KAIKOURA DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETINGDate: 30 January 2019

Time 9:00am

Location COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 96 WEST END, KAIKOURA.

AGENDA

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. **Public Forum – Session for members of the public wishing to comment on items included in this agenda

The Council meeting will adjourn following this item and will resume following the Works and Services Committee meeting and the Finance Report.

4. Matters of Importance to be raised as Urgent Business

5. Minutes to be Confirmed; page 4 - Council 19 December 2018

6. Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Programme Report page 14

7. Rebuild Programme Betterment Projects page 24

8. Responsible Camping Update page 28

9. Council Meeting Schedule Report page 36

10. Kaikoura Youth Council Report page 38

11. Mayors Report page 41

12. Council Public Excluded Session

Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely

a) Confirmation of Minutes of Council Public Excluded meeting dated 19 December 2018

b) Financial and Corporate Sustainability Updatec) Human Resources Management and Health and Safety Update

The general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) and 7(2)(i) of the Local Government

1

Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds of the Act under which this

resolution is made

Minutes of the Council Public Excluded meeting – 28 November 2018.

Financial and Corporate Sustainability Update.

Human Resources Management and Health and Safety Update.

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Local Authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation.

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)

MEETING RULES:

"Audio recordings will be made of this meeting for the purpose of assisting the minute taker to create accurate minutes. Audio recordings should not be taken of any confidential, public excluded or otherwise sensitive matters. The Chair of the meeting is responsible for indicating if/when recording should be stopped and restarted. While held, the audio recordings are subject to LGOIMA, they may be released in line with Councils LGOIMA processes and/or at the discretion of the meeting Chair. A copy of the guidelines and principals for the use of recordings is available on request"

*Public Forum – maximum of 10 minutes.

2

Public Forum Guidelines

Public Forum:The Kaikoura District Council welcomes input from residents. The public forum provides an opportunity to address Councillors, the Chief Executive and the Senior Management Team on items no included in this agenda.

Subjects:A period is set aside for the public to speak to Council before the meeting. Members of the public are allocated a time to address the Council on items that fall within delegations of the Council provided the matters are not subject to legal proceedings, and are not already subject to a process providing for the hearing of submissions. Speakers may be questioned through the Chair by members, but questions must be confined to obtaining information or clarification on matters raised by the speaker(s). Such presentations do not form part of the formal business of the meeting with those requiring action being referred to the Chief Executive for further reporting at another Council meeting.

Procedure for members of the public wishing to speak at the public forum:The Chair may at their discretion refuse a public forum on any reasonable grounds, but not limited to:

insufficient time to hear the public forum at the meeting the public forum would be more suitably heard at another meeting of Council the subject of the matter of the public forum is offensive or repetitious or vexatious or is

considered likely to be so the subject matter is insufficiently relevant to the business and legislative responsibilities of Council the subject matter is part of an ongoing issue that is being dealt with by staff the previous disorderly or inappropriate behaviour of the applicant at Council meetings.

Speakers during public forum:The time allowed for each speaker is 10 minutes.The Chairperson has the discretion to ruminate the presentation at any time where:

the speaker is repeating an earlier speaker at the same public forum the speaker criticises elected members or staff the presentation is repetitious, disrespectful or offensive.

At the conclusion of the presentation, with the permission of the Chairperson, elected members may ask questions of the speaker(s).If permitted by the Chairperson, questions by members are to be confined to obtaining information or clarification on matters raised by the speaker.No debate will take place in regards to issues raised at public or open forums and no decision will be made.

Response to Public Forum Presentations:Councillors will normally discuss Public Forum presentations at the conclusion of Public Agenda items. The Mayor or delegated person will provide a reply to the presenter (if required) within a few days of the Council meeting.

3

MINUTES OF THE KAIKŌURA DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT 10:15AM ON WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2018, AT COUNCIL

CHAMBERS, 96 WEST END, KAIKŌURA.

PRESENT: Mayor W Gray (Chair), Councillors N Pablecheque, J Howden, C Mackle, D Millton, T Blunt, C Harnett, L Bond

IN ATTENDANCE: A Oosthuizen (Chief Executive Officer) J Gapper (Committee Secretary)

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Councillor Millton – Waipapa Limestone

2. OPEN FORUM:Pie Barillas-Bird:P Barillas-Bird spoke regarding Novembers 2018 Council meeting minutes where P Barillas-Brid had spoken in the Open Forum. Ms Barillas-Bird felt publically ridiculed by the ‘Note’ attached to the end of the minutes relating to the conversation and requested that this be removed from the record.

P Barillas-Bird further confirmed that the computer used to view Agenda documents had distorted her view hence previous comments made around the professionalism of the agenda. For this P Barilla-Bird apologised.

Chair of Kaikoura Maori Committee Ngaio Te Ua: Ms Te Ua spoke with regards the Temporary Housing Units built on Council land for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Although the intention of the units were to house residents temporarily while earthquake repairs were being completed on their own dwellings, Ms Te Us

was concerned about the number of homeless in the town, members of the community living in tents, as well as people moving into the community and the shortage of rental accommodation.

Ms Te Ua was aware of the criteria relating to the temporary housing units. However there were six brand new units that could house the homeless over Christmas until they could locate something more permanent. She mentioned there are members of the community living in tents. She requested urgent action.

Moved by Mayor Gray, seconded by Councillor Pablecheque and resolved that Council move into Works and Services Committee meeting at 10:23am. Unanimous

The Kaikoura District Council Meeting reconvened at 11:00am.

4

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:Council 28 November 2018.Moved by Councillor Millton, seconded by Councillor Pablecheque, and resolved that the Council minutes of 28 November 2018, with the deletion of the ‘Note’ in the Open Forum presentation of Pie Barillas, be confirmed as a true and accurate record. Unanimous

4. PUBLIC FORUM:Mark Fissenden and members of the Sport and Recreation Recovery Leadership Team (SRRLT) regarding the swimming pool:

On behalf of the community, would like to share their voice.

Alison Taylor outlined that Kaikoura needed an indoor all year aquatic facility. An outdoor pool was not on the wish list and 71% of respondents to the survey rejected an outdoor pool. An indoor pool would allow use all year round. Many older folk would use the indoor pool however with an outdoor pool the summer season is too short to have an exercise regime.

Tourism is a big thing in town and an indoor pool would be somewhere for the tourists to go in adverse weather.

Upgrading the Lion’s Pool had been on the council plan for at least 30 years. An outdoor pool struggles to pay their way due to weather and due to the short summer season. For a coastal town swimming training is a priority.

Councillors were elected by the community members. Community members who had put time and effort into this study therefore Council need to listen.

Jade Lavender spoke on behalf of the SRRLT from a young adult’s point of view stating there was a need for an indoor pool because the sea was too cold in the winter. Kids are missing out on swimming in the winter.

Rawiri Manawatu spoke on behalf of Runanga on what Kaikoura may look like in the future.

Currently talking with University of Canterbury and the ARA Institute, and the potential Marine Centre of Excellence. We are talking to Department of Conservation (DoC), Environment Canterbury (ECan. We need to consider Economic Growth and what it may look like and who it is for.

Mark Fissenden spoke and asked the question who are we here to serve, what we want and how to make it happen. The SSLT can produce a facility that the community want for $8mil. If it is put it off longer it will cost more.

To make this happen could involve moving the decision out to a working trust.

A new Sudima Hotel is to be built in town. Whale Watch had ordered a bigger boat to accommodate the demand for supply.

5

A question was asked of the SRRLT around the funding sources and if a letter of support had been obtained. It was confirmed that this had not occurred to date.

The SRRLT were thanked for their presentation.

John Diver and Yvonne Mackle from Kaikoura Gym Club on Pool and sports Hub:

Y Mackle representing as a ratepayer. Would love an indoor pool but do not believe we can afford.

J Diver presented to Council during the 3 Year Plan deliberations, working on the basis of the costs to run the Pop up Pool and the funding available for

the Lions Pool.

Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) would fund 100% of a like for like pool at a different location, the same scenario as the skate park and the tennis

courts.

Not taking into account the cost to operate it would be approximately $900,000 to build a shell and approximately another $900,000 to do additions.

Kaikoura could get a sports hub that can be used all year round including School groups and the DIA would fund 2/3rd of this.

J Diver was still to do a feasibility study on the total cost to run however if Council agreed to the Scarborough reserve we could go out and approach other groups who may want to come on board.

An indoor pool sounds great but the infrastructure to heat, air, condensation and associated costs to run need to be considered. The Community Survey possibly did not cover this off. Ratepayers would need to be advised the cost and what the possible rates increase would be as it would be the ratepayer who would be paying the operation costs and ongoing maintenance.

J Diver also had a plan to set up a Trust, fundraise etc. and to oversee the actual build.

Y Mackle pointed out that a lot of sports rely on an indoor facility as weather dominates this. Kaikoura will grow and we need to move with if however it needs to be affordable.

Gym, indoor soccer, volley ball, basketball, netball, judo just to name a few. Many of these groups use the High School gym however during exam time the gym cannot be used. The Scarborough site is designated recreational reserve.

6

Currently Innovative Waste Kaikoura (IWK) hold a licence to occupy the Scarborough site however J Diver pointed out that this was Crown land not Council land and the land was designated recreation reserve.

Discussion was had around the different groups all working together. It was confirmed that Takahanga Domain was not an option as a location. The Runanga supports the indoor pool but not on the domain.

The SRRLT confirmed they had not explored funding from Ngai Tahu to date.

With regard the condition of the old existing Lions Pool, the ground continued to move and the buildings had been built back in the 1970’s hence a lack of steel reinforcing. The foundations had dropped 50 mil and separated from the walls. The buildings themselves would have to come down totally. The tanks had cracks opening up each time there was movement.

J Diver further pointed out that the Styx Mill recycling centre in Christchurch sat next to residential subdivision with no problems therefore did not see

any issues with a pool being located close to IWK.

Council thanked the group for their presentation.

Moved by Councillor Pablecheque, seconded by Councillor Mackle and resolved that Councillor Howden take the Chair during items relating to the rebuild/repair of the Lions Pool. Mayor Gray recused himself due to having an interest. Mayor Gray remained in Chambers as agreed by Councillors. Unanimous.

5. COMMUNITY POOL:The Senior Engineer of Community Facilities was in attendance alongside W Stewart from the DIA.

W Stewart spoke around the lotteries funding and wanted to make it clear that DIA has no preference to the repair or the rebuild of the pool.

Relevant funding sources included; Lotteries Earthquake Fund, Lotteries Community Facilities which was a nationwide fund with a

high volume of applicants and required to have a 1/3 up front, usually a last funding option for make sure the project is completed,

Lotteries Significant Projects, which required 1 out of the 3 outcomes to be met i.e. wider community, tourism etc. Required to have 1/3rd up front with 1 funding round per year.

There is approximately $5mil balance remaining in the Significant Projects fund. However it was expected this would be exhausted in 1-3 years’ time. The upper end of this funding provided $6mil to the Christchurch Cathedral project and the project needed to meet 1 of the 3 outcomes.

Repairs to the existing pool could come from two of the funds, the Earthquake Fund of the Community Facilities Fund. The Earthquake fund

7

in all likelihood could be a grant for an unknown amount say $900,000 less insurance funds which may allow for some slight upgrades i.e. Gooches Beach toilets and changing rooms combined.

The Lotteries Community Facilities fund required a third upfront and could be used for improvements. However this is a National fund and oversubscribed. These two funds could work together and there was no end date on the Earthquake funding for example, these two funds jointly funded the Waiau Pool.

If Council were to replace the existing pool at a new location there could be eligibility of $900,000 from the Earthquake fund however there would need to be good reason why it could not be built on the existing location, but

could include some upgrades.

W Stewart did point out that any improvement made that were not on the existing location could blur the lines.

The Senior Engineer Community Facilities, B Apperley presented his report on the Community Pool:

Due diligence had been completed.

Other pools around the country in our position have taken 3-5 years to get an end result therefore we would be looking at 2023 which poses a risk of losing the momentum on a new indoor facility.

Although there is only one point between evaluations it does not take into account the time frame.

The existing site had been considered broken and beyond repair however a Geotechnical Engineer had advised that the site is now 1 metre above what

it was pre earthquake and suitable for a repair/rebuild. The cracks in the pool could be repaired and it was noted that there had been some cracks pre earthquake. One corner was out of level. All paving on the site was beyond repair and buildings would need to be rebuilt. Equipment required some maintenance and the area could benefit from some minor improvements i.e. a shade sail and wind break etc. The site and the pool could be made to work again.

The process would need to start by 2020 for funding purposes if the idea of going with a new pool was agreed.

It was pointed out that in making this decision, there are some affordability issues to consider. We do know our 3 Year Plan was built on a robust asset management process.

Note: as a result of discussions with Wendi Stewart (DIA) a new set of recommendations were presented to Council.

Council Meeting Adjourned to enable Councillors to review the new set of recommendations 12:45pm.

8

Council Meeting Reconvened 1:37pm.New recommendations were presented to Council for resolution.

M Fissenden and J Diver were thanked for their input.

Discussions were had around the merits of fixing the old pool, the location of the pool, a staged approach to building as well as the financial side of this

and how much Council could afford and where additional funding was coming from.

Note: Mayor Winston Gray abstained from voting due to having an interest.

Moved by Councillor Howden, seconded by Councillor Mackle that Council; Acknowledges the work undertaken by the SRRLT to date on this

project and thanks Sports Tasman (Nigel Muir), Mark Fissenden, Kim Boyce-Campbell, Winston Gray and John Diver for their efforts in preparing their proposals for an indoor pool facility. Unanimous

Resolves to repair and improve the existing pool for use commencing the 2019 summer season while work towards future options continues. For 2, Against 5.

Notes that funding for this will be sourced from within existing budgets including insurance and other external recoveries. For 2, Against 5.

Forms a Working Group to;o Review all the information gathered to date on pool

options,o Identify and assess any other options,o Verify both capital and operating expenditure for all

options,o Form a view on the realisation of community fundraising

and on realistic targets and timeframes for this. Unanimous.

Appoint the following people to the Working Group;o Councillor Craig Mackle as Chair,o A financial expert with experience in assessment of similar

projects including funding options (in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)). Unanimous.

Invite the members of the SRRLT to be part of this working group along with;

o A representative from the Rūnanga,o A Community representative, Unanimous.

Request that the Working Group report back to Council by 31st

March 2019, Unanimous.

9

Notes that this approach will form part of the Annual Plan consultation 2019-2020. Unanimous

PUBLIC FORUM:Rakautara Deputation represented by N O’Carroll and L Davidson.

Ms O’Carroll questioned the Council around who had actually been out to the site and viewed the dwellings as they sit today. Maybe more reports were

needed. A drone had been put up however no one could predict what could happen. Ms O’Carroll suggested to the Council that they would not put their loved ones lives at risk and felt that this was what they were expected to do.

Ms O’Carroll would not like to see this go to court and requested that Council go back to Central Government and lobby for more funds.

Mr Davidson advised the no Geotechnical Engineers (GeoTech) would quantify the risk. Moving the house forward does not remove the risk and

can only imagine the terror that these people felt during the earthquake. No one wants to go back into the houses while there is a risk. There are boulders sitting at the top and once they gathered momentum, there would be no stopping them. Two GeoTechs from Christchurch had advised that the rock face could not be stabilised and would not stay in the houses knowing the

risk above.

Mr Davidson believed the only way forward was to lobby Central Government for more funding and believed Council had a lot more clout and they indicated they would be happy to fight alongside Council. Mr Davidson did not see the point of the deputation if Council were not prepared to listen.

Chief Executive Officer advised that Council had been through a robust process to get to this decision and would put all the reports on line so everyone could see the process Council had been through to get to this decision which had taken two years to get too based on the resources we

had and the constraints involved. Council had been in touch with the residents throughout this process.

Mayor Winston Gray thanked the deputation for attending Council outlining their concerns about the decision made at Councils previous meeting which affected their properties.

As they were aware, Councillors and their advisors had taken some time to gather information about natural hazards, including meeting with them to discuss individual situations, to enable a decision to be made.

This was not an easy process; the issues were complex and the fact that it involved peoples properties made it particularly sensitive.

10

Council’s decision, which provided a range of outcomes for 16 properties across the district, had to be based on the need to reduce life-risk caused by the earthquakes.

The decision were based on the advice set out in two separate geotechnical investigations, both of which were peer reviewed. As a Council we chose to adopt the most conservative of recommendations as we believe that was in the best interest of our ratepayers. Staff were to make the full council report available on our website so people can understand the process in more detail. The individual geotechnical reports on which the decision were based will also be availed to the affected parties by weeks end.

As a Council, we know we have not be able to offer as much as some ratepayers wished however our job was to balance all the issues and come to a pragmatic decisions that focus on removing the risk to life within the resources available to us. The Mayor believed these decision did that.

The mayor acknowledged all the issues raised. While the Council decision remains, the process is only beginning and we will be working closely with property owners in the New Year as staff prepare an Implementation Plan for the decisions made.

6. RORRISONS ROAD SURPLUS LAND:The Finance and Commercial Manager was in attendance to present this

item.

A valuation was provided from Maxwell’s Valuation for just over 2 acres of land.

Discussions were held any liabilities on the site which was to be sold ‘as is’ and whether or not neighbours had been advised i.e. putting it on the open market.

Prior to the earthquake the area was be considered for a cycle way with a bridge across the creek however would have required an easement.

Even though Council had been approached directly it was considered that to be transparent this site should be placed on the open market and any easements relating to the site be looked into with feedback bought back to Council.

7. HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME REPORT:The Rebuild Programme Manager was in attendance to present this item.

Much of this information had been before Council previously. Prices were fluctuating to the point where it looked like the betterment portion of the Lyell Creek sewer upgrade would be unaffordable. This betterment had been deemed to not be eligible for the normal 60% funding from the Crown and funding was not available from Council.

11

Only a small portion of this area had been affected and the pipework was deemed serviceable.

The pipes were made of asbestos cement so a higher risk of failing at some point as not as serviceable as alternatives. While all the equipment was in place and a contract awarded a decision was made to include this as betterment. None of the investigation shows any issues with the current setup however replacement will need to be considered in 5-10 years.

All 3 major contracts were in the early phase and staff expect to award the contracts next month.

The Recovery Steering Group (RSG) made a decision to deal with all the issues on the table before awarding the contract on the bridges however expect to

see alternative design work at the beginning of the New Year and commencement March 2019 with completion expected October/November 2019.

Clarence Valley residents meeting was held. An indicative business case will be reported back to RSG. Staff intend ensuring funding partners i.e. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are on board and hope to meet with them in January 2019 so unable to confirm timeline. It would be unlikely to be available for the draft annual plan in April. Monthly newsletters were going out to residents along with regular updates.

The Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Programme Report confirmed as received for Information.

8. COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT:The Chief Executive Officer was in attendance to present this item.

A Oosthuizen was to contact Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment with regard the temporary accommodation village re the criteria on letting the houses as a result of a request made by the Public due to the shortage of

housing in the area and homeless people.

The Community Services Report confirmed as received for Information.

9. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT:The Economic Development Officer was in attendance to present this item.

Free Wi-Fi installation had commenced in Kaikoura with 2 out of the 4 points installed. Coverage is currently from the Scout Hall to the public toilets however will eventually go from the Top 10 Camping Ground to the iSite.

A number of communities around the world were starting to think that there were too many tourists.

The Provisional Growth Fund (PGF) bucket of money for the regions was possibly oversubscribed.

12

Contact had been made with Chorus around ultra-fast Broadband. Kaikoura needed to take advantage of its strategic location, environment and size. The Chorus public session was well represented. Chorus just finishing Waiau therefore looking at March/April 2019 for Kaikoura.

10. COUNCIL PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION:

Moved by Mayor Gray, seconded by Councillor Millton that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely;

a. Minutes of the Council Public Excluded Meeting 28 November 2018b. Natural Hazardsc. Financial Sustainabilityd. Surfbreak Protection Society Updatee. Human f. Resources Management and Health and Safety Update

The general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) and 7(2)(i) of the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject ofeach to beconsidered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds of the Act under which this resolution is made

Minutes of the Council Public Excluded meeting 28 /11/2018.

Natural Hazards

Financial Sustainability

Surfbreak Protection Society update

Human Resources Management and health and Safety Update

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Local Authority to protect information where the making available of that information would likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information; The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)(ii); 7(2)(a).

13

Report to: COUNCIL

Date: 30th January 2019

Subject: Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild Programme ReportPrepared by: Peter Thomson

Rebuild Programme ManagerInput sought from: Angela Oosthuizen

Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the Mayor and Councillors with an overview of the key rebuild programme activities for the month relating to Horizontal infrastructure (roading, structures and three waters). Community Facilities rebuild and Business as Usual (BAU) activities will now be covered in a separate dedicated report.

Recommendation

That this report is received.

1. Programme Update

1.1 Programme update summary

Progress to date in the last month includes the following:

Design & Build Contract documentation for the Five Bridges Replacement Project, moving to award of contract to Concrete Structures Ltd (CSL) in late January.

Tenders evaluation and negotiation with the preferred tenderers for the following projects, moving toward award of all major contracts in February:

o Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade

o WW Treatment Plant Aeration Lagoon

o Fords Reservoir

On-going construction work at Totara Lane WW Pump Station

Clarence Valley Access Indicative Business Case work is progressing, but any Special Consultative Procedures (SPC) will run separately and later than the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2019/2020.

1.2 Health and Safety No Health and Safety incidents have been reported this month relating to the rebuild activities.

1.3 Environment and Heritage The change of consent conditions for the Kaikōura WWTP Aeration Lagoon Project has been granted by ECAN.

14

The resource consent application for the Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade Project is currently being processed by ECAN who have recently requested minor clarifications. Council is still seeking written approval from one last landowner who has given approval in principle but is now impossible to reach/contact. Council is considering an alternative solution, but in the worst case scenario the consent will be processed excluding this property from the scope to avoid delays.

1.4 Quality

Contract Management has been outsourced to Stantec (consultants) on a bundled basis for all major 3-waters contracts. This achieves consistency, effectiveness and value for money. Key Stantec roles are:

Engineer to contract - Stantec is based Christchurch – attending site visits, Kaikoura meetings on an as required basis

Engineers Rep – Stantec based in Christchurch with routine weekly/fortnightly visits to Kaikoura

Engineers Rep Assistant - Stantec will be based 4 days a week in KDC offices for the duration of the main construction phases. Expected to start working from KDC offices in February for approximately the next year.

1.5 Monitoring and assurance

Eligibility workshops held with Crown representatives in December and January raised potential improvement in Council’s claiming format. Council and Crown staff are working closely to streamline the process and avoid cash flow issues in the coming months.

A Crown Betterment fund of up to $2.4m for Three Waters services was established following the November 2016 earthquake. That fund was designed to support the recovery of the Kaikoura District, which is available to the Council over and above the Three Waters works that are eligible for (60%) reimbursement under policy set out in the guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.

Rebuild staff are working with Crown reps discussing Betterment projects eligibility and developing a prioritised list of fundable projects. This will be shared with Council at the earliest reporting opportunity and may be able to be tabled at the Council meeting this month.

1.6 Communications / Community and Stakeholder Engagement

The Rebuild team is working on a programme wide “communication template” that can be easily updated on a regular basis.

We are currently preparing targeted communications with regards to the separable portion of the Lyell Creek WW Upgrade project that is not proceeding due to affordability and funding constraints. This elimination of the first section (Lyell Creek to Hawthorne Rd pump station) was explained at last month’s meeting.

Communications will also announcement who the new contractors will be to undertake the major contract works, construction programmes, key contacts etc.

1.7 Procurement

Design and Build contract documents are currently being finalised for the award of the Five Bridges Replacement to CSL in the coming week.

Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade, WWTP Aeration Lagoon and Fords Reservoir proposals have been clarified through a series of post tender meetings and workshops with the contractors and assessed by tender evaluation panels. Preferred tenderers will be confirmed for each contract.

15

A recommendation for award of contract will be prepared and submitted to the Rebuild Steering Group members for endorsement as each contract process is completed during the next few days and weeks.

1.8 General Progress

The following is a brief outline on the progress achieved over the last month on each project:

WWTP Aeration Lagoon

ISAACS has been identified as preferred tenderer for the construction contract. Parties are currently finalising the commercial negotiation and tidying up the contract documentation. Final award project value will be addressed to the Rebuild Steering Group for endorsement before award of contract.

Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade

The electrical detailed design is underway and will be addressed for pricing to the preferred tenderer before award of contract.

Preferred tenderer will be notified very soon, as tender evaluation is now completed. The Parties will finalise the commercial negotiations and complete the contract documentation. Final award project value will be addressed to the Rebuild Steering Group for endorsement before award of contract.

Fords Reservoir

ISAACS has been identified as preferred tenderer for the construction contract. The Parties will finalise the commercial negotiations and complete the contract documentation. Final award project value will be addressed to the Rebuild Steering Group for endorsement before award of contract.

Totara Lane WW Pump Station

Totara Lane Pump Station contract was awarded to Fulton Hogan. Stantec has been appointed for the Engineer, Engineer’s Rep, and technical support roles. Contractor’s documentation has been approved and directional drilling works are finished. However, the contractor has been facing delays in their buoyancy design and selection and procurement of the wet-well. This may delay completion from end of January to mid-April.

Five Bridges Replacement Project

Design and Build contract is currently being finalised for award to CSL in the last week of January. BECA consultants have been appointed to the Engineer’s rep role. They will be providing all Contract Management services.

Clarence Valley Access

Meetings have been held with NZTA and BECA consultants to better determine the process to find a preferred solution, and to scope the outstanding work to finish the Indicative Business Case, and in particular include the non-infrastructure option(s).

Rebuild staff are working very closely with NZTA to ensure all work will comply with their funding assessment needs.

Timing for identifying a preferred option, recommendations to Council/NZTA Board and meeting the requirements of LGA Special Consultative Procedures (SCP) will not dovetail with KDC’s Draft Annual Plan notification in April (this was always seen as optimistic). We expect the Clarence Valley Access SCP to run later and any deliberations and formal decision making to be into the new 2019/2020 financial year.

Minor and Medium Bridge Repairs

16

The assessment and report for the minor bridge repairs has been completed, and the programme estimate updated accordingly. The works will be designed and tendered as one package. Jacobs has been engaged to prepare tender documents in February/March, following which Council can start the procurement process for bridge remediation works.

Footpaths, Kerb & Channels, and Streetlights Assessments

Condition assessment work has been provided by Jacobs, and they are in the process to provide costings and a prioritised work programme for Council. Delivery of repairs will be coordinated with the Council’s roading programme and using road maintenance contractor Downer.

Peninsula Water Reservoir

The pipework repairs for older concrete Peninsula Reservoir have been awarded to IWK and completed. The lining contract has been negotiated with a preferred supplier but the final award of the work is on hold until we have a better picture on the overall Programme affordability, principally from the outcome of the major tenders. We are also completing a storage capacity review to be certain of the current or future need for this additional water storage.

Mackles Bore

Investigations have shown interconnectivity between artesian and shallow intermediate aquifers. Pre-remediation options are being addressed and estimated by Jacobs.

Pipework and apron repair design is completed and is ready for construction by IWK.

WW Pipework and Manholes Repairs

Council programme of works is being assessed by Stantec personnel (with relevant SCIRT experience) to address and confirm Crown funding eligibility.

Programme of works will be procured as bundled packages in March through the approved panel of physical works contractors, or directly awarded as distinct packages to IWK depending of the extent of the repair works.

17

1.9 Financial

Activity Most Likely Nov 17 Total Programme Estimate to date

Total spent to date (JAN 2018)

Programme Estimate 16/17

Programme Estimate 17/18

Programme Estimate 18/19

Programme Estimate 19/20

Rebuild Programme Mgt 1,061,087$ 2,068,316$ 927,993$ 42,796$ 716,094$ 931,007$ 536,063$ Water 3,911,218$ 3,903,931$ 1,979,172$ 1,518,972$ 370,657$ 1,599,427$ 414,876$

Stormwater 645,193$ 687,407$ 31,862$ 7,320$ 94,855$ 522,741$ 62,492$

Sewerage 11,636,332$ 13,636,144$ 2,838,775$ 1,597,193$ 625,849$ 5,748,159$ 5,664,942$

Roading 21,405,376$ 19,787,331$ 8,117,326$ 4,410,623$ 2,924,634$ 3,446,388$ 9,005,686$

GRAND TOTAL 38,659,206$ 40,083,129$ 13,895,128$ 7,576,904$ 4,732,089$ 12,247,721$ 15,684,058$

2019 / 20202017 / 2018Full Rebuild Programme 2016 / 2017 2018 / 2019

Key Notes & Assumptions:

1. Pressure on the KDC funding budget is increasing, but may be partially redressed by the full allocation of Crown Betterment funding (up to the full $2.4m), review of all contingences, and final negotiated award values of major contracts. These key issues will be the subject of future financial reporting.

2. Clarence Valley Access (infrastructure or non-infrastructure solution) is excluded from the Total Cash Flow chart above.

3. CDEM (Crown) Betterment fund of $2.4m is only showing $1.375m allocated, the balance of $1.025m is pending project prioritisiation in Jan/Feb 2019.

4. All Programme Contingencies, and individual Project Contingencies will be reviewed after the award of major contracts in February.

18

5. Rebuild Programme Management estimates assume the rebuild programme will be completed in June 2020.

19

ML Programme

EstimateSpent to date ML forward NZTA KDC Insurers

Betterment - Crown

60% FAR - Crown

Bid 2018 - Crown

KDC ML contribution

KDC approved Budget /

expenditure

KDC Budget - Variance

% Spent

Rebuild Programme Mgt $ 2,068,316 $ 927,993 $ 1,140,324 $ 925,952 $ - $ 121,000 $ 574,603 $ 385,954 $ 60,808 $ 64,376 $3,568 45%Programme Management - Claimable as programme overhead $ 1,881,941 $ 911,025 $ 970,916 $ 925,952 $ - $ - $ 544,353 $ 365,787 $ 45,849 $ 49,417 $3,568 48%Programme Management - Claimable as 3W overhead $ 50,417 $ 16,968 $ 33,449 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,250 $ 20,167 $ - $ - $0 34%Programme Management - Non Claimable $ 14,959 $ - $ 14,959 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,959 $ 14,959 $0 0%Programme Management - Provision for betterment projects $ 121,000 $ - $ 121,000 $ - $ - $ 121,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 0%

Roading $ 19,787,331 $ 8,117,326 $ 11,670,005 $ 18,284,988 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,502,343 $ 1,541,753 $39,410 41%Programme contingency - Roading - Roads $ 377,323 $ - $ 377,323 $ 358,457 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,866 $ 39,946 $21,079 0%Programme contingency - Roading - Bridges $ 509,782 $ - $ 509,782 $ 484,293 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,489 $ 29,462 $3,973 0%Sealed Roads EQ Damage Assessments / Geotech $ 510 $ 510 $ - $ 485 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26 $ 1,140 $1,115 100%Unsealed Roads EQ Damage Assessments / Geotech $ 22,293 $ 22,293 $ - $ 21,179 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,115 $ - $1,115 100%Drainage EQ Damage Assessments $ 18,914 $ 18,914 $ - $ 17,968 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 946 $ - $946 100%Streetlights EQ Damage Assessments $ 22,490 $ 22,490 $ - $ 21,365 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,124 $ - $1,124 100%Footpaths EQ Damage Assessments $ 23,639 $ 23,639 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 23,639 $ - $23,639 100%Bridges EQ Damage Assessments $ 74,223 $ 65,853 $ 8,370 $ 70,512 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,711 $ 1,896 $1,815 89%Roading Emergency Works 16/17 - Management $ 417,281 $ 417,281 $ - $ 396,417 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,864 $ 16,537 $4,327 100%Roading Emergency Works 16/17 - Sealed $ 1,801,309 $ 1,801,309 $ - $ 1,711,243 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 90,065 $ 90,726 $661 100%Roading Emergency Works 16/17 - Unsealed $ 1,697,635 $ 1,697,635 $ - $ 1,612,753 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 84,882 $ 41,512 $43,369 100%Roading Emergency Works 16/17 - Drainage $ 435,613 $ 435,613 $ - $ 413,832 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,781 $ 66,385 $44,605 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Management $ 196,031 $ 196,031 $ - $ 186,230 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,802 $ 9,802 $0 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Sealed $ 574,166 $ 574,166 $ - $ 545,457 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 28,708 $ 28,708 $0 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Unsealed $ 492,090 $ 492,090 $ - $ 467,485 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 24,604 $ 24,604 $0 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Drainage $ 866,239 $ 866,239 $ - $ 822,927 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 43,312 $ 44,258 $946 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Environmental $ 227,589 $ 227,589 $ - $ 216,210 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,379 $ 11,379 $0 100%Roading Programme 17/18 - Traffic Services $ 18,663 $ 18,663 $ - $ 17,730 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 933 $ 933 $0 100%Roading Programme 18/19 - Management $ 123,600 $ 17,309 $ 106,291 $ 117,420 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,180 $ 6,180 $0 14%Roading Programme 18/19 - Sealed $ 364,439 $ - $ 364,439 $ 346,217 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,222 $ 18,222 $0 0%Roading Programme 18/19 - Unsealed $ 212,299 $ 190,119 $ 22,181 $ 201,684 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,615 $ - $10,615 90%Roading Programme 18/19 - Drainage $ 561,756 $ - $ 561,756 $ 533,668 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 28,088 $ 28,088 $0 0%Roading Programme 18/19 - Footpaths $ 183,962 $ - $ 183,962 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 183,962 $ 160,125 $23,837 0%Carparks $ 59,167 $ - $ 59,167 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 59,167 $ 59,167 $0 0%Streetlights $ 88,750 $ - $ 88,750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 88,750 $ 100,000 $11,250 0%Bridges repairs (x15) $ 702,654 $ 2,808 $ 699,846 $ 667,521 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,133 $ 57,806 $22,673 0%Bridges replacement (x5) $ 3,907,006 $ 265,314 $ 3,641,692 $ 3,536,421 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 370,585 $ 436,920 $66,335 7%Clarence Valley Access $ 5,136,107 $ 378,056 $ 4,758,051 $ 4,879,302 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 256,805 $ 248,354 $8,451 7%Clarence Valley Road protection $ 296,149 $ 296,149 $ - $ 281,342 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,807 $ - $14,807 100%Clarence Valley SAR $ 375,653 $ 87,257 $ 288,396 $ 356,870 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,783 $ 19,603 $821 23%

Water $ 3,903,931 $ 1,979,172 $ 1,924,760 $ - $ 836,991 $ 1,006,321 $ 1,269,967 $ 536,478 $ 254,175 $ 94,718 $159,457 51%Programme contingency - Water Reticulation $ 86,946 $ - $ 86,946 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,168 $ - $ 34,778 $ 70,307 $35,529 0%Programme contingency - Water Structures $ 93,720 $ - $ 93,720 $ - $ - $ - $ 56,232 $ - $ 37,488 $ 24,410 $13,077 0%Post EQ - Temporary Water Safety Plans & Samplings $ 36,942 $ 36,942 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36,942 $ - $36,942 100%Water Assessment / Retic $ 102,947 $ 102,947 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 61,768 $ 41,179 $ - $ - $0 100%Water Assessment / Structures $ 48,820 $ 48,820 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 24,499 $ 16,333 $ 7,989 $ - $7,989 100%Water 16/17 Emergency repairs - Retic $ 418,635 $ 418,635 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,595 $ 133,730 $ 84,310 $ - $84,310 100%Water 16/17 Emergency repairs - Structures $ 149,822 $ 149,822 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 78,362 $ 52,241 $ 19,219 $ - $19,219 100%Water - 17/18 EQ OPEX repairs - Retic $ 23,151 $ 23,151 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,890 $ 9,260 $ - $ - $0 100%Water - 17/18 EQ OPEX repairs - Structures $ 5,473 $ 5,473 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,284 $ 2,189 $ - $ - $0 100%Mt Fyffe Water main and road reinstatement $ 986,557 $ 986,557 $ - $ - $ 393,546 $ - $ 498,547 $ 94,464 $ - $ - $0 100%Urban water main from NCTIR Village $ 221,444 $ - $ 221,444 $ - $ - $ 221,444 $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 0%Water - East Coast - Structures - Reservoir $ 27,760 $ 27,760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,760 $ - $27,760 100%Water - Kincaid - Structure - Reservoir $ 25,323 $ - $ 25,323 $ - $ 15,118 $ - $ 6,123 $ 4,082 $ - $ - $0 0%Water - Ocean Ridge - Structure - Reservoir $ 28,184 $ 28,184 $ - $ - $ 2,674 $ - $ 11,892 $ 7,928 $ 5,690 $ - $5,690 100%Water - Urban - Reticulation $ 9,230 $ - $ 9,230 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,538 $ 3,692 $ - $ - $0 0%Water - Urban - Structure - Fords $ 1,098,925 $ 97,813 $ 1,001,112 $ - $ 166,048 $ 734,877 $ 118,800 $ 79,200 -$ 0 $ - $0 9%Water - Urban - Structure - Peninsula $ 247,442 $ 19,376 $ 228,067 $ - $ 194,102 $ - $ 32,004 $ 21,336 $ - $ - $0 8%Water - Urban - Structure - Mackles Bore $ 292,612 $ 33,694 $ 258,918 $ - $ 65,503 $ 50,000 $ 106,265 $ 70,844 $ - $ - $0 12%

Stormwater $ 687,407 $ 31,862 $ 655,545 $ - $ 209,096 $ - $ 412,063 $ 40,616 $ 25,632 $ 27,211 $1,579 5%Programme contingency - Stormwater Reticulation $ 33,550 $ - $ 33,550 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,130 $ - $ 13,420 $ 14,553 $1,133 0%Programme contingency - Stormwater Structures $ 28,941 $ - $ 28,941 $ - $ - $ - $ 17,365 $ - $ 11,577 $ 12,658 $1,081 0%Stormwater Assessment - Structures $ 28,125 $ - $ 28,125 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,875 $ 11,250 $ - $ - $0 0%Stormwater Assessment - Retic $ 43,460 $ 1,273 $ 42,188 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,076 $ 17,384 $ - $ - $0 3%Stormwater 16/17 Emergency Repairs $ 6,047 $ 6,047 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,247 $ 2,165 $ 636 $ - $636 100%Stormwater 17/18 OPEX Repairs $ 24,542 $ 24,542 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,725 $ 9,817 $ - $ - $0 100%Stormwater Repairs - Structures $ 255,241 $ - $ 255,241 $ - $ 102,096 $ - $ 153,145 $ 0 $ - $ - $0 0%Stormwater Repairs - Reticulations $ 267,500 $ - $ 267,500 $ - $ 107,000 $ - $ 160,500 -$ 0 $ - $ 0 $0 0%

Sewerage $ 13,636,144 $ 2,838,775 $ 10,797,368 $ - $ 3,384,971 $ 247,844 $ 6,999,944 $ 1,236,953 $ 1,766,432 $ 293,729 $1,472,703 21%Programme contingency - Sewerage Reticulation $ 141,050 $ - $ 141,050 $ - $ - $ - $ 84,630 $ - $ 56,420 $ 63,578 $7,158 0%Programme contingency - Sewerage Structures $ 250,619 $ - $ 250,619 $ - $ - $ - $ 150,371 $ - $ 100,248 $ 72,427 $27,820 0%Sewerage Assessment / Retic $ 501,870 $ 501,870 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,206 $ 200,138 $ 1,527 $ - $1,527 100%Sewerage Assessment / Structures $ 18,934 $ 18,934 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,361 $ 7,574 $ - $ - $0 100%Sewerage 16/17 emergency repairs - Retic $ 458,605 $ 458,605 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 246,048 $ 164,032 $ 48,525 $ - $48,525 100%Sewerage 16/17 emergency repairs - Structures $ 583,528 $ 583,528 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 203,206 $ 135,471 $ 244,851 $ - $244,851 100%Sewerage 17/19 OPEX repairs - Retic $ 10,083 $ 1,005 $ 9,079 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,050 $ 4,033 $ - $ - $0 10%Sewerage 17/19 OPEX repairs - Structures $ 40,333 $ 30,387 $ 9,946 $ - $ - $ - $ 24,200 $ 16,133 $ - $ - $0 75%Sewerage 17/20 OPEX - EQ maintenance and powering $ 151,250 $ 59,662 $ 91,588 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 151,250 $ - $151,250 39%Lyell Creek $ 6,821,601 $ 548,431 $ 6,273,169 $ - $ 1,481,978 $ 207,844 $ 4,137,483 $ 334,548 $ 659,748 $ 157,725 $502,023 8%Aeration Lagoon $ 3,361,117 $ 530,984 $ 2,830,133 $ - $ 1,502,456 $ 40,000 $ 1,091,197 $ 223,600 $ 503,864 $ - $503,864 16%Pump Station - Esplanade $ 39,500 $ 39,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 23,700 $ 15,800 $ - $ - $0 100%Pump station - Mt Fyffe Meadows $ 322,369 $ 53,313 $ 269,056 $ - $ 42,611 $ - $ 167,855 $ 111,903 $ - $ - $0 17%Sewerage Manholes $ 495,343 $ - $ 495,343 $ - $ 174,417 $ - $ 297,206 $ 23,721 $ - $ - $0 0%Sewerage Pipework Esplanade $ 50,959 $ - $ 50,959 $ - $ 20,384 $ - $ 30,575 $ - $ - $ - $0 0%Sewerage Pipework Beach Rd catchments $ 137,709 $ - $ 137,709 $ - $ 55,084 $ - $ 82,625 $ - $ - $ - $0 0%Sewerage Pipework South Bay $ 45,609 $ - $ 45,609 $ - $ 18,244 $ - $ 27,365 $ - $ - $ - $0 0%Sewerage Pipework Mt Fyffe Hawthorne $ 12,555 $ 12,555 $ - $ - $ 12,555 $ - $ - $ - -$ 0 -$ 0 $0 100%Sewerage Pipework Ocean Ridge $ 48,658 $ - $ 48,658 $ - $ 19,463 $ - $ 29,195 $ - $ - $ - $0 0%Sewerage Pipework Middle creek crossing $ 144,450 $ - $ 144,450 $ - $ 57,780 $ - $ 86,670 $ - $ - $ - $0 0%

Grand Total $ 40,083,129 $ 13,895,128 $ 26,188,001 $ 19,210,940 $ 4,431,057 $ 1,375,165 $ 9,256,576 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,609,390 $ 2,021,788 $1,587,603 35%

20

Projects Approved by RSG (excludes emergency works & temporary maintenance)

Notes:

Work-scope eligibility has been agreed on the following projects.

Values remain unchanged since the December 2018 report.

Project Values will be revised with the award of major physical works contracts, and new Values will be proposed to the Rebuild Steering Group for approval/endorsement on a project by project basis.

New projects may be added with the full allocation of the Crown’s $2.4m Betterment funds.

Project Number

Project Name Asset Class Value of Project

R.3.6 Clarence Valley Road Emergency Protection Works

Roading and structures

$300,000 capital works

WW.3.1 Lyell Creek sewer upgrade Wastewater Reticulation & Structure

$5,800,000 capital works

WW.2.9 Totara lane Pump Station Wastewater Structure

$330,000 capital works

R.3.3 Five bridges replacement Roading and structures

$4,560,000 capital works

WW.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Structure

$1,500,000 capital works

W.2.3 Peninsula Reservoir Water Structure $200,000 capital works

W.2.2 Fords Reservoir + Incoming main Water Structure $870,000 capital works

W.2.1 Urban source (Mackles Bore) Water Structure $90,000 capital works

R.3.4 Temporary access arrangements across the Wharekiri stream (on hold)

Roading and structures

$740,000 capital works

R.0.1 Red Swamp Road overlay Roading and structures

$100,000 capital works

R.0.1 Mill Road overlay Roading and structures

$105,000 capital works

W.2.4 Ocean ridge timber tank – liner Water Structure $35,000 capital works

21

Programme Risks and Issues Only medium, extreme and high risks are included in this report table.

Category Event OwnerActionee

Inherent_Consequence

Inherent_Likelihood

Inherent_Risk level Risk Control/Mitigation Status

Residual_Consequence

Residual_Likelihood

Residual_Risk_Level

Since last month

Further_ControlFinancial Rebuild programme scope not fully defined

resulting in increased programme estimatesProgramme Manager PT Major Likely High 21 Asset investigation undertaken and incorporated.

Programme contingencies reviewed and project estimates updated. Project scope agreed.

Initial Assessment

Significant Possible Med 13

=Betterment projects under current review.

Financial KDC ability to meet financial obligations - cashflow and budgets

KDC Finance manager PT Major Likely High 21 Thorough review through the 3YP process. Business case preparation for additional support. Confirmation of additional budget bid funding.

Initial Assessment

Significant Likely High 17

▲Preparation of Council's draft 2019/20 Annual Plan. Confirm Betterment projects

Programme management The programme is not delivered on time or cost Programme Manager PT Significant Possible Med 13 Appropriate programme management and fit for purpose reporting.

Monitor Response

Significant Possible Med 13=

Dates slipping but programme completion by mid 2020 still achievable.

Physical delivery The programme is not delivered safely Programme Manager PT Major Possible High 18 Appropriate safety standards defined and implemented for the programme. Appropriate monitoring and assurance to ensure compliance.

Initial Assessment

Major Possible High 18=

H&S included in Procurement Panels, and in physical works contracts.

Physical delivery The programme is not delivered to appropriate quality standards

Programme Manager PT Major Possible High 18 Quality standards and requirements defined for the programme. Appropriate monitoring and assurance.

Initial Assessment

Major Possible High 18

=Standards & requirements to be managed through appropriate project control and MSQA.

Financial Another natural hazard event ( earthquake, cyclone, rain event)

KDC Civil Defence Coordinator

PT Major Possible High 18 Emergency response plan in place. Initial Assessment

Major Possible High 18 = Maintain emergency response plan vigilance

Physical delivery Interdependencies from other workstreams or funding affect programme delivery (e.g. NCTIR, EQC, Insurance, natural hazards programme)

Programme Manager PT Major Likely High 21 Coordination across workstreams and interface with key parties

Initial Assessment

Significant unlikely Med 9=

Stakeholder Loss of community and stakeholder confidence in and tolerance to ongoing rebuild work

Communications Offi cer

PT Significant Possible Med 13 External communications plan developed and implemented. Timely response to rebuild queries

Initial Assessment

Significant Possible Med 13=

Good comms strategy during physical works delivery.

Stakeholder Community/Stakeholder expectations are not achieved with programme outcomes

Programme Manager PT Significant possible Med 13 Clearly articulated rebuild programme objectives, regularly stakeholder engagement

Monitor Response

Significant possible Med 13 = Good stakeholder engagement during physical works delivery.

Programme management Lack of internal resources or loss of key resources KDC CEO PT Significant Possible Med 13 Timely engagement of appropriate resource, backfill resource as required. Agreement for additional support.

Initial Assessment

Significant unlikely Med 9=

Retain staff to end of Rebuild Programme in mid 2020

Physical delivery Lack of external resources to deliver the programme

Programme Manager PT Significant Likely High 17 Timely communication of rebuild programme to market and appropriate procurement strategy in place. Market testing and appropriate packages identified.

Initial Assessment

Significant Unlikely Med 9

▼Preferred tenders for all major contracts. Consultants engaged for contract management.

Financial Timely access to Crown funding leading to major cashflow issues for KDC over next summer (up to $2.5M/month)

DPMC and NZTA RSG reps

PT Major Possible High 18 Streamlining claiming process and ensure funder's confidence in KDC's claim preparation processes forward.

Monitor Response

Significant unlikely Med 9=

Regular meetings with DPMC staff

Programme management Rebuild information not provided to stakeholders in a timely way

Communications Offi cer

PT Significant Possible Med 13 Rebuild communications plan in plan and implemented with regular stakeholder updates

Monitor Response

Significant Possible Med 13 = Regular information releases for each major project

Physical delivery Environmental or cultural consenting requirements impacting programme

Programme Manager PT Significant Likely High 17 SLA with MKT, Archaeological authority application and work being undertaken with ECan

Monitor Response

Significant Possible Med 13 = Each project is being assessed for cultural and environmental impact.

Physical delivery Opportunities for fraudulent practices Programme Manager PT Major Possible High 18 Monitoring and evaluation programme across rebuild activities. Procurement in line with agreed strategy. Timely audit and validation

Initial Assessment

Significant Unlikely Med 9=

Independent Probity service provided during procurement.

Physical delivery Opportunity for legal challenge on key projects e.g. Lyell Creek, Clarence Valley access

Programme Manager PT Major Possible High 18 Legal advice sought as required Initial Assessment

Major Possible High 18 = High profile CVA project. Close coordination with NZTA.

Subject Action Scoring - After mitigation Further Mitigation requiredInherent Scoring

22

Notes for the Programme Risk and Issues table:

Financial, KDC ability to meet financial obligations – cashflow and budgets: ▲

The residual likelihood for this risk has been increased from Possible to Likely. There is now a significant forecast negative Variance to the Council budget for the Rebuild Programme ($1.587m). This may be partially offset by the further allocation of Crown Betterment Funds, but it is not likely to fully balance or offset this total variance.

Physical Delivery, Lack of external resources to deliver the programme: ▼

Competitive bids received and preferred conforming tenderers have been identified for all major contract works.

Stantec consultants have been engaged to provide a bundled contract management solution for all major 3-waters contracts, and will have committed resources in Kaikoura during the construction phase.

Programme Management, the Programme is not delivered on time or cost: =

Major construction start dates are slipping as procurement processes to formally award contracts is taking longer than expected. This is primarily due to a number of unresolved detailed design issues from the Tender documents, rather than the quality of the tenderer’s submissions/bids. Award of all major contracts is now imminent and completion of the Programme by mid-2020 is still achievable but all risks need careful management.

23

Expected Progress within the Next Month

o Five Bridges Replacement

Award of the contract to the preferred tenderer CSL

o Lyell Creek WW Upgrade

Award of contract to preferred tenderer

o Ford Reservoir

Award of contract to preferred tenderer

o WWTP Aeration Lagoon Award of contract to preferred tenderer

o Totara Lane Pump Station

Construction progressing

o Peninsula Reservoir

Award of contract still on hold, pending Programme affordability and overall water storage capacity assessment

o Clarence Valley Access

Progressing completion of Indicative Business Case, and review with NZTA

o Assessments/Minor Works on Bridges

Assessments underway in February

o WW Reticulation Award of Contract for repair works with programming of physical works in March

24

Report To: Council

Date: 25 January 2019

Subject: Rebuild Programme Betterment ProjectsPrepared by: Peter Thomson

Rebuild Programme ManagerAuthorised by: Angela Oosthuizen

Chief Executive

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGINThis report is to seek Council approval in principle for a list of prioritised Betterment projects recommended by the RSG (Rebuild Steering Group). The prioritised list of projects will then be developed into a full funding application, to be reviewed by the RSG and then submitted to the Crown (Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management (MCDEM)) for consideration and approval.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Crown Betterment fund of $2.4m for Three Waters services was established following the November 2016 earthquake. The fund was designed to support the recovery of the Kaikoura District, and is available to the Council over and above the Three Waters works that are eligible for (60%) reimbursement under policy set out in the guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.

In 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding was agreed between MCDEM and the Council. Drawdowns from the fund need to:

Be supported by a suitable business case application that states how the works meet the “Scope of the Fund”

Be recommended by the Rebuild Steering Group and supported by Council Use best endeavours to submit all business cases for the $2.4m by 13 Nov 2019 Have either Ministerial agreement, or where specific criteria are met, the agreement

of the National Recovery Manager.To date the only application recommended by the RSG and agreed to by MCDEM is $676,000 for the Fords Reservoir project for water storage and the incoming pipeline works.

As we enter the Rebuild Programme major construction phase, it is now timely to finalise and seek approval for the prioritised Betterment project list. In addition, the Fords betterment value needs to be increased and approved.

The prioritised Betterment project list shown in Table 1 was approved in principle by the RSG at its meeting on 23 January with the following resolution:

Approves in principle Appendix1, the full prioritised betterment project list, and agrees that it be developed into a full funding application for consideration by DPMC and MCDEM. Seeks Council approval of the process being followed, and advises the Council of financial implications for the Rebuild Programme and Council’s three waters Business As Usual works programme.

25

Table 1: Prioritised Betterment List

Priority Description of Project Estimated Cost of Project (Ex. GST)

Total Betterment Fund Used Based on Priority accumulation (Ex. GST)

1 Funding increase for Fords Reservoir and completion of

delivery main (Total Betterment including KDC001 Requested

funds) *

$1,113,000* $1,113,000

2 Lyell Creek Pump Station Upgrade

$301,000 $1,414,000

3 WWTP Aeration Lagoon $272,000 $1,686,000

4 SCADA / Telemetry $126,000 $1,812,000

5 Asset Management System – Implementation and Data

Acquisition

$340,000 $2,152,000

6 Mackles Bore Water Supply Pump Renewal

$50,000 $2,202,000

7 Ocean Ridge Water Supply Chlorination Plant installation

$60,000 $2,262,000

8 Suburban Water Supply Chlorination Plant, settlement

tank and filtration unit installation

$142,000 $2,404,000**

9 Mackles Bore Water Supply

UV Treatment

$319,000 $2,723,000

All Betterment work will need to meet the Crown’s eligibility criteria, and requires either Ministerial agreement or where specific criteria may be met the agreement of the National Recovery Manager.

26

The list of prioritised projects deliberately exceeds the fund value of $2.4m. The formal application will seek approval to use a pragmatic and flexible approach to executing the Betterment works so that as many projects as possible can be completed using the funds available. The Crown’s funding approval will not exceed $2.4m for the cumulative total of committed Betterment projects, even if the mix of prioritised projects changes during programme delivery. If the lowest ranked project cannot be achieved within the cumulative funded total of $2.4m then if the Council wishes to complete the project Council will be obliged to meet any funding shortfall.

This flexible approach should allow Council to optimise and spend the full value of the Betterment fund, as well as successfully delivering the work programme.

The ranking of the projects recognised the following priority hierarchy:a. Betterment work directly associated with major projects in the Rebuild Programmeb. Betterment work that supports the establishment of essential infrastructure systems

relating to asset management systems, plans and data.c. Betterment work that also supports the Council’s three year plan (2018-2021) for 3-

waters capital works programme.

The Crown funding of the $2.4m will provide a direct financial benefit (estimated at $1,686,000) to the Rebuild Programme projects Fords Reservoir, Lyell Creek Sewer Upgrade, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approved betterment works will be 100% funded by the Crown, whereas currently funding is proposed by Council loan.

Similarly, Crown funding will provide a direct financial benefit (estimated at $714,000) to Council’s BAU 3-waters projects that make up the balance of the Prioritised Betterment List. These projects are currently proposed to be funded by a mix of rates and loan funds.

3. RECOMMENDATIONSThat Council

1. Receive the Rebuild Programme Betterment Projects report.

2. Approve in principle the Prioritised Betterment Projects list in Table 1 of the

report

3. Notes that the Rebuild Steering Group will develop a full funding application based on the List, to be submitted to the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management and Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet for consideration and approval.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKSThe financial implications and risks associated with the proposed Crown Betterment funding are:

This funding will positively reduce Council funding of the proposed projects and create more affordable infrastructure for the community.

This funding will not present any financial risks for the Council

27

5. COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTEDOur infrastructure, housing and community facilities are easily accessible, cost effective and able to withstand our natural hazards.

Our District is economically diverse, attractive to investment and provides certainty around business and employment continuity.

Our community is resilient, safe and well and has their essential needs met.

Our District is economically diverse, attractive to investment and provides certainty around business and employment continuity.

Our infrastructure, housing and community facilities are easily accessible, cost effective and able to withstand our natural hazards.

Our community is resilient, safe and well and has their essential needs met

6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION:This decision is not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

28

Report to: COUNCIL

Date: 30th January 2019

Subject: Responsible Camping General Update Prepared by: Matt Hoggard – Strategy, Policy and District Plan Manger.Input sought from: Jacob Turnbull – Policy Planner

Libby Clifford - Communications and Engagement Manager Authorised by: Angela Oosthuizen – Chief Executive Officer

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN:This report provides an update on responsible camping for the 2018/19 summer, it has been developed based on the direction set by council and the Responsible Camping Working Group (RCWG) and builds on the November council report. This report explores the work we have undertaken to date to ensure camping is responsible within our district and how the sites that Council has promoted are performing.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:This report follows the Council reports of 26th September 2018, two reports of 28th November. Following on from work begun in 2017/18 and after receiving the recommendations of the Responsible Camping working group, three camping sites across Kaikōura District were promoted for use by responsible campers over the 2018/19 summer as a trial. $40,000 was provided to set up the sites and provide toilets at two of the sites (Scarborough and South Bay).Over 50 sites were considered for promotion from a survey undertaken of KDC land, some NZTA land, some unallocated crown parcel and a small amount of DOC land. ECAN land was generally not considered due to a lot of it already being leased.

The aims of the trial undertaken for the 2018/19 summer were to: 1. Decrease incidents of unwanted behaviours2. Support local (commercial) alternatives to freedom camping 3. Demonstrate to residents the Council is taking responsible camping seriously4. Increase ability of affected residents to report issues

The trial has made a marked difference to the way camping has impacted our district this summer. Scarborough Street is receiving upwards of 25 vehicles a night and South Bay has averaged 60 vehicles a night. Other sites where campers are normally spotted are still being used. As was expected, the trial is generating new challenges as well as improving problems that have been experienced in previous years.

As at January 18th 18 complaints have been entered into the system for this summer season on this issue across the whole district. Complaint themes include dissatisfaction about the equity of providing facilities for campers who are not self-contained. There are also concerns at South Bay for traffic safety, overcrowding and the impact of camping on banded dotterels and complaints about camping in other locations in the District. Council has also received several positive pieces of feedback.

This time last year our Environmental Health Officer was making regular visits to Kiwa Road. A Health Restriction is still in place at there.

29

The total predicted spend for the summer period up until the end of April (excluding communications related spend) is $40,000.

The Responsible Camping Working Group (RCWG) will meet on February 7th. Its’ discussion will include an in depth look at all issues raised in this report and the forming of recommendations for next steps. These recommendations will be implemented or brought back to Council for approval as appropriate.

3. RECOMMENDATION:That Council:

1. Receives this report for information

4. ISSUES AND OPTIONS – SITE UPDATES:

4.1 South Kekerengu Beach Side (Valhalla Stream mouth area) State Highway RS90/8.520Site was not opened due to not being fully safe to access off SH1, NZTA have recommended upgrading the vehicle crossing. This work may be able to be completed as part of the NCTIR safety/amenity improvements and staff will continue to talk with NZTA.A different site slightly further south was instead put on Campermate for responsible camping use by summer visitors. The site is already setup as a pull-off rest area with a sign and meets the traffic safety requirements. The site is quite close to the highway and is expected only to be a temporary one until the other site can be improved. No signs have been put up at either Kekerengu locationNo toilets have been provided at any Kekerengu sites due to high cost of service. We continue to encourage responsible camping.No complaints have been received for this site, however a ratepayer has raised concerns about the sites proximity to commercial camping facilities.

4.2 Scarborough Street SiteThis site has grown in popularity since re-opening after a spell of ground flooding (17 th to 27th December). Feedback from Campermate is positive with many referencing accessibility to the town centre. The two provided toilets have been sufficient for this site. The limiting of the site by fence building is seen to be successful and useful in stopping visitors moving freely into the IWK area and controlling numbers.

Issues include: Site is unsuitable for use in wet weather/when the ground is wet. Re-surfacing to improve

the site’s accessibility for 2WD vehicles has been recommended and will be discussed at the next RCWG meeting.

People trying to camp at Innovate Waste Kaikōura (IWK) as well as asking there about if toilets/showers exist.

Some reported inappropriate disposal of cooking wastes, drainage at the water tap and rubbish.

IWK are opposed to this site because of its impact on their daily operations. Issues raised by the board will be discussed at the next responsible camping workshop.

4.2.1 Scarborough Street numbers and operational costs

TABLE 1: Ongoing costs at the site TYPE OF EXPENSE COST (INCL GST)

30

Hire 2 toilets x 1 week $98Empty Portaloo x 2 loo x 1 week $479Total x 1 week Operational Costs $577

4.3 Pohowera (South Bay) SiteThis site has been busy since opening. Feedback on CamperMate is generally positive.Issues include:

Access way off SH1 is not up to standard for the number of vehicles using this (Type D recommended. estimated cost $12,000+). There is a residence driveway directly opposite.

Close to an area of Dotterel nests. Increased reports of dogs off leads, fires on the beach, drone usage which can all have a detrimental impact on these birds

The size of the site raises a number of health and safety concerns e.g. fire risk. CamperMate technology to monitor numbers and inform people when the site is full has not

been working to 100%. Physical works to limit the site’s capacity will be expensive and may push people to other more undesirable areas.

Limestone surface creates a mess for campers when wet.4.3.1 About the Dotterels:Nationally vulnerable bird “facing a risk of extinction in the medium term.” Their Population is predicted to decline 30-70 per cent over the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Last reports are that there is one Dotterel chick that has survived in this area but that adults and some chocks have been negatively impacted. The breeding season of the birds at the date of this meeting is to be practically finished. The beach has long been a popular recreation site with locals and visitors using the beach for fishing, dog walks, quad bike riding and now, camping. All of these activities affect our dotterels, so beach users have always had to keep an eye out for them. Historically, breeding success has been low, even before the introduction of the responsible camping site.This year, Council has invested in signs, fliers, radio adverts and online content aimed at educating all beach users about the dotterels. The RCWG will discuss the outcome of these mitigations and potential next steps – this may include looking at whether the Dog Control Bylaw could include South Bay as a Dog on leads area. 4.3.2 Pohowera toilet numbers and operational costs – There were initially 2 toilets but moved to 3 on 23/12 due to high numbers (Budget impacts can be shown below in part 9 of this report).Liquid Waste Kaikoura has recommended having between 4 and 6 toilets at the site moving forward. The predicted spend has not included this.

31

28-Dec

29-Dec

30-Dec

31-Dec

1-Jan

2-Jan

3-Jan

4-Jan

5-Jan

6-Jan

7-Jan

8-Jan

9-Jan10-Ja

n11-Ja

n12-Ja

n13-Ja

n14-Ja

n15-Ja

n05

10152025303540

Counted vehicles at Scarb St (by Liquid Waste)

Date

Vehi

cle n

umbe

rs

Note: Many other sites across the country for freedom camping are dealing struggling with large numbers that are capable of bombarding sites. This could be due to people congregating to sites with high amenity. We see in other districts with bylaws that provided areas within town centres are usually in carparks or reserves where there is a physical limit to capacity.

21-Dec

23-Dec

25-Dec

27-Dec

29-Dec

31-Dec

2-Jan

4-Jan

6-Jan

8-Jan

10-Jan

12-Jan

14-Jan

0102030405060708090

100

Counted vehicles at South Bay (by Liquid Waste)

Day recorded

Vehi

cle n

umbe

rs

*Average since opened=60 vehicles

TYPE OF EXPENSE COST (INCL GST)Hire 3 portaloos x 1 week $147Empty 3 Portaloos x 1 week $791Total Weekly Cost $938

*TABLE 2: Weekly ongoing costs at South Bay

4.4 Other known but not promoted sites Kiwa Road some people have been pulling out warratahs to camp there with more than 20 vehicles a night filling the carpark and many more across the large area. There are reports of the toilet there filling rapidly. Compared to 2017, we have had fewer reports of disorderly behaviour and general incidents appears to be reduced. A visit by the Environmental health officer is planned for 24/01. We will be meeting with residents and key stakeholders about ways to improve the area at the end of January as part of the TIF funding. Kim Goodfellow is a landscape architect and will help run these meetings. The designs will be based on these meetings and a brief will then be developed. This will then go out for community consultation. After that it is expected we will have a plan to work towards.South Bay Reserve area has received multiple complaints about people camping in there and for long periods of time. The chain stopping people going on the grass area has been removed but will be reinstated.South Bay Reserve: Competing with other recreational users and no way to control effectively how long people stay.South side of Kowhai River: This required approval from Ngai Tahu to gain access to the area. Also the entrance is directly opposite the turn-off for Inland Road so is expected to cause traffic concerns (A detailed traffic assessment not yet completed)Jimmy Armers Beach: Competing with day users. No way to move people on once business hours open.

32

Sawdust Pits (Old Beach Rd): Requires a rail crossing assessment which is very costly and upgrades may be needed. The site is likely to be contaminated.SH1/Inland Road corner (next to Kowhai). Site may be contaminated due to uncontrolled dumping of materials e.g. asbestos. More work required.

5. COMPLAINTS/FEEDBACK One of the stated aims of this trial was to increase the ability of affected residents to report issues. For this reason, it is reasonable to expect that the overall quantity of feedback/complaints received this year should have increased on previous years. Figures to date show this expectation is being realised.

For the 2017/18 summer, 11 complaints were entered into the Ozone system. Council also received a large quantity of feedback through emails, phone calls, face to face interactions and facebook that were not entered into the ozone system. The complaints were dominated on issues around Kiwa Road including in excess of 100 vehicles/tents/campers, fires lit in the grass right opposite residential houses, people urinating and defecating in public, swearing and drunk behaviour, public health complaints

For the 2018/19 summer, there have been 18 complaints entered into Ozone to date. There has also been multiple media stories and extensive discussions on Facebook (both the Council and community/private pages). The most common themes covered are the impact of campers on the dotterel population at South Bay and varying opinions about ‘who should pay’ for costs related to camping.

Camping ground in general have advised of a decrease in occupancy, and an increase in attempts to steal showers. One business reported 20 parties being caught trying to steal a shower in one day. Some camping grounds have expressed that the Pohowera site is simply too nice and too large and is impacting on the bottom line. Kaikoura presently has one commercial camping ground where visitors can stay for free at non-powered sites. It is difficult know what impact this is having on other business.

There has also been more positive feedback than previous years with some tourist operators and retailers saying areas have been positive for the town. Overall the feedback on Campermate has been very positive.

6. SAFETY, EDUCATION, MONITORING AND COMMUNICATIONS ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE Produced and installed large signs at the Pohowera, Kiwa Road and Scarborough street sites Produced additional signs for key areas including South Bay Reserve, Jimmy Armers, Gooches

Beach Printed and distributed 1500 responsible camping fliers Printed and distributed 500 responsible cat ownership fliers (helping to spread awareness of

the dotterel population) Radio advertising campaigns Updated content on digital channels including Campermate, the council website and

facebook Newspaper and newsletter articles (both proactive and in response to media enquiries) Assisted the South Bay Banded dotterel study by printing their dotterel education fliers

33

Produced an additional large sign educating campers about dotterels. NZTA completed minor surfacing improvements at the pull-off area for Pohowera. Monitoring vehicle numbers

7. PLANNED FUTURE ACTIONS The responsible camping working group will meet again at 7th of February to discuss the progress of the trial to date and agree what actions need to be implemented going forward. It is likely they will recommend actions to cover the following issues

- The size of the Pohowera site/whether other sites can be added to take off the pressure there

- Education of campers and residents around the dotterels- Empowering and educating residents to enable them to act as guardians- Donations policy- Current approach/strategy versus alternatives

Conversations are also ongoing with NCTIR about the opportunity to receive a proper upgrade on the Pohowera and South Kekerengu entranceway to meet standards (as part of NCTIR safety &resilience works). If assistance cannot be received costs to undertake the work are indicated upwards of $12,000. There is no benefit in undertaking an upgrade of the crossing if the site is not seen as suitable.

8. COMMUNITY VIEWS: Community feedback has been mixed. It is important to note that, Council has received both positive and negative feedback from residents. Community members have recognised that no solution will suit everyone and that all solutions will bring issues.

9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:

Sunk Costs (excluding communications costs) $

Frame building for on site signs 680

Ground improvements at Scarb Street (entranceway and gravel strip) 11845

Dotterels Sign (large one at South Bay) 120

Delivery of loos 150

Fencing at scarborough street and driving posts into ground for signs 2904.82

Total 15700 The graph below shows accumulated predicted spend on responsible camping, if camping numbers received so far are linked to average public toilet (at all of Council provided toilets) use, by the end of April Council will have contributed $40,000 to responsible camping for the 2018/19 summer.

Although this is a significant cost the ratepayer the cost of enforcement of a bylaw is likely to be more significant, requiring bylaw development and the need for trained enforcement staff operating outside of normal hours. There are examples from other Councils showing only a small amount of fines issued getting paid and difficulties with an enforcement officer knowing who is actually breaking the rules.

34

10. CONTEXT/POLICY:The approached developed by the RCWG is consistent with previous council direction. We are advertised as a Motor Caravan Friendly District. Te Runanga o Kaikoura has agreed for the use of three sites for a trial over the 2018/19 summer. The use of these sites will be evaluated by the RCWG in their February 2019 meeting and later meetings.It is unclear whether the work undertaken so far by the RCWG could have a practical input in to creation of a Freedom Camping Bylaw. Either way it will be an expensive exercise to undertake with costs like staff time, legal advice, possible challenges in Court and an expected loss of enforcement activities. Such an approach would likely have an impact on historic uses of the Kaikoura coast. The approach may however encourage more people to become certified self-contained. For a bylaw to be effective and fulfil its purpose monitoring and enforcement is required, this is often cost negative across other Council’s. Kaikoura receives at least 180 vehicles (300 people approximately) camping responsibly in the District per night in summer. There are many different approaches taken by other district even across Canterbury towards restricting Responsible Camping as highlighted in previous reports. The reasons for implementing a bylaw are limited:

35

21/12/2

018

22/12/1

8-31/12/1

8

01/01/1

9-10/01/1

9

11/01/1

9-20/01/1

9

21/01/1

9-30/01/1

9

31/01/1

9-09/02/1

9

10/02/1

9-19/02/1

9

20/02/1

9-01/03/1

9

2/03/2

019-11/03/1

9

12/03/1

9-21/03/1

9

22/03/1

9-31/03/1

9

01/04/1

9-10/04/1

9

11/04/1

9-20/04/1

9

21/04/1

9-30/04/1

90

500010000150002000025000300003500040000

Total Predicted Spend on Responsible Camping (Based on KK public toilet usage)

11. COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED:

The work is in support of all community outcomes.

We value, protect and enhance Kaikōura’s unique natural environment and biodiversity and sustainably manage disposal of waste.

Our District is economically diverse, attractive to investment and provides certainty around business and employment continuity.

Our community is resilient, safe and well and has their essential needs met

Our community participates in decisions and planning in a way that benefits our future.

Residents and visitors enjoy an improved quality of life in our District.

12. SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION:

It is a trial so not considered significant on Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

13. RELEVANT LEGISLATION:

As no bylaw has been developed, the policy direction created by the RCWG complies with legislative requirements.

The Health Act 1956 allows for temporary closures of an area. Freedom Camping Act 2011 is the means to control freedom camping.

36

To: Council

Date: 30th January 2019

Subject: Council Meeting Schedule2019

Prepared by: Angela OosthuizenChief Executive officer

Authorised by: Mayor?

1. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to agree the Council meeting schedule for 2019, note other key dates for the year ahead, and discuss options for streamlining reports

2. Executive Summary:There is a need to agree a meeting schedule for the year ahead and it is suggested that the opportunity is taken to discuss how reports for information only are presented.

3. Recommendations: That Council3.1 Adopt the schedule of meetings for 2019 with any amendments they choose to make3.2 Advise the CEO how they wish to receive monthly updates on regular Council activities

3. Background: Council have a statutory responsibility to advertise Council meetings and it is good practice to sign off an annual schedule. This also enables Councillors to plan their diaries.

Appendix A, Draft Schedule of Meetings, suggests that a monthly meeting is held on the last Wednesday of each month except for March where it will be held on the last Thursday. The schedule also includes monthly workshops to be held on the second Wednesday of each month. Given the workload ahead, we believe it would be prudent to diary these workshops – in the event that they are not needed, they can be cancelled. Finally, we have listed public holidays and other key dates, such as the local body elections. When Council signs of the Council meeting dates, a Council calendar will be created.

At the end of last year there was some discussion on preparing a monthly Activity Report to encompass the regular updates that are currently presented to Council as individual reports for information. This could cover HR, Health, Safety and wellbeing, economic development, building and regulatory, community development, Communications and Resource consents.

This could either be part of the Council agenda (option 1) or alternatively sent out separately (option 2).

37

It is envisaged these reports would be posted on the web either as part of the council agenda or separately

4. Option Evaluation:

Option Advantages DisadvantagesPart of Council agenda

Enables discussion to be held in public

Can take time away from decision making reports

Circulated separately

Enables Council agendas to focus on decision only matters.Could go out at a different time of the month allowing staff and elected members to concentrate on decision reports.Questions and answers would be documented on the web.

No public questions and answers/discussion.

38

Report to: COUNCIL

Date: 1. 30 January 2019

Subject: 2. Kaikōura Youth Council monthly report

Prepared by: 3. Kaikōura Youth Council

4. Vicki Gulleford, Youth Coordinator

Input sought from: Kim Whitwell, KDC Community Development

Authorised by: 5. Angela Oosthuizen, KDC CEO

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN:This report notifies Council of the recent activities undertaken by Kaikōura Youth Council (KYC) and future plans.

2. RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Provide a list of suitable sites for a 5mx5m basketball pad for discussion with Kaikōura Youth Council.

3. GENERAL UPDATE

3.1 Scout Hall facilitiesTe Hā have updated the basketball hoop and backboard in the Scout Hall with a professional hoop that is triple spring loaded (made for slam dunking). This hoop is getting high use from the youth of Kaikōura but the community are still missing an outdoor hoop that youth can utilise during the day.

3.2 Community basketball hoopTe Hā have a second hoop that they have allocated to KYC to use for a temporary outdoor hoop (while a more permanent solution is found/completed). KYC have been working with Kim Whitwell and Bruce Apperley.KYC suggest a 5mx5m concrete pad, using the hoop from Te Hā. Potential locations include Gooches Beach where a basketball hoop would complement the skate park already there. Required concrete work will be fundraised for, with potential for work in-kind from the community.

4. EVENTSKYC continues to provide positive events and leadership opportunities for youth in Kaikōura. Events hosted by KYC for the October – December 2018 period include:

4.1 Youth Blast – Halloween themeThis was held at the Scout Hall for high school aged youth. Approximately 40 youth attended this event. Activities at the event included apple bobbing, biscuit decorating, making paper lanterns, musical statues and dancing.

4.2 Community Picnic (anniversary day)KYC worked with Council and volunteered to do face painting at the Community Picnic for the 2 year earthquake anniversary event (November). There were a high number of customers from 5-7.30pm.

39

4.3 Night MarketKYC worked with Olly Hughes and volunteered to run games at the night market (November). Activities run by KYC included apple bobbing, tug of war, skipping challenges and there were stilts available too. The games were relatively simple to organise and attracted a lot of children and parents. KYC enjoyed collaborating with a local youth.

4.4 Kaikōura WarriorThree KYC members completed the 6km Warrior challenge as a KYC team.

4.5 TutoringKYC worked with Te Hā o Mātauranga and tutored an iPhone/iPad session with elderly residents. This is part of Te Hā’s community education programme.

4.6 Seaside SoundsIn December, KYC organised and hosted Seaside Sounds. This event ran from 2pm until 9.30pm on a Saturday and was hosted at Kaikōura Primary School. Activities were available for pre-schoolers, primary aged, and junior high school and senior high school groups. There was a bouncy castle obstacle course, wipeout obstacle, igloo dance party and a foam cannon. This was KYC’s biggest event for 2018.

4.7 Risk managementPart of running events is risk management. For events run by KYC, smaller groups are allocated specific areas of the event and record the potential risks and management of them. They are combined to form an overall risk management plan.

5. MEMBERSHIPKYC commences in early February 2019. There are approximately 24 members (around 12% of the youth from Kaikōura High School. This high number of members, with a wide spread of age has meant that the group are working through their processes to ensure collaborative and successful outcomes in all projects continues. The wide range of ages, interests and personalities means that KYC represents the diversity of youth in Kaikōura, who want to contribute to our community and have a say in what matters to them.

6. BACKGROUNDKaikōura Youth Council (KYC) are a group of young people making a difference to the Kaikōura community. They have been active in Kaikōura for a number of years and meet regularly after school at Te Hā o Mātauranga – Learning in Kaikōura to work on youth issues, organise events and bring Kaikōura’s youth together.

KYC aim to help Council engage with the youth of Kaikōura by facilitating a pathway of communication, and representing youth in Council matters. All of their work is to improve the ways of wellbeing (social, environmental, cultural and economic) for the youth of Kaikōura.

KYC’s vision statement is; Kaikōura youth are optimistic, confident and make valued contributions.

40

7. COMMUNITY OUTCOMES SUPPORTED:The work is in support of all community outcomes and all four ways to wellbeing for youth in Kaikōura.

We value, protect and enhance Kaikōura’s unique natural environment and biodiversity and sustainably manage disposal of waste.

Our District is economically diverse, attractive to investment and provides certainty around business and employment continuity.

Our community is resilient, safe and well and has their essential needs met

Our community participates in decisions and planning in a way that benefits our future.

Our infrastructure, housing and community facilities are easily accessible, cost effective and able to withstand our natural hazards.

Residents and visitors enjoy an improved quality of life in our District.

41

From the Mayors Desk

What a strong period we have just been through with the town very busy the past month.

It is good to see the retailers getting some payback for the hard times they have endured these past two years.

With NCTIR here for another twelve months it will help them get through the winter months.

The Sudima Hotel development is soon to start with the initial consents being granted, work should begin in the next month or so.

Two cruise ships have landed so far with 7 more to come. People on the boats come ashore and do walks through to town, bus rides up the coast, Whale Watching , Seal swimming, Dolphin Encounter, Lavender Cottage , Golfing, and just hanging about in town. There would have been 300 on the last two boats that came ashore.

Many bikers were here utilising the trails over the summer. The trails are a real drawcard for the average biker with a plan to develop some mountain bike trails around Mt Fyffe to bring in the more experienced riders and to provide the locals with some more trails to ride. DoC are involved and we intend to meet up soon to organise how this work. There will be a cost for this work however we plan to seek fundraising.

The Trails Trust are still working on their programme to get the trail built from Marlborough through to Kaikoura however the Mangamaunu area is still a concern. Work is happening around how to bring the trail through this area.

42