbour; and

5.9.3 the Council approved works in the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve area.

5.10 Feedback from the Council was that a comprehensive and future-focussed planning process is within the scope of 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 above. Planning is relevant and necessary for embarking on future “improvements” and “development” for the port.

What would a structure plan achieve?

5.11 A structure plan would achieve the following outcomes:

5.11.1 provide an agreed future plan with port users, iwi, the community and environmental and recreational groups;

5.11.2 provide a framework for a new port zone and other planning tools;

5.11.3 provide a robust and defensible framework for the future development of the port;

5.11.4 identify a location for the proposed regional boat ramp;

5.11.5 identify locations for needed recreation and marine facilities, including boat maintenance;

5.11.6 inform the content of the community and commercial leases and any land sales;

5.11.7 inform funding decisions regarding the provision of services at the port;

5.11.8 provide a path towards achieving compliance with the TRMP and regulations;

5.11.9 support climate adaptation; and

5.11.10 potentially identify new commercial opportunities.

5.12 The structure plan would guide the development and redevelopment of the port by defining future development and land use patterns, areas of open space, the layout and the nature of the infrastructure (including transportation links), required facilities and other key features and constraints that influence how the port is to be managed and developed.

5.13 Issues that will be considered through this structure plan include:

5.13.1 protecting and enhancing cultural values;

5.13.2 provision for use and growth of commercial port activities;

5.13.3 provision for recreational and community facilities and uses;

5.13.4 provision for natural values (conservation, ecological protection and enhancement);

5.13.5 recognising and providing for historic heritage;

5.13.6 providing safe and efficient access to and through the port;

5.13.7 ensuring infrastructural capacity;

5.13.8 protection of amenity values; and

5.13.9 any other matters arising through consultation.

5.14 Considering these issues through the structure plan process and plan change will help to reduce the time and cost of resource consent processes by having an already agreed plan and planning provisions that support that plan. The structure plan will also enable funding to be aligned to provide the services when needed.

Why do the structure plan now?

5.15 A unique opportunity has arisen with the convergence of Council activities (Policy, Property and Strategic Policy). Several Council leases are coming up for review and renewal. If the structure plan is completed within the next two years, the leases and any new planning provisions can be aligned to give effect to the plan.

5.16 If the plan is delayed, or not completed until a later date, then the Council will need to wait another 20 years for the leases to come up for review. A new location may also need to be found for the regional boat ramp, as there currently is development pressure on both proposed locations.

5.17 There are significant costs that have been, and will continue to be, incurred because of the status quo. The port’s users and the community have argued consistently since 2014 that there is a need to strategically plan for the port. The Council is aware that the port operations are not currently meeting the requirements of the TRMP or regulations.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Fund Port Motueka Structure Plan work from the fund.	Structure plan work can proceed and be completed at a critical time. Fulfilment of expectations of port stakeholders. Structure plan will be available to inform plan change. Development of the port can be better planned and more effective and efficient.	Use of funds for planning work, rather than physical works.
2.	Decline to fund work from the fund	Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund available for physical works.	Structure plan development will remain on hold until other funding source found. Planning work is delayed resulting in frustration for port users, and potentially poorly planned outcomes.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Fund Port Motueka Structure Plan work from the fund.

Structure plan work can proceed and be completed at a critical time.

Fulfilment of expectations of port stakeholders.

Structure plan will be available to inform plan change.

Development of the port can be better planned and more effective and efficient.

Use of funds for planning work, rather than physical works.

Decline to fund work from the fund

Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund available for physical works.

Structure plan development will remain on hold until other funding source found.

Planning work is delayed resulting in frustration for port users, and potentially poorly planned outcomes.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no direct legislative requirements or legal implications, except for compliance with the funding policy. The structure plan is a non-statutory document, however adoption of the plan by the Council provides clarity of direction and a basis for implementation through subsequent plan changes and to guide funding decisions in the Long Term Plan.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Engagement with ngā iwi will be a core component of developing the structure plan for Port Motueka. The decision to allocate funds to this process will not affect ngā iwi directly or the Council’s relationship with ngā iwi.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 Overall, the level of significance is low for Tasman as a whole. But for the Motueka community the continuation of planning for Port Motueka is important and would have a moderate level of significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low / Moderate	The decision to utilise funds for this purpose may be of interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	Port facilities are appreciated and well used by a significant number of people and groups. A well-planned port will have significance for many people in the Motueka community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	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
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The first round of engagement with the community and stakeholders has been completed. The recommencement of the project would involve further engagement and communication with the community.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 Outside of the fund, there would be no other financial or budgetary implications.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If funding is not allocated and the structure planning work is not undertaken, there is a high risk that poor outcomes and missed opportunities will be experienced at Port Motueka.

12.2 There is a reputational risk due to the commencement and pausing of the project.

12.3 These risks can be readily mitigated by the recommencement of the structure plan programme.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The port is in a location that is vulnerable to long-term sea level rise. However, the timeframe for development at the port is substantially shorter than the projected sea level rise.

13.2 A broader Motueka Masterplan project will need to further consider climate impacts.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 Utilisation of money from the fund is consistent with the fund policy.

14.2 Development of a structure plan for Port Motueka was a priority for the (now paused) Tasman Environment Plan. However, with the refocus on the absolute key priorities, resources are not available for this work out of the normal Environmental Policy budget.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Development of a structure plan for Port Motueka remains a key priority.

15.2 Utilisation of funds from the Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund is appropriate and consistent with the fund policy.

15.3 Authorisation for $100,000 is required from the Council.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Council approves the funding, a procurement process will commence to find an appropriate consultant to work with Council staff to recommence the process and develop the structure plan as soon as possible.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Motueka Harbour and Coastal Works Reserve Fund Policy	82
2.⇩	Summary of Community Consultation	86

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.7 Māpua Boat Ramp - Request for Funding Reallocation

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-05-7

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider a request from the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust (the Trust) to reallocate further funding from the $700,000 allocated in the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 In May 2021, the Council approved funding contributions of $50,000 in 2021/22, $50,000 in 2022/23 and $600,000 in 2023/24 towards the development of a boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park.

2.2 The project is being managed by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust (the Trust) which has been set up to obtain a resource consent, then own and operate the boat ramp once consented and constructed.

2.3 The Trust has requested further funding of $250,000 to cover its indicative costs of proceeding with the resource consent process.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Māpua Boat Ramp - Request for Funding Reallocation report RCN24-05-7; and

2. notes the Council resolution of 17 May 2021 agreeing to advance funding for the new Tasman Bay Boat Access Facility of $700,000 (excluding inflation) to $50,000 in 2021/2022, $50,000 in 2022/2023 and $600,000 in 2023/2024, for the purpose of providing a new boat ramp facility at Waterfront Park in Māpua to be funded from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserves Financial Contributions account; and

3. notes that, as at 30 March 2024, the Council has paid the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust $169,406 from the allocated funding towards the preparation and application for a Resource Consent for the boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park; and

4. declines advancing a further $250,000 from the allocated funding as requested by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 In December 2019, the Council gave approval, as landowner, to the Māpua Boat Club to proceed with the resource consent application for the development of a boat ramp on the Māpua Waterfront Park. The Māpua Waterfront Park is open space and not classified reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 In May 2021, at its deliberation meeting for the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031, the Council approved funding contributions of $50,000 in 2021/22, $50,000 in 2022/23 and $600,000 in 2023/24 towards the development of a boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park. Funding would come from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserves Financial Contributions account.

4.3 In June 2023, the Council considered and approved an initial request to bring forward $95,000 from the $600,000 originally allocated in 2023/2024 to help fund the costs it has incurred in preparing a resource consent application for the construction of a boat ramp at the Māpua Waterfront Park.

4.4 The Trust has confirmed that it has incurred costs to 31 March 2024 totalling $234,314. It has funding totalling $81,822 primarily comprising two loans.

4.5 Up until 30 March 2024, the Council has funded $169,406 towards to preparation of the resource consent application. This balance expenditure of $64,908 is being covered by the two loans.

4.6 The Trust has developed and submitted a resource consent application for the boat ramp. The application has been subject to a public consultation process and the Council received approximately 111 submissions opposed and 212 submissions in support and six neutral submissions. Eighty-eight submitters wish to be heard.

4.7 On 9 April 2024, the Trust met with Council resource consent staff to be briefed on the consent process from here. The Trust were advised that it needed to produce additional reports to offset and respond to the key issues raised in the consultation process.

4.8 The Trust is now requesting a further $250,000 to cover the estimated costs of

· the hearing ($100,000 to $150,000),

· reports for the hearing ($50,000) and

· legal representation at the hearing ($50,000).

4.9 The Trust acknowledges that it signed an agreement with the Council regarding the funding and any further funding advanced by the Council would necessitate more contribution from the Trust. However, until a resource consent is granted, the Trust has stated that its fundraising capability is very restricted, and it simply cannot raise further funds from its own resources for a community boat ramp without further advances from the Council.

4.10 Further to this, the Trust has stated that funders they have approached have indicated that they require a consent before they can make any funding contribution.

4.11 The Trust has also stated that its trustees are no longer willing to put their time and money into this project without a resource consent.

4.12 The Trust has the dominant view that the boat ramp is a community facility, and that the Council should be committing more funding to it.

4.13 The Trust has made the point that there has been considerable volunteer input to date in locating the water and wastewater pipes in the estuary (120 hours), household surveys (200 hours), time in public meetings, information stands at the Māpua market plus meetings with iwi and community groups.

4.14 The cost estimate for the boat ramp was $1,713,886 plus GST in March 2019. This included a 15% contingency. From March 2019 to December 2023 the Construction Cost Index has increased by around 35-37% which suggests that the cost estimate could now be in the vicinity of $2.3 million.

4.15 The following are the actual budgets which include the inflation adjustments made to the figures in the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031;

· Year 1 (2021/2022) $51,150

· Year 2 (2022/2023) $52,378

· Year 3 (2023/2024) $648,652

· Total (LTP 2021/2031) $752,180

4.16 As at 31 March 2024, the Council has contributed $169,406 to the Trust costs. The balance available to the Trust is now $582,774.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 In its resolution, SH21-05-28, dated 17 May 2021, the Council approved funding of $700,000 for the purpose of providing a new boat ramp facility at Waterfront Park in Māpua to be funded from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs). With inflation this $700,000 has escalated to $752,180 (see clause 4.15 above).

5.2 RFCs should be spent on capital development associated with the reserves activity, whether purchasing land for reserves or investing on the reserves themselves. Although the Waterfront Park at Māpua is not a gazetted reserve, the Council believed that in making its decision to fund the boat ramp, it would relieve the Grossi Point Reserve from being utilised as a boat ramp plus car and boat trailer parking area. Providing a boat ramp at an alternate site would allow Grossi Point to be developed to function more as a recreation reserve than it currently is.

5.3 The other key driver for Grossi Point is that it is considered to be culturally significant to Māori/iwi so any investment to remove its use as a boat ramp facility and protect its status as a significant cultural site is fully justified.

5.4 The Council is aware that the funding it has already paid to the Trust has no security. If the Trust fails to obtain a consent or if the conditions of consent are too onerous to enable the boat ramp to be constructed, then the Council’s funding contribution to date will not be recovered. Any additional funding would also be at risk for the same reasons.

5.5 The Council resolution of the meeting held on 17 May 2021 point 4 – “requests that at least one third of the project costs is funded from a community contribution.” To date the Trust has justified its contribution by applying hourly rates to its volunteer efforts. Although this is a positive initiative, staff are not sure that this was the Council’s intention that in kind volunteer input would count towards the one third community contribution.

5.6 The cost estimate for the boat ramp, which is now assessed at $2.3 million, assumes that any conditions of consent are within the scope of the original estimate. This may not be a valid assumption. The conditions of consent may add to the costs of construction and possibly to the ongoing operation and management of the boat ramp. Whether the Trust has considered this risk is unknown.

5.7 Based on the uncertainty around the granting of a consent, staff recommend that the Council not risk any further RFC funding to this project until consent is granted. The Council could decide to provide other types of funding but even then the risk around not obtaining the benefit of any type of investment could be considered too great at this stage.

5.8 Should the Council decide not to provide any further funding, whether RFCs or any other type of funding, there remains the risk that the Trust may decide to not progress any further with the project. That being the case the RFC funding already invested in the consent process will be lost. If the Council wanted a return on that investment, it could consider taking a further risk and provide the requested funding.

5.9 The other risk that the Council should bear in mind, is that if the consent is granted, with 111 submissions opposing the application, conceivably an appeal could be lodged with the Environment Court which would draw the Trust into much greater investment in expertise and legal representation to progress with that process.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust’s request for the additional $250,000 from the funding already allocated by the Council.	Allows the Trust to progress with the resource consent process.	May be a sunk investment if a consent is not granted.
2.	Decline the Boat Ramp Community Trust’s request for the additional $250,000 from the funding already allocated by the Council.	No further investment required from the Council until the resource consent is granted.	May result in the Trust not progressing with the consent application and the funds the Council has invested to date is not recovered.
3.	Approve the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust’s request for the additional $250,000 from the funding other than from RFCs.	Not committing any further RFC funding as the risk of not obtaining any benefit in return.	May still be a sunk investment if a consent is not granted.

6.2 Option 2 is recommended for the reasons outlined.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Council has already resolved to provide RFC funding for the boat ramp. There are no legal requirements other than the funds being distributed in accordance with the Funding Deed signed between the Council and the Trust.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 We understand the Trust has consulted with iwi as part of its development of the resource consent application.

8.2 This decision in this report does not specifically require iwi engagement.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 This decision is not considered to be a significant decision requiring further engagement with the community or any specific agencies. It is primarily about whether the Council agrees to advance additional funding that it has already allocated in this Long Term Plan 201/2031 for this project.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Although there is quite a lot of interest in the local community, approval from the Council to advance further funds to a process that considers all impacts would be of low significance.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The decision is only about funding of a project that is already the subject of public consultation and deliberations.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	If the Council decides to advance the additional $250,000 from RFCs and consent is not granted, the benefit for the reserves activity of that funding would be lost.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Maybe	The timing of the advancement of the funding would need to be managed so to keep the Council within its debt limits.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	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
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The Council has not had any communication on this decision other than requesting further information from the Trust.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 As stated in this report the Council has provided funding in its Long Term Plan 2021/2031 and this decision aligns with that funding provision.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The key risk with this decision is that if the Council approves advancing the requested funding and the consent is not granted, then the investment is not recoverable, it is a sunk investment.

12.2 The counterfactual risk is that if the Council does not approve advancing the requested funding, then the Trust may decide not to progress with the project. This would mean that funding that the Council has invested to date ($169,406) will not be recovered, it would be a sunk investment.

12.3 The additional risk is that should a consent be granted, and an appeal is made to the Environment Court then unless additional funding is sourced by the Trust, it may not be able to progress with the project through the Environment Court.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This decision does not need to consider climate change implications. Any climate change implications would be dealt with as part of the resource consent process.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 There are no specific plans for a boat ramp in the Māpua vicinity. This is purely an initiative from a group of local people who have formed a Trust to progress this.

14.2 The Council has previously considered a regional boat ramp but this has not resulted is a specific location but rather deferred to current boat ramps around the region.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Council needs to decide whether to advance additional funding from that already allocated for the boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park.

15.2 There are risks associated with the outcomes of the resource consent process for the boat ramp. The risk of the Council investing further in the Trust’s desire to progress with the resource consent could result in a sunk investment if consent is not granted or if it is granted and an appeal is made to the Environment Court. If neither of these risks occur and consent is granted without appeal, then the Council may get a return on its investment.

15.3 Staff consider the risk of advancing further RFC funds and obtaining a return on investment are too great and recommend not advancing the additional $250,000 requested.

15.4 However, if the Council would prefer to protect the investment already incurred ($169,406) in this process then it could decide to advance the funds requested.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The decision of the Council will be conveyed to the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust.

16.2 Should Council approve the additional funding, then it will be distributed in accordance with the Funding Deed between the Council and the Trust.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.8 Streets for People Implementation Feedback - Aranui Road. Queen Street and Champion Road

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	Joe Bywater, Project Manager; Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager; Bill Rice, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor - Transportation
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-05-8

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to summarise and present feedback and relevant data on the Aranui Road, Queen Street and Champion Road pilot cycleways that have been installed as part of the Streets for People (SfP) programme and request approval from the Council on the next steps.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 On 30 June 2022, staff presented a report (ROC22-06-3) to the Operations Committee introducing the Streets for People project.

2.2 The SfP project team has since completed pilot cycleway installations on Aranui Road (Māpua), Champion Road (between Salisbury Road and Hill Street) and Queen Street (between Salisbury Road and Hill Street).

2.3 This report does not include the remaining streets in the SfP Programme which are Salisbury Road, Hill Street (between Queen Street and Champion Road) and Wensley Road. These remaining pilots are either in the community feedback phase or are yet to be constructed. Staff will present feedback on these pilots at the Council meeting on
20 June 2024.

2.4 All these pilots deliver initiatives from the Walking and Cycling Strategy (adopted in 2022), which has overarching targets of increasing the proportion of trips made within our urban areas by walking or cycling.

2.5 Staff have undertaken pre and post implementation experience surveys to accompany the following datasets (Attachment 1):

a) Pre and post implementation

1) Vehicle counts

2) Vehicle speeds

3) Cycle counts

4) Cycling routes (footpath and road)

b) Feedback from businesses

c) Feedback delivered through other formats (service requests, emails, meetings)

2.6 Understanding the performance of the fast, low-cost pilot projects will assist the Council in improving these projects in the short term, and in planning future permanent changes to street layouts to deliver against its strategic objectives in the long term.

2.7 Based on the full range of data in 2.5, staff recommend the following changes (if any) for the Māpua SfP pilot.

Aranui Road

· Staff recommend Option 2-retain with changes. Changes listed here:

o Remove the arrows in opposing directions on the cycleway.

o Remove planter boxes and replace with yellow lines.

o Remove white plastic bollards.

o Create defined space on the road section of shared path heading towards the wharf for one-way cycling.

o Encourage cyclists to take the lane when heading away from the wharf.

o Extend the corner footpath by the school for cyclists.

2.8 Staff recommend the following changes for the Richmond SfP Pilots:

Queen Street

· Staff recommend Option 1 – retain the existing pilot cycle ways with no changes.

Champion Road

· Staff recommend Option 1 – retain the existing pilot cycle ways with no changes.

2.9 If approved, staff will work with our contractor to action any changes as soon as possible.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Streets for People Implementation Feedback - Aranui Road. Queen Street and Champion Road report, RCN24-05-8; and

2. approves the following design changes

2.1 Aranui Road

2.1.1 Remove the arrows in opposing directions on the cycleway.

2.1.2 Remove planter boxes and replace with yellow lines.

2.1.3 Remove white plastic bollards.

2.1.4 Create defined space on the road section of shared path heading towards the Māpua wharf for one-way cycling.

2.1.5 Encourage cyclists to take the traffic lane when heading away from the Māpua wharf.

2.1.6 Extend the corner footpath from Aranui Park to Māpua Fruit and Vege Shop.

2.2 Champion Road

2.2.1 Retain pilot with no changes.

2.3 Queen Street

2.3.1 Retain pilot with no changes.

4. Background / Horopaki

Walking and Cycling Strategy

4.1 In May 2022, the Council adopted its Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022-52. This strategy outlined goals as follows:

· Improving network capacity, by encouraging people to walk or cycle to relieve congestion from cars;

· Looking after our environment, by reducing emissions;

· Healthy communities, by encouraging more people to engage in physical activity; and

· Vibrant urban communities, where better urban design helps reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle.

4.2 Among other things, the strategy outlined a network of new and improved cycle lanes in Tasman’s urban areas. Safer infrastructure was the number one action that the community said would make them more likely to walk or cycle,

4.3 The strategy set a target of increasing walking and cycling for short local journeys around the urban area to 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2050.

A diagram of a city with blue and white text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 1: Targets set out in the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022

4.4 The Walking and Cycling Strategy underwent extensive consultation and a full hearings process and received 79% approval from the community through the feedback analysed by staff.

4.5 The current Streets for People projects being decided on now are linked directly to the targets and network plans approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy.

4.6 Crashes that affect cyclists and pedestrians are ongoing in the scope area — notably the cyclist fatality on Champion Road in 2022 (person knocked off bike by door being opened in parked car), and an injury-causing accident to a 14-year-old girl on Hill Street in 2023 (struck from behind by a vehicle when cycling past a parked car). These types of crashes, and many near misses that go undocumented, could be reduced with different road layouts and associated infrastructure, which is being piloted through the Streets for People programme.

4.7 Richmond Transport Programme Business Case

4.8 On 16 December 2021 (RCN21-12-3), the Council approved the Richmond Transport Programme Business Case (PBC). The PBC identified the following problems:

· Safety and Place: Increasing traffic volumes because of growth creates severance and rat running, leading to reduced place value and increased safety risk (50%)

· Route Efficiency: Traffic congestion through Richmond causes delays to people and goods reducing travel time reliability and access to economic opportunities (30%).

· Travel Choice: Reliance on private cars for short journeys because of car-oriented development results in low utilisation of public and active transport modes and conflict between modes (20%)

4.9 The preferred programme included installation of cycleways on key routes in Richmond in the short term, alongside other interventions including road and intersection upgrades, and improved public transport.

4.10 The benefits for investing in the preferred programme were described as:

· improved livability

· improved safety

· efficient movement through Richmond

· improved travel choice

Growth and Intensification

4.11 Both the Walking and Cycling Strategy and the Richmond PBC identified that significant traffic congestion was likely in Richmond if growth continued as projected, and few changes were made to the transport system.

4.12 Growth across the district and the likely intensification of Richmond identified in ‘Richmond on the Rise’ is likely to result in the need to move significantly more people along our transport corridors. Unless a significant proportion of those people travel by means other than private cars, then the number of vehicles on the road is likely to progressively increase.

4.13 According to the medium population growth model, there will be around 16,000 more cars in the urban area in 2050 than we have now. Shifting transport choices to walking and cycling is a critical part of mitigating this growth in emissions and associated congestion.

4.14 Providing capacity for such an increase in private cars within our road network will become more and more difficult and expensive.

4.15 Additionally, The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) removed the minimum parking requirements in 2020, meaning that new developments do not have to provide any off-street car parking specifically for those residences. If cycleways are to ever be installed along the intensification zones in Richmond, now is the best time to put those in place. A lack of on street parking will encourage developers to provide any necessary parking for residents on the development sites, and not rely on public road space.

4.16 If cycle lanes and active transport networks are installed as an uninterrupted network linking residential areas to key destinations, like schools and the town centre, it will become easier for the growing population of Richmond to make short journeys actively. One of the strategic benefits of making it easy to get around Richmond locally for those short trips (especially in the face of intensification), is that driving into Richmond from the surrounding areas in Tasman and Nelson can remain a pleasant and not frustrating trip. This is important for reducing urban congestion and for businesses that depend on regional customers, not just local to Richmond, to continue to thrive.

Streets for People

4.17 In 2022, the New Zealand Transport Agency invited councils to apply to be part of the Streets for People programme, which offered 90% funding towards reshaping streets to expand low-carbon transport choices through rapid, adaptive projects during 2022-24.

4.18 Staff identified the SfP programme as an opportunity to deliver key elements of the Strategy at low cost to the Council.

4.19 Tasman was successful in obtaining funding for projects in Richmond and Māpua, and the Council has been delivering the various project elements during 2023 and 2024 to date.

4.20 On 30 June 2022, staff presented a report (ROC22-06-3) to the Operations Committee introducing the Streets for People project and requesting the development of the Streets for People Governance Panel (Panel). The scope of the panel is:

a) Approve the scope of the Streets for People project.

b) Maintain oversight of the direction and decisions made by the project team.

c) Maintain oversight of the communications and engagement plan.

d) Make recommendations on any new or revised formal delegations to the project team.

e) Receive update/monitoring reports.

Delivery of Streets for People Project

4.21 Since the June 2022 resolution, staff have held numerous Governance Panel meetings and workshops, and have had designs endorsed for all streets in the SfP programme.

4.22 These designs have also been approved and relevant elements including cycle lanes and zebra crossings incorporated into the Traffic Control Devices Bylaw register.

4.23 Projects which have been implemented, and had data and feedback received and analysed, are on Aranui Road, Champion Road and Queen Street.

4.24 The SfP programme does not follow the ‘standard’ project lifecycle where a detailed design is produced, consulted on, refined, approved, and constructed in permanent and relatively high-cost ways. Rather, it is implemented rapidly using lower-cost materials and refined over time based on feedback and ongoing engagement with users.

4.25 All three pilots have been delivered using relatively low-cost materials which can be refined with minimal investment.

4.26 The simplified steps for each sites feedback process were as follows (all post the bylaw approval from the Council):

4.26.1 Pre-construction experience survey.

4.26.2 Construction.

4.26.3 Post-construction experience survey (at least two weeks after construction completion) open for at least four weeks.

4.26.4 Tube count data in February/March (annual tube count data).

4.26.5 Collation of feedback received and theming/coding to feedback into multiple themes.

4.26.6 Interpret and summarise themed feedback (undertaken externally).

4.27 Staff engaged an external consultant to collate and interpret the range of qualitative and quantitative data. The report summarising this data is included in Attachment 1.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 During the consultation period for the Walking and Cycling Strategy, staff hand-delivered engagement letters to every residence on the streets tagged for parking removal and cycling lane installation (including Champion Road, Queen Street and Aranui Road). From these responses, 57% were in favour of cycle lanes on the roads in front of their properties, 10% were generally supportive but concerned about parking, 12% were unsure, and 22% opposed the proposal. (Reports RSH22-05-1 and RSPC22-05-3).

5.2 Staff advised the Council that when works began for the installation of the cycleways, it was likely that more negative feedback would be received, as the reallocation of road space from space historically able to be used for parking, to cycleway, requires a significant change in habit from some residents and road users.

5.3 The current frustration expressed by some residents and business owners regarding the reallocation of road space is an expected reaction to this change. Human behaviour tends to be resistant to change and habits can take a long time to adapt. This does not mean that the project will not ultimately be successful or embraced by the wider community.

5.4 Staff advise that those who are satisfied with the pilot cycleways are less likely to provide feedback, as they are not seeking a change. The same people who submitted in favour of the installation of cycleways for the Walking and Cycling Strategy may not have submitted this for this round of feedback On Queen Street, Champion Road and Aranui Road.

Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators

5.5 Key measures for SfP projects were identified in the planning stages and are focused on user perceptions (customer surveys), and safety indicators (vehicle speeds).

5.6 While staff have collected cycle counts, these numbers are not considered a reliable indicator of success yet. It is early days in respect of delivery against the Walking and Cycling Strategy objectives and targets. A key foundation of the strategy is developing a more complete network of cycleways, which at the time of preparing this report is still not complete. Figure 2 below shows the status of Richmond SfP on-street cycleway projects physical works as at 31 March 2024.

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Status of Richmond Street for People on-street cycleway projects physical works

5.7 The remaining works to be completed will mean that cyclists will be able to get from home to work, town or school in a fully linked network of cycleways. If there are significant gaps in the network, or areas where people feel unsafe, cyclist numbers are unlikely to rise significantly.

5.8 The SfP programme focused mainly on mid-block cycle way treatments (between major intersections) which are faster and cheaper to install. To achieve the goals set out in the Walking and Cycling Strategy, the full cycling network must be improved from a perceived safety perspective, including intersections.

5.9 The Transport Choices (TC) programme was developed to improve the main intersections along the SfP network in Richmond (Wensley/Oxford Roundabout, Salisbury/Queen Roundabout, Queen/Hill Intersection, Champion/Hill Roundabout) and improve William Street for walking and cycling.

5.10 In November 2023, funding for the TC programme from the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) was retracted before these major intersection upgrades were contractually committed – except for works around William Street.

5.11 Confident cyclists will continue to use cycle lanes for their commute, but the less confident cyclists, who some studies^{^[1]} suggest make up 50–60% of commuting residents, are less likely to shift transport modes in the short term. Investment in further improvements will take time.

5.12 As a comparison to illustrate the expected timeframe, Christchurch City began their cycleways programme in 2013, and are making steady progress towards implementing their high-quality cycleway network. They are seeing growth in cyclist numbers over time, as illustrated in Figure 3.

A graph showing the growth of a stock market

Description automatically generated

Figure 3. Christchurch City Council example of cyclist numbers growing over time

5.13 If the pilot programmes remain in place, we will continue to carry out counts of cyclists. This is a performance measure in the Council’s Long Term Plan.

5.14 Staff advise that the removal of the pilot cycleways at this stage would be premature for several reasons, including:

· the pilots have not been in place long enough to measure changes in behaviour;

· The network is not yet complete;

· feedback from schools is very positive and many people appreciate the improvements;

· the Walking and Cycling Strategy envisaged a long term commitment, and is not only focused on kids, but on short journeys for all (to work, services and school).

Monitoring and Evaluation Results to Date

Aranui Road

5.15 The Aranui Road pilot installation included a shared path, separated cycleways, planter boxes, parking removal and raised pedestrian crossings.

5.16 Since the installation, perceptions of safety have improved and vehicle speeds decreased, particularly at the pedestrian crossing near Māpua School where speeds have reduced from an average of 39.8 km/h to around 26 km/h.

5.17 Pedestrian movements have changed significantly along Aranui Road as well, with pedestrians choosing to cross at the raised crossings, rather than seemingly at random.

5.18 Key feedback themes centre around support for the new pedestrian infrastructure and opposition to the planter boxes. Residents have expressed a preference for yellow dotted lines rather than planter boxes. There was also significant feedback expressing confusion around the layout of the shared path/cycle lane layout.

5.19 As a result of this feedback, staff recommend maintaining the pilot but replacing the planter boxes with yellow lines and increasing clarity around cycle lane layout.

Queen Street

5.20 The Queen Street SfP pilot installation included a buffered cycle lane on both sides of the road with all on-street parking being removed.

5.21 Since the pilot cycleways were installed, average motor vehicle speeds have decreased slightly in all segments of Queen Street between Oxford Street and Hill Street. The speed reductions are minor and vary between -1.7% and -3.8% (a 1 to 2 km/h reduction). This was measured using TomTom GPS data.

5.22 To note, the pedestrian crossing on Queen Street between Edward Street and Washbourne Drive is due to be upgraded to a raised pedestrian crossing in May/June 2024. Staff expect to see speeds reduced in this area as has been the case in the Aranui Road SfP project and the Salisbury Road raised crossings.

5.23 Since the installation of the pilot installation on Queen Street, cyclist numbers have increased 22%.

5.24 Key feedback centres around sentiments that the changes have improved safety, but significant concern about the removal of previous space available for car parking.

5.25 Staff have expected negative feedback regarding on road car parking removal but have assessed the off-street parking capacity of residences along Queen Street and the parking utilisation rates in the area. Given the overall off street parking capacity and proximity to nearby side streets, staff recommend maintaining the pilot as it is as it is a key element of progressing the integrity of the Richmond cycle network and achieving strategic objectives. See engagement feedback below for additional commentary.

Champion Road

5.26 The Champion Road SfP pilot installation included a buffered cycle lane on both sides of the road with all on-street parking being removed.

5.27 Since the changes were made, average vehicle speeds have decreased in all segments of Champion Road between Salisbury Street and Hill Street. The speed reductions are minor and vary between -0.8% and -3.6% (a 1 to 2 kmph speed reduction).

5.28 To note, the pedestrian crossing on Champion Road outside Garin College is due to be upgraded to a raised pedestrian crossing in April/May 2024. Staff expect to see speeds reduced in this area as has been the case in the Aranui Road SfP project and the Salisbury Road raised crossings.

5.29 Since the installation of the Streets for People pilot on Champion Road, cycle numbers have increased. A 117% increase was measured near Salisbury Road, and a 15% increase was measured near Hill Street. This was measured in the annual tube count programme.

5.30 Staff note the significant increase in cycling numbers on Champion Road near Salisbury Road. This may be partly due to the proximity to Garin College, but also due to the new cycle path link through Saxton Field to the Railway Reserve which was completed in mid-2023. The impact of completing this link in the cycling network is evidence that providing a more complete network improves the uptake of cycling.

5.31 Key feedback centres around supporting the new cycle infrastructure and expressing concern about car park removal.

5.32 Due to the Champion Road cycleway being a critical link in the Richmond cycle network planning, staff recommend maintaining the pilot project as it is.

Engagement Feedback

General Comments

5.33 Staff advise that before the full network of cycle infrastructure identified in the Walking and Cycling Strategy is installed (at least as a pilot) it is unlikely to see major changes in active mode numbers. There have been increased active transport numbers (more on Champion Road due to the high percentage of school students), but a significant and lasting increase in numbers takes time for people to shift their habits and a full network to be installed without gaps that leave people feeling unsafe. If there is one intersection or section of road that feels dangerous, the ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists and their loved ones will still hesitate to use the rest of the network.

5.34 Each site received approximately 400-700 individual feedback submissions post construction. Staff acknowledge that the residents that filled in this survey were self-selecting and may therefore not be a statistically representative sample size.

5.35 Staff consider it likely that many residents that were supportive of the pilot installations may not have filled out the post-construction survey, as the pilots were satisfactory in their view, and they felt they were likely to remain.

Aranui Road, Māpua

5.36 The Summary of Findings report (page 20) identifies the five main positive themes, and the five main negative themes from the feedback data. The five main negative themes are as follows:

· Opposition to planter boxes

· Concerns about impact to safety

· Concern about car park removal

· Confusion about the new layout

· Opposition to material / bollard / fit-out

5.37 From these key themes, staff have drafted some design for alternative options. Staff also have the following comments about the themes.

Opposition to planter boxes (86% of respondents, Summary of Findings page 21)

5.38 The planter boxes served three purposes:

· Protect setbacks from vehicle crossings, so that vehicles don’t park to close to them. Being low, the planters allow visibility of the footpath either side of the vehicle crossing. Drivers can more easily see if a pedestrian is approaching the vehicle crossing before the driver turns in, so the safety is improved.

· Provide a narrowing effect on the road, which encourages slower speeds for vehicles. (The Summary of Findings (page 8) indicates a speed reduction in this zone of 15-20% has been achieved. The raised tables will be contributing to this).

· Provide more greenery along Aranui Road in advance of any further permanent streetscape improvement project.

Table 1 – Brief options analysis and recommendation relevant to this theme. Designs in Attachment 2

Option	Description	Brief description	Recommended
1	Leave planter boxes as they are.	Status quo. No change. Vehicle speeds will not increase.
2	Remove planter boxes and reinstate on-street parking as before.	Vehicle speeds may increase as the road may feel wider. Pedestrian safety at vehicle crossings will be compromised as vehicles can block site lines.
3	Remove planter boxes and replace with yellow lines.	Vehicle speeds may increase as the road may feel wider but pedestrian safety at vehicle crossings will be maintained. Outside the Four Square already has this arrangement.	X

Concerns about impact to safety and confusion about the layout (30-50% of respondents)

5.39 These two themes have been combined as the feedback is similar between them. Reviewing the feedback comments for these theme categories, some key sub-themes come through:

· Mixed-mode use on the footpath (pedestrians and cyclists). They should be separated.

· Cyclists unsure where to go. Too many options.

· The stop-start nature of the cycle lane (stops through town centre).

· Confusing for tourists.

· Children become complacent.

5.40 Note: The Summary of Findings (page 10) shows that even before the project, 45% of cyclists through the town centre use the footpath, so pedestrian cyclist conflicts were already present to an extent.

Table 2 – Brief options analysis and recommendation relevant to this theme. Designs in Attachment 3 and 4

Option	Description	Brief description	Recommended
1	Leave alignment as it is.	Status quo. No change. Confusion ongoing.
2	Road section of shared path to convert to wharf-bound cycle lane only.	Cyclists heading away from the wharf will cycle in the road lane just like a car. Pedestrians will stick to footpath. Tasman’s Great Taste Trail section remains a shared path.	X
3	Road section of shared path to convert to wharf-bound cycle lane only. Reroute GTT.	Cyclists heading away from the wharf will cycle in the road lane just like a car. Pedestrians will stick to footpath. Tasman’s Great Taste Trail could be redirected down Iwa Street but would require further consultation.

Opposition to materials / bollards / fit-out

5.41 Reviewing the feedback comments for these theme categories, some key sub-themes come through:

· Clutter of paint, signs, and poles. Too many obstacles. Hazardous.

· Negatively impacts the character of the village.

5.42 Note: Given the low-budget, interim nature of the project, there is limited ability to achieve a high-quality aesthetic. A review from a landscape architect has suggested some improvements that could be made:

· Consider more appealing paint treatments of cycle lane thresholds and signage.

· Remove planter boxes and concrete some at pedestrian crossings to create pause areas.

· Modify these planter boxes to create seating and make more visually appealing, using materials that connect with the wharf precinct aesthetic.

Table 3 – Brief options analysis and recommendation relevant to this theme

Option	Description	Brief description	Recommended
1	Remove white plastic bollards.	With the planters already gone, and the cycle lane 1-way, also removing white bollards will result in a significant difference overall.	X
2	Remove white plastic bollards & concrete separators.	Seventeen percent (17%) of respondents did highlight objections to the concrete bollards. Note that these are likely contributing to slower traffic. They also add a layer of protection for kids so removing them may result in upsetting a different group of residents.
3	Remove white plastic bollards and concrete separators. Implement landscaping improvements from	A pause area up by the school could be effective. However, there may already be so much opposition to planters that any remnant of them may be a legacy reminder.

Concerns about carpark removal

5.43 The Summary of Findings (page 21) does show that 68% of respondents would like to see more on-street parking. However, in the same graph, 51% of respondents would like to see either the same amount or more cycle lanes.

5.44 The Summary of Findings (page 21) also notes that pre-project data indicated on-street parking demand outside the town centre on Aranui Road was less than 8%. This is not compelling data to reinstate parking. Particularly along the Java Hut to School end, on-street parking is still available on the opposite side of the road.

5.45 The on-street car-parking removal undertaken as part of this project is consistent with what has been outlined in the Walking & Cycling strategy.

Table 4 – Brief options analysis and recommendation relevant to this theme

Option	Description	Brief description	Recommended
1	Leave alignment as it is.	Status quo. No change.	X
2	Remove section of cycle lane between Higgs Road and the wharf.	This stretch of road was most impacted by the on street car-park removal. However, nearby side streets are still available for parking.
3	Remove all sections of cycle lane (Higgs to wharf and Java Hut to School)	All cyclists would now share the road with cars.

Staff received feedback through the Māpua Masterplan process, and SfP feedback supporting the extension of footpath from Aranui Park towards the Māpua Fruit and Vege Shop. Staff have drafted a concept in Attachment 5 – Option 2. Should the Council approve this concept, staff will assess the feasibility in terms of budget and alignment.

Queen Street

5.46 The top five themes (from the question “what do you dislike about the project?”) which suggested a change to the existing pilot (excluding the general opposition theme) was as follows:

· Concern about car park removal (299 responses from the 729 total).

· Lack of clear rationale or data to support changes (131 responses from the 729 total).

· Concerns about impact to safety (85 responses from the 729 total).

· Concern about impact on and/or access to businesses (70 responses from the 729 total).

· Criticism of the Council’s engagement process and decision making (65 responses from the 729 total).

5.47 From these key themes, staff have drafted some design for alternative options in section 6 of this report with supporting Attachments 7 and 8. Staff also have the following comments about the themes.

Concern about car park removal

5.48 Due to the width of Queen Street, there is not an option that safely caters for separated cycleways and provides on-street parking.

5.49 Irrespective of that, staff have drafted a design (Attachment 7 - Option 3) which shows the maximum cycleway width that’s achievable accounting for the minimum traffic lane width and parking bay width.

5.50 When assessing the concerns about the car park removal, it's important to note the parking utilisation counts below.

5.51 Before the Queen Street SfP project commenced, staff and members of the community working group undertook a parking utilisation survey. The number of available on-street car parks between Salisbury Road and Hill Street was 128.

5.52 The average utilisation of these car parks was 14.88% (19 out of 128 parks utilised) with the highest number being 28 at 11am on 5 October 2022. To note, the parking utilisation data set included 19 individual counts between 20 September 2021 and 12 April 2023.

5.53 A further note – staff observed commuter parking at the Salisbury Road end of Queen Street which was unrestricted free parking. Counts taken outside of 8am to 4:30pm (approximate work commuter times) were on average 12 out of 128 parks utilised (compared to average of 20 out of 128 parks between the hours of 8am to 4:30pm). There were previously approximately 12 free unrestricted car parks at the bottom end of Queen Street between Washbourne Drive and Salisbury Road.

5.54 Staff have reflected this theme with an option to completely remove the cycle ways
(Option 3) and reinstate the on-street parking as it was before the SfP project started. This option, however, has serious drawbacks and implications for the safety of cyclist and pedestrians on Queen Street and the operation of the wider cycle network planned for Richmond.

5.55 The original network map of Richmond approved as part of the Walking and Cycling Strategy (Figure 4) shows upper Queen Street as having no parking, separated cycle ways, and importantly, continuing to have a 50 kmph speed limit.

5.56

Queen Street was intended to serve as one of the urban roads that maintained a higher speed limit which will reduce the tendency of drivers to divert into other roads (such as William Street). This helps protect the areas with higher pedestrian density, particularly with school frontages. To safely maintain a 50 kmph speed limit, it is crucial to keep cyclists separate from vehicle traffic.

Figure 4: Planned Richmond cycle network and speeds as shown in the approved Walking and Cycling Strategy (2022).

5.57 Additionally, according to the New Zealand Transport Agency’s One Network Framework, upper Queen Street is defined as an urban connecter—which is a road that carries a significant amount of vehicle traffic but also is a key active mode connector and has places, homes and some businesses. Urban Connectors are intended to stay higher speed to allow for faster connections and more efficient travel.

5.58 Policy 6 of the Walking and Cycling Strategy makes it clear that if a road is to remain at
50 kmph, it needs to have separated facilities for cyclists to allow people to safety make the choice to not drive.

5.59 The current Government has also indicated that one of the changes that will be made to the Speed Setting Rule is making it more difficult to justify lowering a speed limit to 30 kmph. To do this, the Council will need to be able to show through crash history the danger to pedestrians and cyclists and gain majority approval of the speed change from the community among other requirements. This makes it highly unlikely that upper Queen Street will be approved as a 30 kmph zone, therefore increasing the need to retain the pilot separated cycleways.

5.60 Staff note that only 14% of the feedback received regarding the changes on Queen Street were from residents of Queen Street.

Lack of clear rational or data to support changes

5.61 This theme more reflects the reach of the strategy consultation and consultation undertaken in the Streets for People project, rather than feedback that staff can alter with an alternative design. It would be fair to say that despite the relatively significant focus on communication and engagement during both the strategy development and the SFP projects, many residents are not aware of the Council’s strategy. Staff consider that option 3 below will satisfy those residents that have given this feedback.

Concerns about impact to safety

5.62 All installations have had an external “safe systems” audit and are considered safe from a technical design perspective. Most of the safety concerns seem to be guided towards the following:

· Removal of on-street parking and the need to park and walk should on-site parking be already utilised – particularly for elderly (with many complaints being on behalf of elderly).

· Upright separators (hit sticks) being difficult to see.

· Difficulty for support staff accessing their clients.

5.63 To note – staff have received feedback through surveys from people speaking on behalf of elderly or less-able-bodied residents like the feedback received here - “I don't like that it discriminates the elderly and those with limited mobility, I have heard that elderly aren't visiting their friends as they can't park and walk the distance to visit, also would make delivering meals on wheels and other important services like support workers to those in need harder.” Quote in the feedback survey from a resident of Queen Street aged 30-50.

5.64 While staff acknowledge the inconvenience to these residents, staff are yet to receive a specific complaint (other than survey feedback like the above quote) from a carer, health provider, emergency services or resident requiring one of these services stating that they have been unable to receive the necessary care due to lack of on-street parking. Staff consider this reflects the initial analysis carried out before project implementation which showed the availability of off-street parking at properties in the project area.

There are concerns about impact on and/or access to businesses

5.65 There are two sets of businesses along the SfP section of Queen Street – the Henley Dairy/Sprig and Fern (S&F) /Queen Street Fish & Chip Shop (F&C) block, and the Richmond Antique Store. All businesses were consulted in the design phase of the project.

The Henley Dairy/Sprig and Fern/Queen Street Fish & Chip Shop block

5.66 Before the pilot installations, there were nine 10-minute angled car parks on the northern side of Queen Street (heading away from the Council offices) directly outside the shops, on-street parking on the southern side of Queen Street, and a large car park (approximately 20 spaces) behind the shops (available to F&C and S&F customers only – however, not actively supervised).

5.67 After the pilot installations, there are now five parallel car parks on the northern side of Queen Street, no on-street parking on the southern side, and the car park behind the shops remains. Cars travelling towards Salisbury Road that are wanting to stop at the shops either must pull into the off-street car park, U-turn onto the northern side, or turn into George Street to park.

5.68 The owner of the Henley Store Dairy has expressed concerns that the pilot installations are affecting the business as some customers have said that they are continuing into town to do their convenience shopping instead of turning into the side streets and parking or doing a
U-turn and parking in the parallel parks.

5.69 The business owner has also indicated that revenue has decreased since the SfP pilots were installed. This is a fluctuation on revenue week on week, with some week’s revenue being the same as before the pilots were installed. It is worth noting that this revenue analysis did not consider any seasonal fluctuations, potential changes to cost of living and market spending on convenience goods.

5.70 Staff have not received any complaints about revenue fluctuations from the Sprig and Fern or the Fish and Chip shop.

5.71 Staff have subsequently drafted options (Attachment 8) which reinstates car parking on the Southern side of Queen Street in a 30km/h “slow speed zone”.

The Richmond Antique Store

5.72 Before the pilot installations, the following parking was available by the Antique Store:

· Three unmarked, time-restricted car parks on the northern side of Queen Street directly outside the Antique Shop;

· Four business car parks parallel to the building which are exclusive to the Antique Shop;

· Four free parking bays within 100 meters of the Antique Shop also on the northern side of Queen Street;

· Eight free parking bays both outside and within 100 meters of the Antique Shop on the southern side of Queen Street

5.73 The pilot installations have removed the 12 on-street parking bays and the three time-restricted car parks to install the separated cycle lanes.

5.74 None of the parking removed as mentioned above was exclusive to the business, and the 12 free parking bays were frequently occupied by commuter parking when assessed in the parking counts (more comments on this under the Queen Street previous parking utilisation heading below).

5.75 As a part of the project, the Council regraded the Antique Stores private gravel car park which provides approximately seven spaces provided multiple signs leading customers to the car parks. These spaces are exclusive to the business.

5.76 Staff have not received any complaints from the business owners since the pilot installation.

Criticism of the Council’s engagement process and decision making

5.77 Staff consider this theme to be a criticism of Council processes more than the pilot installations alone and will include it in the project ‘lessons learnt’ register. It is also a common complaint of people who do not support the decisions that the Council makes, regardless of the amount of consultation and engagement that has taken place.

Queen Street previous parking utilisation

5.78 Before the Queen Street SfP project commenced, staff and members of the community working group undertook a parking utilisation survey. The number of available on-street car parks between Salisbury Road and Hill Street was 128.

5.79 The average utilisation of these car parks was 14.88% (19 out of 128 parks utilised) with the highest number being 28 at 11am on 5 October 2022. To note, the parking utilisation data set included 19 individual counts between 20 September 20231 and 12 April 2023.

5.80 Commuter parking outside the Antique Shop was the biggest contributor to utilisation. Counts taken outside of 8am to 4:30pm (approximate work commuter times) were on average 12 out of 128 parks utilised (compared to average of 20 out of 128 parks between the hours of 8am to 4:30pm).

5.81 Each site received approximately 400-700 individual feedback submissions post construction. Staff acknowledge that the residents that filled in this survey were self-selecting and may therefore not be a statistically representative sample size.

5.82 Staff consider it likely that many residents that were supportive of the pilot installations may not have filled out the post-construction survey, as the pilots were satisfactory in their view, and they felt they were likely to remain.

Champion Road

5.83 For Champion Road, the top five themes which suggested a change to the existing pilot (excluding the general opposition theme) were as follows:

· Concern about car park removal (102 responses of the 422 total).

· Lack of clear rationale or data to support changes (43 responses of the 422 total).

· Concerns about impact to safety (60 responses of the 422 total).

· Criticism of the Council’s engagement process and decision making (28 responses of the 422 total).

· Opposition to colours/markings/signage (18 responses of the 422 total).

5.84 From these key themes, staff have drafted some design for alternative options
(Attachment 6). Staff also have the following comments about the themes.

Concern about car park removal

5.85 Due to the width of Champion Road, there is not an option that safely caters for separated cycleways and provides on-street parking. There were multiple suggestions in the feedback to provide cycling facilities on one side of the road with a parking bay on the other.

5.86 Irrespective of that, staff have drafted a design (Attachment 6 – Option 3) which shows the maximum cycleway width that is achievable accounting for the minimum traffic lane width and parking bay.

5.87 When assessing the concerns about the car park removal, it's important to note the parking utilisation counts below.

5.88 Staff also assessed the off-street parking capabilities of all residents along this stretch of Champion Road – with the average off-street parking available being six.

5.89 The lowest number of off-street car parks available is four and the maximum distance from a side street with car parks was 138 meters.

5.90 Staff have reflected this theme with an option to completely remove the cycleways and reinstate the on-street parking as it was before the SfP project started, however this is not recommended due to the overwhelming evidence of safety from cycle lanes, maintaining the integrity of the cycle network, support from Garin College and increase of cyclist numbers in the scope area.

Lack of clear rationale or data to support changes

5.91 This theme more reflects the reach of the walking and cycling strategy consultation and consultation undertaken in the Streets for People project, rather than feedback that staff can alter with an alternative design.

5.92 Staff assume that option 3 below will satisfy those residents that have given this feedback.

Concerns about impact to safety

5.93 As above with Queen Street qualitative data summary for the same theme.

Criticism of the Council’s engagement process and decision making

5.94 As above with Queen Street qualitative data summary for the same theme.

Opposition to colours/markings/signage

5.95 All installations have had an external “safe systems” audit and are considered safe from a design perspective. The markings, signage and painted lanes are industry standard and are measures to ensure safety of all road users.

5.96 Therefore, there are no options that will alleviate these concerns apart from option 3 which removes all cycle lanes and reinstates previous road alignment. It may be aesthetically displeasing to some, but staff do not feel that is a strong enough argument to recommend change.

5.97 Also to note, this theme was referenced 18 times in the 403 individual submissions, so staff do not consider it a significant theme.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options for Aranui Road are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Retain pilot project as is	· Maintains increased level of protection to cyclists and other active mode users. · Continues to build connection to the wider developing cycle network. · Takes steps to achieve the Council’s climate action goals. · Follows through on policies and plans approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy. · Allows for more time to see an increase in active mode user numbers as the network continues to grow.	· Members of the community who do not like the project, or elements of the project, may not feel listened to. · There will continue to be confusion in the community around the layout of the cycle lanes, which may limit uptake of cycling in Māpua.
2.	Retain pilot project with changes the following changes: a. Remove the arrows in opposing directions on cycleway. b. Remove planter boxes and replace with yellow lines. c. Remove white plastic bollards. d. Create defined space on the road section of shared path heading towards the wharf for one-way cycling. e. Encourage cyclists to take the lane when heading away from the wharf. f. Extend the corner footpath by the school for cyclists.	· Will show the community their dislike of planter boxes to limit parking was listened to. · Will increase clarity around how to use the new cycle facilities provided. · Will increase safety by adding separation between cyclists and pedestrians heading to the wharf.	· Cyclists will need to share the lane with vehicle traffic heading away from the wharf.
3.	Remove pilot installation entirely	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking re-instated.	· Increases risk for pedestrians and cyclists. · Fails to give the project a long enough chance to gain traction. · Fails to take steps to action the targets and policies in numerous approved Council strategies.

6.2 The options for Champion Road are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Retain pilot project as is	· Maintains increased level of protection to cyclists and other active mode users. · Continues to build connection to the wider developing cycle network. · Takes steps to achieve Council’s climate action goals. · Follows through on policies and plans approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy. · Allows for more time to see an increase in active mode user numbers as the network continues to grow.	· Members of the community who do not like the project, or elements of the project, may feel not listened to.
2.	Retain pilot project with the following possible changes: · Reinstate parking on one side of the road and install sub-standard dual-direction cycleway.	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking re-instated.	· This option would not pass an external safety audit. Should the Council install these facilities there are risks around liability knowing this facility is not safe. · This option provides dual directional cycle way under the minimum allowable width of a single directional cycle way. · Fails to take steps to contribute to meeting the targets and policies in approved Council strategies.
3.	Remove pilot installation entirely	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking reinstated.	· Increases risk for pedestrians and cyclists. · Fails to give the project a long enough chance to gain traction. · Limits the connectedness of the Richmond cycle network. · Fails to take steps to contribute to meeting the targets and policies in approved Council strategies.

6.3 The options for Queen Street are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Retain pilot project as is	· Maintains increased level of protection to cyclists and other active mode users. · Continues to build connection to the wider developing cycle network. · Takes steps to achieve Council’s climate action goals. · Follows through on policies and plans approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy. · Allows for more time to see an increase in active mode user numbers as the network continues to grow.	· Members of the community who do not like the project, or elements of the project, may not feel listened to.
2.	Retain pilot project with the following changes: · Reinstate parking on one side of the road and install sub-standard dual-direction cycleway.	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking reinstated.	· This option would not pass an external safety audit. Should the Council install these facilities there are risks around liability knowing this facility is not safe. · This option provides dual directional cycle way under the minimum allowable width of a single directional cycleway. · Dual directional cycle ways are also less safe than single direction. · This option creates ambiguity within the full network of cycleways. · Fails to take steps to action the targets and policies in numerous approved Council strategies.
3.	Remove pilot installation entirely	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking re-instated.	· Increases risk for pedestrians and cyclists. · Fails to give the project a long enough chance to gain traction. · Limits the connectedness of the Richmond cycle network. · Fails to take steps to action the targets and policies in numerous approved Council strategies.

6.4 Option 2 (retain project with some changes) is recommended for Aranui Road.

6.5 Option 1 (retain current layout) is recommended for Champion Road and Queen Street.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Any changes to traffic control devices will need to be reflected in the Traffic Control Devices Bylaw register.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Staff held multiple hui with iwi during early concept design. Given that works included retrofitting areas already allocated as road reserve, iwi did not request to be actively engaged for the remainder of the project.

8.2 To note, this engagement was undertaken before the Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro (Iwi Engagement Space) was developed.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 This report is of high significance to residents that live on any of the SfP streets as the ability to utilise on-street parking has been removed to improve safety.

9.2 This report is of high significance to residents wanting to utilise cycle lanes.

9.3 Relative to many Council projects, the Walking & Cycling Strategy and SfP projects have had a high degree of engagement with our community.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The responses to our experience surveys have been high, indicating that public interest is high. There is anecdotal evidence that the recommended option will be controversial.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	High	The recommended option may positively impact the wellbeing of the community in the future. This is due to safer cycle lanes giving residents freedom of transport choice and ultimately less people undertaking short trips by car. This will free up congestion for those that must drive and reduce emissions with less of the population driving. With active transport modes being promoted and being a safe option, it may lead to a healthier community with wider economic benefits.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The pilot projects demonstrate that road layouts can be modified relatively quickly and easily.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Roads are a strategic asset, but this decision relates to a small part of the network.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	A decision to remove the pilot installations would decrease the Councils ability to achieve performance measure targets for cycling.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	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
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Staff have run a significant feedback process both pre and post implementation of pilot projects on Queen Street, Champion Road and Aranui Road. A summary of this feedback process is included in Attachment 1.

10.2 The following communication has been undertaken with residents post the inception of the SfP programme:

- Direct consultation and discussions with all businesses on the streets and key stakeholders (FENZ, Police, St John, Schools).

- Multiple community “working group” design sessions for each street. These were open invites with active invites to key stakeholders (FENZ, Police, St John, Schools).

- All greater Richmond residents received a flyer with a map of all works taking place.

- All residents of the streets received both a pre-construction and post-construction survey which included a cover letter. The remainder of residents were encouraged to fill in these surveys via our website and social media channels, additionally paper copies of the survey were left in strategic locations.

- All residents of the streets received a letter at least four weeks before construction with a concept design and contact details – and again received a letter one week before construction with specific traffic management details. This information was also posted on our website and social media channels.

- Staff also held multiple drop-in sessions to provide information and allow people to give feedback at multiple stages, these included:

· A community drop in pop-up which ran for two weeks in the Richmond Mall.

· “Bikers brekkies” in Sundial Square, Aranui Road, and Woolworths Champion Road.

· Two community drop in sessions pre-construction at Java Hut (Māpua) and two community drop in sessions post construction at the Community Hall (same session as the Māpua Masterplan Consultation)

· Consultation sessions at Garin College and Māpua School.

10.3 To note, the Walking and Cycling Strategy undertook a full submissions and hearings process, with online information seminars and directly affected residents being actively invited to submit on the strategy.

10.4 A range of opinions have been expressed in the feedback. Staff are confident in the communication and engagement strategy undertaken for the SfP programme. Staff believe that there is a common misconception that “having your say” is the same as “having your way” with many residents believing that if the latter is not achieved then it is a failure of the engagement process.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 All options provided in this report are achievable within the existing budgets for the SfP projects.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Should the Council approve the recommended options, there may be a risk that the parts of the community may feel their voices weren’t listen to.

12.2 There is a risk that residents who agreed with the pilots did not engage in the feedback process as they were satisfied that the pilots had addressed their prior concerns.

12.3 If the options to remove any or all of the pilot cycle lanes is adopted, there is a risk that significant numbers of the community will be unhappy that what was considered progress towards safer cycling, trips to school, and environmental benefits have been retracted.

12.4 If the options to remove any or all the pilot cycle lanes is adopted, there is a risk that the significant number of residents, schools and community groups that strongly supported the adoption of the Walking and Cycling Strategy will see this decision as Council not adhering to a high-profile plan that was recently consulted on and adopted.

12.5 If the pilot projects are removed, there is a risk that members of the community will perceive this choice as Tasman District Council failing to take action to take climate change.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The matter requiring a decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The recommended options may reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with use of the Council’s transport network, which is one of the goals of the Walking & Cycling Strategy.

13.3 The options for removing the pilot cycle lanes may increase or keep the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Councils transport network the same. This is based on the existing cycle network staying the same and the proportion of commuters cycling staying the same. According to the Walking and Cycling Strategy, if the proportion of people undertaking their commute by car versus cycling or walking stays the same, there will be 16,600 more cars on the road by 2050 (accounting for census growth projections).

13.4 The Walking and Cycling Strategy identifies the need to take urgent action to reduce our transport emissions and present the network plans and strategy policies as crucial steps towards achieving those goals.

13.5 Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan 2023-2035 lists reducing reliance on cars by ‘substantially improving infrastructure for walking and cycling” as a key action in support of the Emission Reduction Plan targets (reducing transport emission by 41% by 2035 and net zero by 2050).

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 There is significant strategy and policy in place, adopted and endorsed by Tasman District Council over the last several years that highly encourages the bold installation of cycling infrastructure to make these goals and targets achievable. The actions proposed come directly from the actions and networks that form part of the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022.

A diagram of a plan

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Strategic fit of the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022

14.2 The pilot cycle lanes installed on Queen Street, Champion Road and Aranui Road align closely with the maps consulted on for the Walking and Cycling Strategy (2022) and support the principles, policies and targets identified in the strategy.

14.3 The pilots also are steps towards achieving the strategic targets in the Richmond Programme Business Case, aiming to significantly increase the number of people who choose to walk and cycle for local trips.

14.4 The pilots support the strategic aims of the Richmond and Motueka Car Parking Strategy 2018-2038, which states that “…walking and cycling…will be encouraged through prioritised infrastructure in prominent locations and investment of our network to provide safe and convenient routes to the town centres.”

14.5 The pilots align with the targets set in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031, which has a headline target of doubling the amount of active mode use by 2030 (which also aligns with the Walking and Cycling Strategy).

14.6 The pilot cycleways are supported by Richmond on the Rise (2024) which identifies the length of upper Queen Street as an area for intensified residential housing. If cycleways are in place now, future developers have the option to provide off street parking for residents. If the pilot cycleways are removed now, developers will be less likely to provide parking off road for residents and rely on on-street parking. This will make it increasingly difficult to install cycleways along these routes in the future.

14.7 Richmond on the Rise also highlights upper Queen Street as a key transit corridor and target for active transport improvements, and states that “With a growing population, we need to make sure people choose types of transport that suit them best. Cycling, walking, e-mobility (electric skateboards, scooters etc) and public transport all have a role to play in Richmond, alongside private cars”.

14.8 The pilot projects for SfP take steps to achieve the goals and targets of the Emissions Reduction Plan and the Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan 2023-2035.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The pilot projects including cycleways that make up the Queen Street, Champion Road and Aranui Road Streets for People projects are closely aligned to a wealth of strategy and policy decisions already endorsed by Tasman District Council.

15.2 The projects are the physical actions that have resulted from carrying out the plans and step changes identified in the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022.

15.3 Robust consultation and engagement were undertaken for the prior strategies that form the genesis of the Streets for People projects, and for the pilot cycle ways themselves.

15.4 Despite the brief amount of time that they have been installed, staff have measured an increase in active mode use, and an increase in perception of safety.

15.5 Feedback was received that some members of the community are unhappy with the reallocation of road space to cycleway, but this feedback is expected and not unusual for this type of project. Feedback was also received confirming that the roads now feel safer for people walking or cycling.

15.6 Staff recommend that the Council retains the pilot projects on Queen Street and Champion Road as they are, and retain the pilot project on Aranui Road with several changes encouraged by the community.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the recommendations in this report are approved by the Council, staff will take action to make the identified changes as quickly as possible.

16.2 Staff will continue to collect information on vehicle speeds, cyclist numbers and perceptions of safety as the pilots continue.

16.3 Staff will continue to meet with the Walking and Cycling Governance Panel to update the Council on the project and gain feedback.

16.4 Staff will provide a summary of community feedback on the remaining Streets for People projects (Salisbury Road and Hill Street) at the next Council meeting in June 2024.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Attachment 1 Summary of Findings Report	141
2.⇩	Attachment 2 - Aranui Road - Java & Tennis Area	189
3.⇩	Attachment 3 - Aranui Road - Wharf End	190
4.⇩	Attachment 4 - Aranui Road - Toru Street	191
5.⇩	Attachment 5 - Aranui Road - Aranui Park Crossing	192
6.⇩	Attachment 6 - Champion Road Options	193
7.⇩	Attachment 7 - Queen Street Options	194
8.⇩	Attachment 8 - Queen Street Shops Options	195

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	· This is a routine process. · Planning and consultation will occur in the development of the proposed plans following the preparation of the options report.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	None
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

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the S17A review for Transportation	Meets LGA requirements. Enables continued delivery of services.	Nil
2.	Do not approve the S17A review for Transportation	Nil	Requires further analysis and expenditure but unlikely to result in efficiencies.

Tasman District Council Agenda – 02 May 2024

7.11 Waste Management Services - Section 17A Delivery of Services Review

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	2 May 2024
Report Author:	David Stephenson, Team Leader - Stormwater & Waste Management
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-05-11

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to meet its obligations under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002, to periodically review the cost-effectiveness of its activities in delivering services to its communities.

1.2 The subject of this review is the delivery of kerbside rubbish and recycling collections, operation of resource recovery centres, processing of kerbside recycling materials, processing of selected organic materials and bulk transport of waste, greenwaste and recyclable materials. These services are currently delivered for the Council by contractors.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), the Council is required to carry out service delivery reviews every six years. These reviews “must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions”.

2.2 The last review in the Waste Management and Minimisation Activity was completed and approved in August 2017, where waste transport, greenwaste processing and Murchison Resource Recovery Centre operations were assessed. Earlier, in September 2016, the Council resolved not to complete a 17A review of landfill operations, as the Council has just concluded an extensive review of governance and funding while deciding to create the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit. The remaining services were procured prior to the amendment of the LGA 2002.

2.3 In late 2021, staff commissioned a review of the majority of Waste Management and Minimisation services, which was completed in December 2021. The activities reviewed included:

· Kerbside rubbish and recycling collection,

· Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) operations,

· Haulage of refuse and greenwaste,

· Processing of recyclables, and

· Processing of organic materials.

2.4 In 2023 this review was updated, taking into account changes in central government policy and regulation, in particular the intended requirement for councils to provide kerbside food waste collections.

2.5 This updated review is attached (Attachment 1). It recommends a general continuation of the status quo, with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery by contractors (“another person or agency” in terms of the LGA 2002).

2.6 The review recommends that the Council provide scope in the future for shared governance of processing kerbside recycling and food organic materials.

2.7 The review also recommended rationalisation of waste management services into a single or small number of contracts, for synergy and cost savings. We are currently in procurement for kerbside recycling, rubbish collection, resource recovery centre operations, waste transport and processing of recyclables, as one contract. Procurement of greenwaste processing will follow later in the year. Procurement of any food waste organics services would be in the future, if the Council elected to provide these services.

2.8 Staff recommend that the Council receive the review and approve the recommendation, to continue with the status quo – with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery by another person or agency.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Waste Management Services - Section 17A Delivery of Services Review report, RCN24-05-11 and the Tasman District Council Section 17A Review of Waste Services as detailed in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

2. agrees that Tasman District Council will continue to provide governance and funding for the delivery of kerbside refuse and recycling collections, operation of resource recovery centres, processing of kerbside recycling materials, processing of organic materials and bulk transport of waste, greenwaste and recyclable materials and that delivery of these services will be by another person or agency.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 A change to the Local Government Act 2002 in 2014 requires local authorities to review the cost-effectiveness of “current arrangements for meeting community needs for good quality infrastructure, local public services, and local regulation”. This ensures that councils regularly review long standing contracts and arrangements for how they deliver services which support good procurement practice.

4.2 Where a review is undertaken local authorities must consider options for the governance, funding and delivery of infrastructure, local public services and local regulation that include, but are not limited to:

· in-house delivery;

· delivery by a CCO, whether wholly owned by the local authority, or a CCO where the local authority is a part owner;

· another local authority;

· another person or agency (for example central government, a private sector organisation or a community group).

4.3 Conducting regular section 17A reviews is a good way of demonstrating that a council is delivering activities in a manner that is cost-effective for the local authority (and therefore ultimately households and businesses).

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Tasman District Council provides a wide range of waste management and waste minimisation services within the district. These are summarised in detail in the attached review. Contracts for the following services expire in 2025:

· Kerbside rubbish collection,

· Kerbside recycling collection,

· Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) operations,

· Haulage of refuse and greenwaste,

· Processing of recyclables, and

· Processing of organic materials (greenwaste).

5.2 In late 2021, the Council commissioned a 17A services review of these activities, and in parallel a procurement plan for these services. The contracts for these services were due to expire in June 2023.

5.3 We received an initial 17A review and draft procurement plan in December 2021. With information from these documents in 2022 staff sought and received approval from the Council to negotiate extensions to these contracts to June 2025.

5.4 In 2023 staff commissioned an update to these two documents, to consider changes in central government policy and regulation, in particular the expected requirement for councils to provide kerbside food waste collections.

5.5 This updated review is attached (Attachment 1). It recommends, in general, a continuation of the status quo, with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery outsourced to contractors (delivery by “another person or agency” in terms of the LGA 2002). The review recommended rationalisation of services into a smaller number of contracts, for synergy and cost savings.

5.6 The review also considered shared services with Nelson City Council and recommended further consideration in two areas: processing of kerbside recycling (a current service) and processing food organics materials (a potential service in future). For processing of recyclables this could involve governance and management of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) by the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit. For processing of food organics this could involve us contracting with Nelson City Council or by this service being delegated to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit by the councils.

5.7 While developing these reviews we have remained in contact with our colleagues at Nelson City Council, who have been reconsidering their arrangements for kerbside recycling services. Following these discussions we have agreed to procure our services in parallel, with an agreement in principle for Tasman District Council to process kerbside recyclables for Nelson City Council.

5.8 We are currently in procurement for kerbside recycling, rubbish collection, resource recovery centre operations, waste transport and processing of recyclables. The contract term is ten years. Our new services are expected to commence in October 2025.

5.9 We are working with Nelson City Council to develop an access agreement for processing Nelson kerbside recyclable materials.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Receive the 17A service delivery review for these waste management services and agree that Council will continue to provide governance and funding for these services and to contract service delivery to another party.	Enables the Council to progress and conclude procurement of waste management services.	None known
2.	Do not receive the 17A service delivery review or direct staff to amend the recommendation.	None known.	While minor amendments to the review and service delivery model could be accommodated within our existing programme, any others would significantly disrupt procurement.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended - to receive the 17A service delivery review for these waste management services and agree that Council will continue to provide governance and funding for these services and to contract service delivery to another party.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 This review has been completed in accordance with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There has been no engagement with iwi/Māori in completing this review as it is not considered necessary for this aspect of this activity.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 This decision is considered to have low significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	This decision is unlikely to be controversial or of high public interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	This decision is unlikely to impact the social, economic environmental or cultural aspects of the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	This decision will affect the delivery of most waste management services for 10 years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Very Low	This decision does not relate to any strategic assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	This decision does not result in a change of the level of service of waste services.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	This decision does not significantly affect rates, debt or Council finances.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Not applicable	This decision does not involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out or deliver on any Council group of activities?	Moderate	This decision enables entry into a contract to carry out a group of Council activities in the future.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Not applicable	This decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	Not applicable	This decision does not require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 There is no known need for communication of this decision.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 There are no known financial or budgetary implications of this decision. The proposed services are provided for in budgets included in the proposed Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are no known risks in approving this review of services and our proposed approach to service delivery.

12.2 A decision to not approve this review or to significantly amend our proposed approach to service delivery could significantly affect procurement processes and pose reputational risk.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The proposed procurement of these services includes incentives to reduce emissions and the proposed services will not be significantly affected by climate change, as they are of a relatively short-term nature.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 Provision of these services in the manner outlined in this review is consistent with the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and the proposed Long Term Plan 2024-2034. The proposed services are also consistent with the Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 We have completed a review of service delivery for a range of waste management services in accordance with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. This updated review is attached (Attachment 1).

15.2 It recommends a general continuation of the status quo, with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery by contractors (“another person or agency” in terms of the LGA 2002).

15.3 The review recommends that Council provide scope for shared governance in the future for processing of kerbside recycling and food organics materials.

15.4 The review also recommended rationalisation of services into a single contract, for synergy and cost savings. We are currently in procurement for kerbside recycling, rubbish collection, resource recovery centre operations, waste transport and processing of recyclables.

15.5 Staff recommend that the Council receive the review and approve the recommendation, to continue with the status quo – with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery by another person or agency.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 We are currently in procurement for these services, with proposals due for submission on Wednesday 29 May.

16.2 Following evaluation of proposals we expect to identify a preferred contractor in July 2024.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Final draft - Tasman District Council - Section 17A Review of Waste Services - Morrison Low - November 2023

233

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor S Bryant
Councillors	Councillor C Butler	Councillor M Kininmonth
	Councillor G Daikee	Councillor C Mackenzie
	Councillor B Dowler	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor B Maru
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor D Shallcrass
	Councillor C Hill	Councillor T Walker

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the Risk Management Framework and delegate authority to the Audit and Risk Committee to approve any future changes.	Approving the framework allows staff to progress work to grow the maturity of the risk capability at the Council. Delegating authority to Audit and Risk Committee to approve future changes to the Framework will move work from the Council to ARC.	None
2.	Approve the Risk Management Framework but do not delegate authority to the Audit and Risk Committee to approve future changes.	Approving the framework allows staff to progress work to grow the maturity of the risk capability at Council.	Will require the Council to review and approve changes to the Framework.
3.	Do not approve the Risk Management Framework.	None.	This will prevent staff from progressing work to grow the maturity of the risk capability in line with ISO31000: 2018 (E) Risk Management Guidelines.

1.⇩	Report to 8 April 2024 Golden Bay Community Board meeting	7
2.⇩	Report to 16 April 2024 Motueka Community Board meeting	13
3.⇩	Draft Tasman District Council Policy on the Special Projects Funds	19
4.⇩	Updated Council Policy on Community Board Discretionary Funds	27