Agenda of Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 March 2020

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Across Council Work Programmes

There are several programmes of work that extend across two or more activity areas. To present the reporting on these programmes of work more cohesively, they will be reported on in this ‘Across Council Work Programmes’ section rather than in separate activity reports.

These programmes of work are:

· Provincial Growth Fund

· Housing Work Programme

· Coastal Adaptation Work Programme

· Council-wide Corporate Information Technology Projects

· Carbon and Energy Management.

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) Work Programme
Description	This work programme supports the development and implementation of Provincial Growth Fund applications for the Council and the Kāpiti community.
Lead	Senior Leadership Team
Key developments for 1 October to 31 December 2019
1. Economic Development Strategy update provided to the District Leaders Group and the Regional Advisory Group on 1 October 2019. 2. Worked closely with the Provincial Development Unit Senior Regional Official and Senior Regional Advisor to identify priority areas in Kāpiti for the Provincial Growth Fund. 3. Provided continuous support and advice to organisations developing applications to the Provincial Growth Fund. 4. Progressed concept development for Council-led opportunities identified as a priority, including: · TRC Tourism engaged to update and strengthen the 2013 Gateway Centre feasibility study, working alongside partners and stakeholders, with draft report presented for feedback. · Jacobs engaged to review the Programme Business Case for the East-West Connection. · Grant application submitted to the One Billion Trees fund. 5. Commenced process of recruiting for the Principal Advisor Growth and Development role, and signed PGF agreement for the funding of this.
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
National PGF landscape – as the PGF progresses through its final year, significant levels of funding have already been allocated and the overall portfolio of required priority investment is becoming more refined, creating a higher bar for success.
Issues (for elected member attention)
None to report.

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Housing Work Programme
Description	This work programme defines the implementation strategy for Council to progress housing supply across the District including physical assets and advocacy work streams on behalf of the local community
Lead	People and Partnerships Group
Key developments for 1 October to 31 December 2019
1. The Property Group Limited (TPG) completed a draft Housing Programme Assessment Report for the Kāpiti Coast district, which investigates the options Council has to influence housing issues in the district including: · Confirmation of the district’s housing continuum opportunities and constraints, · Proposed actions to enable the opportunities and mitigate the constraints, · Measurable outcomes to support Council and stakeholders reach consensus on supporting areas of housing in need in the district, · The findings of this work will inform the next steps for Council to consider establishing a housing programme. 2. This report was informed by engagement with over 80 stakeholders from the Kāpiti district who are part of the sector. 3. A draft report outlining the current state and options to consider for the work programme was consulted with SLT, Councillors and stakeholders in August and September 2019. 4. Following feedback, a final draft report was completed in late 2019 including a prioritisation schedule for the work to establish a housing programme. *Forthcoming milestones:* The report will then be finalised and presented back to Council in March 2020.
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
1. Council’s role in the housing sector is not consistently understood. 2. The Council’s reputation is eroded by the perceived lack action on addressing housing issues in the district. 3. The proposed options are not supported by Council and there are delays to establish the work programme.
Issues (for elected member attention)
None to report.

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Coastal Adaptation Work Programme
Description	This work programme comprises the development of a regional approach to community-led coastal adaptation under the umbrella of the Wellington Region Climate Change Working Group’s coastal adaptation sub-group.
Lead	Regulatory Services Group
Key developments for 1 October to 31 December 2019
1. First of a series of co-design workshop for the community assessment panel approach took place on 6 December 2019. 2. Planning communication and engagement for Phase One of the programme developed. This includes planning for a one-day Coastal Summit to launch the project. 3. Engagement with iwi-partners on the project established. 4. Advisors appointed to the Coastal Team to support delivery. *Upcoming milestones* 5. Further co-design workshops with key stakeholders planned for Q3 and 4. 6. Commission work to understand what additional technical and science information may be needed to inform the work of the community assessment panel(s). 7. Finalise scope of iwi-partnership and co-design of the community-led coastal adaptation process. 8. Coastal Summit on 8 March to launch the project. 9. Finalise programme of wider community engagement opportunities to support community awareness and understanding of issues, challenges and opportunities for community-led discussions relating to the impacts of sea level rise.
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
1. Due to the high degree of importance and significance to iwi, interested parties, and the wider community. It is important that iwi and the community has ample opportunity to provide input into the coastal adaptation process. If effective consultation, engagement and collaboration is not achieved; the aim of the project to be community-led and meet best practice recommendations from Ministry for the Environment will not be achieved. In addition, it may result in breach of undertakings made to involve the community in the coastal hazard work. 2. If the community-led process and wider community engagement expands significantly (e.g. to meet community expectations) and Greater Wellington Regional Council is unable to contribute financially, there is likely to not be sufficient budget to complete the community-assessment panel process in 2020/21 financial year.
Issues (for elected member attention)
Upcoming opportunities for elected members to support this work, e.g. attendance at the Coastal Summit in March.

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Information Technology (Hardware Renewals)
Description	The hardware programme includes servers, desktops, laptops, mobile phones, internal network, digital radio network across the district and the CCTV network.
Lead	Corporate Services
Key developments for 1 October to 31 December 2019
1. Purchase of 10 new desktops, 18 laptops and 5 tablets to replace old equipment and complete the Windows 7 upgrade programme. 2. Purchase of 20 new mobile phones to replace old equipment. 3. Implemented a service level agreement for an ongoing maintenance programme to maintain and upgrade old CCTV cameras where necessary. There are currently 115 cameras across the district. 4. Implemented new fibre circuits at both Civic and EOC buildings to support the relocation of our production server environment (see 5). 5. We are moving our production server environment to a data centre located in Auckland as part of our Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) project. Three servers have been migrated initially for testing purposes with the production servers scheduled to begin moving in February 2020. This project will increase Councils resiliency and reduce risk by Council no longer maintaining our own production server hardware. *Upcoming milestones: 6. Implementation of new fibre circuits to key Council sites across the district to support the IaaS project, these include Ōtaki Library and Service Centre, Waikanae Library and Service Centre, Waikanae Water Treatment Plant and Coastlands Aquatic Centre. 7. As per 5 above, migration of the production servers to the data centre located in Auckland is scheduled to commence in February 2020.* 8. The Councils phone system is now out of support and the project to replace it is scheduled to commence in February 2020. A registration of interest (ROI) was carried out last year for this project with Mitel being selected as the successful solution. 9. CCTV cameras and Wi-Fi radio network equipment to be relocated from the Ōtaki clock tower and the clock tower repaired by March 2020.
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
1. There are no risks to the current programme.
Issues (for elected member attention)
1. Sourcing the pole for relocating the CCTV cameras and Wi-Fi network equipment from the Ōtaki clock tower took a lot longer than anticipated unfortunately. Consideration was given to completing the move just prior to Christmas, however, it was decided to postpone until the new year so there would be no disruption to Christmas trade for retailers.
Current year project costs to 31 December 2019
Financial year		Year	Project budget $	Project costs to date $	Forecast project costs $	Carry over $
This year		2019/20	362,792	194,258	332,609
Information Technology (Software Upgrades)
Description	The software programme includes upgrading existing software applications where required along with projects that require new modules or new software applications.
Group	Corporate Services
Key developments for the 3 months to 31 December 2019
1. In December two staff from Magiq Software were onsite at Council to provide training in using aspects of the Magiq software to both Environmental Standards and Resource Consents staff. 2. Completed the implementation of Envibe software to manage the pools across the district. This project replaced the previous software (Class) which was no longer supported by the vendor. *Upcoming milestones:* 3. Upgrade of Magiq software to v4.26. 4. Magiq training for finance staff scheduled for February. 5. Release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) on GETS in January 2020 for Accounts Payable automation solution to streamline the accounts payable function within Finance. This will increase efficiency by reducing the manual steps required to processing monthly invoices.
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
There are no risks to the current programme.
Issues (for elected member attention)
1. The planned Magiq v4.26 software upgrade in December was postponed due to issues found with testing of the new version of software. The rescheduled date for the upgrade is 24^th January subject to final testing being signed off by the project team. 2. The minor forecast overspend in software is mainly due to the higher project cost than anticipated for the upgrade project to the Council chambers technology. This is however, offset by the forecasted underspend in the hardware renewal programme.
Current year project costs to 30 December 2019
Financial year		Year	Project budget $	Project costs to date $	Forecast project costs $	Carry over $
This year		2019/20	322,258	196,368	331,449

Appendix A – Across Council Work Programmes Chapter (1 October to 31 December 2019)

Carbon and Energy Management
Description	Adopted in 2012, the Council’s Carbon and Energy Management Plan sets a target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the organisation by 2021/22 compared to 2009/10, through energy conservation, renewable energy, reducing fossil fuel use and changing how waste is disposed of. The Council has its annual emissions inventory (carbon footprint) independently audited to gain ‘CEMARS’ accreditation to the ISO-14064 standard.
Lead	Infrastructure
Key developments for 1 October to 31 December 2019
The new sustainability and resilience team 1. The previous Carbon and Energy management report (presented to the Strategy and Operations Committee on 5 December 2019) noted that additional resources were required to support Council’s decision of 23 May 2019 to pursue the goal of carbon neutrality by 2025. 2. To that end, a new team, the Sustainability and Resilience team, was established in October 2019 within the Infrastructure Services Group. This team incorporates solid waste services and waste minimisation, carbon and energy management and the wider overview of climate change adaptation and mitigation in Infrastructure Services and across Council. 3. The new manager started on 21 October 2019. This new role also covers some Civil Defence Emergency leadership functions, which will be reported on elsewhere in Across-Council work programmes. An exisiting staff member transferred to the new team into the role of Sustainability and Resilience Advisor in December 2019 to manage the carbon & energy management work stream. Two further staff, an additional waste minimisation officer and a projects support officer, were recruited in December 2019 and were due to start in January 2020. When they are on board the team will be at its full complement. Electric vehicles 4. Council now has an Electric Vehicle (EV) ‘fleet’. We purchased our second Nissan Leaf in early December 2019 and now have two EVs in the Civic building car pool. The new Leaf is a second-hand 2017 model, with only 4,500 km on the clock, and has a range of 180km (compared to the 120km range of our 2013 Leaf). 5. Also in December 2019, the Mayor went for test drives in a Prius Prime (plug-in hybrid) and our new Nissan leaf. He has decided on the 2019/20 Nissan Leaf as his new Council vehicle. The provisional 2018/19 GHG emissions result 6. Due to the new team being set up in December the CEMARS audit for the 2018/19 year was postponed to 29-30 January. Note that with the renaming of the organisation earlier in 2019, the scheme itself has been renamed the ‘Carbon reduce’ scheme to align with their ‘Carbon zero’ scheme. Please also note that, at the time of writing this report, only a provisional result is available as although the on-site audit has been completed the final result remains to be verified by the external audit team. 7. These provisional findings are expected to be verified by late February 2020. A verbal report of the final verified findings will be made at the Strategy and Operations Committee meeting on 5 March 2020. In our experience, if the final result varies from the provisional result, it is typically by less than +/- 0.5%. 8. The provisional result for 2018/19 shows that the Council’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) were 2,869 tonnes on a CO₂equivalent basis (tCO₂e), down from 3,017 tCO₂e the previous year (see Chart 1). This is a 148 tCO₂e reduction on the previous year. It doesn’t look significant in the chart below due to the scale effect of the substantial reductions achieved from 2009/10 through to 2016/17, however the reductions in emissions on a year-on-year basis were 3.0% in 2017/18 and are provisionally estimated to be 4.9% in 2018/19. 9. On a longer view, this result translates into a reduction of 77% compared to the 2009/10 baseline year, edging closer to our target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2021/22 (see also Chart 1). That target has, of course, recently been surpassed by the Council’s decision to pursue carbon neutrality (net zero carbon emissions) by 2025. Chart 1 *The impact of the grid-emissions-factor* 10. The main contributor to this reduction in emissions was an external impact, not related to any direct actions by the Council. Every year the national electricity grid is assessed by the Ministry for the Environment to determine the emissions factor to apply to electricity generated from the national grid. In 2018/19, there was an increase in the proportion of energy generated from zero and low carbon sources compared to the previous year. This resulted in an 18.2% reduction in the ‘grid-emissions-factor’ that is applied when calculating the carbon impact of using electricity supplied by the national grid (from 0.1195 to 0.0977 kg CO₂e/unit). 11. As a stand-alone effect this would have reduced our emissions by a provisional 254 tCO₂e. This contribution was partially offset by other countervailing factors to result in a provisional net reduction of 148 tCO2e, as reported in para 8 above (these factors are outlined briefly below). The improvement in the grid-emissions factor had a large impact on our emissions result because i) it was a significant reduction in the grid factor and, ii) it applied to a large proportion of our emissions base. In 2017/18 electricity consumption accounted for 46% of our total emissions, whereas in 2018/19 this had dropped to 39% largely due to the grid factor effect. *LED streetlight impact* 12. The next most significant contributor was the further impact of the two-year LED streetlight conversion programme (completed in 2018/19). This saw a reduction in electricity use by our streetlight network of 32.3% for 2018/19 on the previous year. This translates into a reduction of 39 tCO₂e. Taken together with the grid-emissions impact for streetlights (-59 tCO2e) this resulted in a reduction in Access and Transport emissions of 97 tCO2e (see Chart 2). *Other sources of emissions reduction* 13. The Operations division reported a a small provisional reduction in emissions of just under 8 tCO₂e to 886.9 tonnes in 2018/19. This was largely due to a reduction in diesel consumption (-24 tCO₂e), fertiliser use (-10 tCO₂e) and the emissions impact of electricity consumption (-8 tCO2e)^{^[2]}, offset by a large increase in Solid Waste to Landfill (33 tCO2e). 14. The General-Council (a catch-all operational category), reported a small provisional reduction of 7.5 tonnes of CO₂e in 2018/19. *Countervailing effects* 15. The Aquatic Facilities division was a major countervailing influence. It reported a provisional increase in emissions of 91 tonnes of CO2e^{^[3]}. This was comprised of the following two factors: i). An increase in emissions of 119 tCO₂e due to a 42% increase in the consumption of natural gas on the prior year. ii). A reduction in the emissions impact of electricity use of 29 tCO₂e. This was due to the improvement in the grid emissions factor being sufficient to swamp the effects of a 7% increase in the consumption of electricity. 16. Water and Wastewater reported a provisional reduction in emissions of 96 tonnes of CO₂e to 972 tCO₂e (it remains one of our largest emission sources). This is the result of a 121 tCO2e^{^[4]} reduction in the the emissions impact of electricity consumption, offset to a small extent by increases of 15 tCo2e, 5tCO2e and 4 tCO2e, respectively, in sludge to landfill, freight to landfill, and screenings to landfill. Where to from here – next steps 17. A fleet assessment is planned and work is currently being done to get that underway as soon as possible. A progress report on the results of that assessment and any consequent recommendations for new BEV, PHEV or conventional hybrid purchases should be reported back to Councillors in April/May 2020. 18. Once that fleet assessment is underway, investigations will begin into the more promising options for emissions reduction discussed in last year’s ‘Towards Carbon Neutrality by 2025’ report to Council (27 June 2019). We will aim to report back on at least some of those options later this financial year. Chart 2
Risks (to programme, cost, quality, other)
Full briefing on the ‘carbon reduce’ audit results in quarter 3.
Issues (for elected member attention)
Full briefing on the ‘carbon reduce’ audit results in quarter 3.

Parks and open space

Ngā papa rēhia me ngā waahi māhorahora

Purpose	To manage a wide range of parks, reserves and open space to benefit the whole of our community. To facilitate barrier-free access to our network of cycleways, walkways and bridleways.
Financial key:
Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $2.19m (ytd) $2.21m budget (ytd) $4.47m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Operating income What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) $0.10m (ytd) $ 0.61m budget (ytd) $1.29m budget (full year)		® Major variance, on track for year end ® The lower income is mostly due to a decision by the Council to accept the proposal for the Ngarara Waimeha Development in Waikanae to develop and provide a pocket park as part of their development instead of paying cash for reserve.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $0.12m (ytd) $0.24 m budget (ytd) FY forecast $0.49m underspend $1.43m budget (full year)		® Major variance year to date, lower spending planned for year end. The lower spending relates to two projects – Ōtaki Beach Development and Paraparaumu/Raumati Escarpment planned to be completed in 2020/21 There is some reprioritisation planned within the activity to meet community commitments described below. 5 playground upgrades due to commence in quarter 3.
Projects		® There is only one parks and open space ‘project’ this year, the Districtwide Parks and Playgrounds work programme. It is a capex over $250k project and is on target.
Performance measures (KPI)		® Of the 11 KPIs two were achieved at the end of the first quarter 2019/20, two were on target and the other seven were not yet due.

Summary of projects

The parks and open space significant project is on target and summarised below.

1. Districtwide Parks and Playgrounds
The playgrounds scheduled for upgrade this year are Campbell Park, Paekākāriki; Mazengarb Park, Paraparaumu; Marere Avenue, Paraparaumu; Waimeha Domain, Waikanae; Pharazyn Avenue, Waikanae; and Tasman Road Reserve, Ōtaki. Contracts for the playgrounds (except for Marere Avenue) were negotiated and confirmed in the second quarter. The installation of the new playgrounds is planned over the next few months, commencing from early February and completed by April. Key risks/issues: § Marere Avenue playground is part of the upgrade programme but the park as a whole needs improvement. Officers have worked with the local community to understand their priorities for the park and a draft plan is in place for this year that includes some new equipment for the playground and improved access and footpath. The overall plan allows for improved community use and this will be implemented in stages as budget allows.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
41	749	722	$Þ	Forecasting very slight underspend.

2. Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Districtwide beams and seating	5	55	55		On track for year end.
Paraparaumu/Raumati Escarpment	-	201	-		Will be carried over to 20/21 while under discussion with Kiwi rail.
Ōtaki Beach development	-	333	-		Will be carried over the 20/21 while road stopping issue resolved.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other key developments

· The official opening event at Maclean Park was held in November with over 1,000 people attending throughout the day. Feedback received was very positive.

· Parks officers have been working with Councils Arts, Museums & Heritage Advisor to arrange for the “Tohorā” artwork to be installed in Maclean Park.

· The ‘Stay and Play’ video series was released through social media channels to showcase different activities to do in our open spaces over summer.

· The boardwalk through Waimeha Domain has been replaced.

· Approximately 15km of the Waikanae River track on the northern bank has been renewed.

Waikanae ki Uta ki Ta

· Council officers continued working with the Department of Conservation, Greater Wellington Regional Council, iwi and community representatives on the establishment of a Waikanae River Mountains to the Sea catchment restoration programme, provisionally named ‘Waikanae ki Uta ki Tai’. This programme aims to foster a collaborative, coordinated approach to protecting and restoring the Waikanae River catchment from the headwaters to the sea.

· The early focus has been on iwi partnership and developing a governance structure and values framework. The Department of Conservation (DoC) is fulfilling its commitment to lead, assigning a staff member to work on the programme 20 hours per week, and allocating a long-term budget. Kāpiti Coast District Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council have shared the programme costs to date.

· The governance structure has been agreed. The next step is to appoint community members to the steering committee. This process will start in early 2020.

Performance measures

There are 11 key performance indicators (KPI) in the parks and open space activity.

Performance measures	Target		Result	Comment
Achieved
Residential dwellings in urban areas are within 400 metres of a publicly owned open space	85%		Achieved (99.4%)	103ha out of 18,452ha (0.6%) of the total District Plan residential area are not within 400m of a publicly owned open space.
At least a 10 year burial capacity is maintained across the district	Achieve		Achieved (56 years)	There is a total of 56 years capacity across the three cemeteries (based on 2013 Census data and growth analysis).
On target
Sports grounds are open when scheduled	85%		On target	Sports grounds were open 97% of the time in the second quarter. (2018/19 result was 97%)
All available records will be on council’s website within four weeks of interment	100%		On target
Not yet due
Residents(%) who are satisfied with the current availability of facilities	85%		Not yet due	The annual Park Users’ survey will be done in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the quality of Council parks and open space	85%		Not yet due	The annual Park Users’ survey will be done in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the quality and range of recreation and sporting facilities in the district	85%		Not yet due	The annual Park Users’ survey will be done in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Residents (%) that are satisfied with Council playgrounds	85%		Not yet due	The annual Park Users’ survey will be done in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Users who are satisfied with the cemeteries appearance and accessibility	85%		Not yet due	The annual Park Users’ survey will be done in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Users who are satisfied with Council walkways, cycleways and bridleways		85%	On target (93%)	This is the provisional result from the resident opinion survey. The final result will be available after the fourth quarter. (2018/19 result was 94%)
Residents (%) who are satisfied with access points to beaches		85%	On target (91%)	This is the provisional result from the resident opinion survey. The final result will be available after the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 92%)

Recreation and leisure

· Hākinakina

Purpose	To provide affordable and safe aquatic facilities, services and programmes for the health and wellbeing of our community. This activity also provides a districtwide library service. and arts and museums services for the Kāpiti community.
Financial key:
Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $4.21m (ytd) $4.34m budget (ytd) $8.48m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Operating income What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) $0.88m (ytd) $0.91m budget (ytd) $1.85m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $0.39m (ytd) $0.49m budget (ytd) FY forecast $0.06m underspend $1.24m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, lower spending forecast for the year. ® The lower spending forecast relates to plans to move swimming pool routine asset maintenance and renewal to 2020/21 to reduce the inconvenience to the public and minimise the loss of income.
Projects There are no significant council projects in this activity for 2019/20.		® There are a number of minor projects summarised in the table on the next page.
Performance measures (KPI)		® Of the ten KPIs from the Recreation and Leisure acitivity three were on target and four were not due yet . ® The three KPIs not on target are all in the library area and are attributable to the closure of the Waikane Library in late 2018 and its subsequent replacement by a smaller medium term option.

Summary of projects

There are a number of minor projects underway this year, they are summarised in the table below.

Minor projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Coastlands Aquatic Centre	15	112	64	$Þ	Carryover of $50k to be requested.
Ōtaki Theatre	10	147	148	$Ý	On track for year end.
Public Art	1	154	145	$Þ	Currently forecasting slight underspend.
Pool - Waikanae	122	204	204		On track for year end.
Library - Books	94	211	211		On track for year end.
Mahara Gallery	24	270	204	$Þ	Project slowed due to funding application being declined
Other minor projects	120	178	244	$Ý	Forecast increase relates to medium term Waikanae Library fit out and Paraparaumu Library Basement renewal.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other key developments

Libraries

· Planning has commenced for a review of the library’s strategic direction. The project is called Te Ara Hāpai meaning a pathway that uplifts and supports people. This conveys our commitment to a new strategic pathway, one that leads to a more responsive and inclusive library service that works with the community to create positive and empowering opportunities for all.

· The library ran another successful reading challenge for our adult customers. This year we had just over 100 people participating who collectively submitted 387 entries to the challenge.

· Work continues on relocating Waikanae library stock currently in storage to other libraries where possible and options are being explored for smaller local storage options that will enable easier access for library customers.

· This quarter the library re-established our popular Introductory Te Reo Māori classes at Paraparaumu. Given the level of interest we will be expanding our offering in 2020.

Arts and Museums

· Another successful Kāpiti Arts Trail was held over the first two weekends in November, attracting an estimated 10,000* or more visitors. In 2019 there were 108 participant galleries, hubs, and artists’ studios, and visitor feedback indicated a high level of satisfaction. Visitors from outside the district increased in number from about 20% to 40% of total visitors, indicating a successful promotions campaign targeted to areas outside of Kāpiti District.

· In October, the Public Art Panel accepted the Detailed Designs for the Maclean Park/Te Uruhi art commission, Tohorā by Kereama Taepa. The fabrication and installation project is currently underway with final installation expected in the next quarter.

Aquatics

· There were 83,281 pool visits in the second quarter, continuing the trend of being the highest attendance since the opening of the Coastlands Aquatic Centre. This is due to higher programme numbers including learn to swim, an updated marketing approach and seven major events which were held during this time.

· A total of 668 people were registered for swimming lessons during the school term in the second quarter – 486 at Coastlands Aquatic Centre, 117 at the Ōtaki Pool and 65 at Waikanae Pool. 127 children completed the holiday swimming programme during the second quarter.

· There were 469 school children who participated in schools swimming lessons delivered by council instructors in the second quarter.

· Seven events were held during the second quarter. Coastlands Aquatic Centre hosted another sold out Soundsplash; a Masters invitation meet; GZR race meet and Raptors Swim Club Champs. Waikanae Pool held a Family Fun Day for the opening plus a Christmas Party and Ōtaki Pool hosted a Pool Party. Over 1,000 people attended the events in total.

Performance measures

There are ten key performance indicators (KPI) in the recreation and leisure activity. The three KPIs not on target are discussed below:

i) Total visits to libraries is below target with 138,191 visits in the two quarters to date. To achieve the annual target of 300,000 visits we need to average around 75,000 visits per quarter. The Waikanae Library, with 27,016 visits in the two quarters is 10,000 visits down on the corresponding 2018/18 quarters leading up to the library closure.

ii) 2,767 new items were added to the library’s collection in the second quarter, which equates to 101 new items per 1,000 of population in the year to date. With the reduction in collections budget for 2019/20 the expected level of new items added to the collection for the year will be approximately 200 items per 1000 of population, well below the annual target of 350.

iii) Number of items borrowed is also below target with 133,798 in the second quarter. This is also a reflection of the impact of the Waikanae Library closure. To achieve the annual target of 650,000 items borrowed we need to average around 162,500 items borrowed per quarter.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Visits to swimming pools in the district	At or above 290,000 annual admissions	On target	83,281 combined swims in the second quarter (compared to 76,867 last year). (2018/19 result was 293,638)
Learn to swim registrations	At or above 3,200 annual registrations	On target	668 registrations for the second quarter (634 last year). (2018/19 result was 3,344)
Total value of applications received relative to the total amount of funding in each allocation round	Ratio is > 1	On target	In the first round of the Creative Communities Scheme 2019/20 (July/Aug 2019), a total amount of $23,797 was applied for: $22,904 was available – a ratio of 1.04 to 1. Next funding round commences Feb/March 2020 (2018/19 result was 1.58:1)
Not on target
Total visits to libraries	At or above 300,000 annually	Not on target	There were 72,360 visits to the district’s four libraries in the second quarter (20,120 for Ōtaki, 918 for Paekākāriki, 13,137 for Waikanae and 38,186 for Paraparaumu). (2018/19 total visits were 253,978)
Collections are refreshed in accordance with New Zealand public library standards	Maintain 350 new items (incl renewals) per 1,000 (where population is 52,762)	Not on target	There were 2,767 items added to the library collections in the first quarter. That equates to 101 items per 1,000 for year to date. This is a reflection of the reduction in the Library Collection budget for 2019/20. (2018/19 result was 331 per 1,000)
Not on target
Number of items borrowed per annum (including renewals)	650,000	Not on target	There were 133,798 items borrowed in the second quarter for a year to date total of 280,331. (2018/19 result was 613,190)
Not yet due
Council will maintain PoolSafe accreditation	Achieve	Not yet due	PoolSafe accreditation will be assessed in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)
Users who are satisfied with the pools services and facilities	85%	Not yet due	Provisional results for this measure are not due until the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 96%)
Users who are satisfied with the library services	85%	Not yet due	Survey results are not yet available. (2018/19 result was 95% satisfied).
Users who are satisfied with library spaces and physical environments	85%	Not yet due	The annual Library Users Survey will be undertaken in May 2020. (2019/20 result was 90% satisfied)

Community facilities and support

· Whakaurunga hapori me ngā hāpai hapori

Purpose

To manage and maintain Council’s building and property assets and provide resources to the community for capacity building and service provision.

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate this activity
(Excluding Overhead Allocation)

$2.16m (ytd)

$2.36m budget (ytd)

$4.36m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc.
(Excluding Rates)

$0.88m (ytd)

$0.78m budget (ytd)

$1.57m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, on track for year end.

® Interment fees are higher than expected.

Capital expenditure

Costs for our capital projects

$0.75m (ytd)

$0.81m budget (ytd)

FY forecast $0.63m underspend

$3.89m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, lower spending planned for the year.

® The renewal project for the Paraparaumu Memorial Hall is on hold pending a strategic review of Community Facilities.

Projects

® There is one significant Community Facilities and Community Support projects.

® The Housing for Older Person’s renewals project is forecast to overspend the initial budget, largely as a result of urgent remediation needed to the Wipata Flats in Paekākāriki and as a consequence of the previous Council giving direction to renew units when they became vacant.

Performance measures (KPI)

® Of the 15 KPIs only 14 of these have targets as one is for recording and monitoring purposes.

® Seven KPIs were on target at the end of the first quarter 2019/20 and the results for the other seven KPIs are not yet due.

Summary of projects

1. Older person’s housing renewals
Council completed full interior renewal on six Housing for Older Persons units during the second quarter. The Older person’s housing renewals project is currently on target. As at 31 December 2019, the Applicant Register number is 52. Key risks/issues: § Contractor/component availability may affect completion. § Three units became vacant in the second quarter. § Renewals works are generally undertaken when they become vacant. This means there is no certainty with forecasting but on average Council expects an average tenant churn of 15 tenants per year. This year thirteen units have either been renewed or in the process of being renewed. § Prioritisation for managing renewals is part of the Asset Management Improvement Plan currently being developed across the Community Facilities Portfolio. In the mean time staff will continue to assess units for renewal as and when they become vacant. This will be in addition to ad hoc replacement bathrooms, kitchens or other building elements staff believe necessary.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
512	587	781		Given spending to date we’re forecasting an overspend of this year’s budget. The projected overspend is in large part due to the $150,000 spent on the urgent remediation of the Wipata Flats.

2. Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
EQP	61	123	122	$Þ	Detailed Seismic Assessment in process at Ōtaki Museum, including architectural brief and Quantity Surveyor Estimate. Reports expected in January 2020.
Halls - Paraparaumu/ Raumati	1	144	73	$Þ	Budget is for the external management costs expected to be incurred for the Te Newhanga Kāpiti Community Centre project.
Paraparaumu College Gymnasium	-	255	255		Contribution anticipated paid in last quarter.
Paraparaumu Memorial Hall renewals	16	327	16		The renewal project is on hold for reassessment of community needs across ward level. Work around Accessibility and Fire to be considered by SLT early in New Year, no budget allocated for this yet.
Waterfront building	83	505	140	$Þ	A reduced scope of works was agreed with the tenants. Replacement of the roof and windows has now been completed.
Performing Arts Centre	-	1,600	1,600		Contribution will be paid in January 2020.
Other minor projects	74	349	408	$Ý	The forecast overspend is the result of possible unbudgeted spends on public toilet renewals in Ōtaki and proposed work at Takiri House.

Other key developments

Mahara Gallery

· The Mahara Gallery Trust submitted a funding applications to the Lotteries Environment and Heritage Fund and also to the Lottery Community Facilities Fund. Both applications were declined due to substantial pressure on funds from other applicants and in the case of the LCF fund other applications aligning better. We understand that there are two other Central Government funding opportunities the Trust is targetting. The Trust is arranging a meeting of board members in the new year to consider next steps.

Te Newhanga Kāpiti Community Centre

· Moisture testing was undertaken in November 2019 at the Community Centre. The results did not identify elevated mould readings and noted that the levels of mould found would be unlikely to result in health issues. Alternative temporary accommodation options are currently being sought given the condition of the building.

Waikanae Library replacement

· Project Governance and work streams have been established. A scope of service is now being prepared to obtain a fee proposal from Boffa Miskel with the intention to workshop Library Site Investigations alongside the Future Community Services.

Animal Management Renewal

· A contract has been awarded to Focus Projects Ltd to undertake renewal of the Animal Management Centre in Paraparaumu. The project is due to start at the end of January with completion estimated at four months. The scope not only includes renewal of the existing assets but also inclusion of a vetinary area and a secure drive in kennel space.

Asset Management Maturity Improvement Program

· As at the end of the Second Quarter, a project team has been established to implement the Morrison Low report outcomes and new staff recruited to the Property Services team. Condition surveys for the Housing for Older Persons Units and residential properties have been completed. Staff are now developing plans for implementation over the next three years which may include recommendations for full or partial interior renewals, increased management of tenant behaviour to assist minimising asset deterioration, as well as undertaking identifed routine and planned maintenance requirements. Substantial progress has been made on completing the Condition Surveys for the non-residential and Community Facilities Portfolio.

Kāpiti Performing Arts Centre

· Kāpiti College satisifed the funding requirements for Council to release its $1.6million plus GST contribution. The funds are due to be paid in early January 2020.

Community support initiatives

· Council supported the annual International Day of the Older Person with an awards event. The event is an initiative of the Kāpiti Coast Older Persons’ Council supported by Age Concern Kāpiti and the Council. Louella Jensen, Olive Mihailov, Beverly Chappell, Rakauoteora Te Maipi were all seniors recognised for their outstanding contribution to the Kāpiti community.

· The Tuia programme is a Mayors TaskForce for Jobs (MTFJ) initiative that provides development and support for rangatahi leaders through a mentoring programme with participating Mayors around New Zealand. Mayor Gurunathan has selected a rangatahi particpant for 2020 with the programme commencing in January.

· Council continues to support the Kāpiti Settlement Support Network, Kāpiti Health Advocacy Group, Kāpiti Accessibilty Advisory Group, Kāpiti Youth Council, Kāpiti Older Persons’ Council, Kāpiti Multi-cultural Council and the Kāpiti Social Services network to encourage community particpation and support advocacy for unmet needs. Support was extended to a seniors buisness network.

· Council has been working with Wellington City Mission to collaborate on two new initiatives: The establishment of a community sports bank aimed at supplying repurposed sports equipment to give local children and young people the opportunity to particpate in sports. The initiative is region wide and has support from the Police, national and regional sports clubs and local organisations. The Kāpiti sports bank will be coordinated by a local community organisation and is set to start in the new year.The second project with Wellington City Mission looks to support families and individuals with housing needs. The initiative will look at a solution based approach to providing essential services through the Orange Sky bus- a mobile multi facilities service for individuals and families with complex needs. This intiative will be piloted in locations around the Kāpiti district and is aimed at the homeless community.

· Council continues to support the local not-for-profit sector by facilitating funding clinics in Ōtaki and Paraparaumu. The clinics give local services the opportunity to meet with the Department of Internal Affairs funding advisor and access information about lotteries funding.

· Kāpiti Grey Power was successful in securing Government funding for the initial engagement to get Kāpiti on its way to becoming Age Friendly. A Memorandum of Collaboration with Council has been established. Council staff attended and supported the four workshops which were held across the district, in Ōtaki , Waikanae, Raumati and Paraparaumu. Information from these local workshops will help inform the overall approach to Kāpiti becoming Age Friendly. The next phase of engagement is due to commence in the new year.

· Neighbourhood Support (national office) and Council are working collaboratively to deliver a programme for Kāpiti. An interim approach is underway, focusing on supporting exisiting Neighbourhood support groups, utalising a digital platform, rolling out new national branding and promoting the initiative to Kāpiti households. The service coordinator will be located at Te Newhanga Kāpiti Community Centre on a weekly basis.

· The Kāpiti Youth Council and Zeal Kāpiti collaborated to host a Youthoween event with 100 young people attending. The event provides an opportunity for young people to come together in a safe environment and learn about Zeal services while celebrating differences.

· Over 60 people representing the local not-for-profit sector joined Council to celebrate the festive season. Guest speakers were Mayor Gurunathan and Ray Tuffin from Wellington City Mission. The event was a networking opportunity and gave council the opportunity to acknowledge the sector’s contribution to community wellbeing.

· Council continues to support the Te Newhanga Kāpiti Community Centre service to the wider community. This quarter 431 bookings were held a the Centre.

Performance measures summary

1. There are 15 KPIs in the Community facilities and community support activity. Only 14 of these have targets as one is for recording and monitoring purposes.

Performance measures	Target	Result (ytd)	Comment
Community facilities
On target	On target On target On target
Occupancy rate of available¹ housing for older persons units	97%	On target (99.6%)	Four of five available units re-let in second quarter. Three units vacated in November are being assessed for renewal or will be re-let
Percentage of council-owned buildings that have a current building warrant of fitness (where required)	100%	On target (100%)	All Warrant of Fitness have been issued on time (2018/19 result was 100%)
Residents (%) who are satisfied that public toilets are clean, well-maintained and safe	75%	On target (88%)	The provisional result from the first quarterly Resident Opinion Survey was 88% (note that this is from 147 of 208 respondents). (2018/19 result was 82%)
Urgent requests in regard to public toilet facilities that are responded to within four hours	98%	On target (100%)	There were 32 urgent service requests received in the 2nd quarter, with all meeting the four-hour target (2018/19 result was 97.8%)
Not yet due
Users (%) who are satisfied with the standard of the library building facilities	85%	Not yet due	The Library users survey is not conducted until the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 90%)
Users who are satisfied with halls	80%	Not yet due	The annual Hall Hirers Survey is conducted in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 92%)
Housing for older persons tenants (%) who rate services and facilities as good value for money	85%	Not yet due	The annual tenant survey is conducted in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Housing for older persons tenants (%) who are satisfied with services and facilities	85%	Not yet due	The annual tenant survey is conducted in the third quarter. (2018/19 result was 97.4%)

1. Where ‘available’ units excludes those flats that are unavailable due to renewals or maintenance work being carried out.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
Community support
On target	On target On target On target
Council’s social investment programme enables services to deliver on community priorities	Achieve	On target	Year One report backs have been delivered to Council. A formal report will follow in 2020. Contract deliverables have been agreed for Year 2 and will be monitored to assess performance.
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the Council’s community support services	85%	On target (87%)	The result from the second quarterly Resident Opinion Survey was 87%.
Community connectedness and diversity projects and initiatives planned for year are progressed or completed	Achieve	On target	Support provided for the Kāpiti Multi-Cultural Council events. Support for Kāpiti Settlement Network meeting and ongoing bimonthly meetings aimed at services to support migrants.
Not yet due
Youth Development Centre opens and Youth development programme deliverables are achieve	Achieve	Not yet due	Year Four report back has been received by council with a formal report back to Strategy and Operations Committee in the new year.
Participants from the social and community sector are satisfied with the learning opportunities and workshops provided by Council	85%	Not yet due	Survey due in fourth quarter. (2018/19 result was 85%)
The youth council, older person’s council and accessibility advisory group are satisfied or very satisfied with opportunities provided to influence the content of council strategies, policies and project planning	Satisfied	Not yet due	Survey due in fourth quarter (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)
Monitor only
Estimated attendance at council-supported events	There is no target as we will use this for monitoring.	Monitor only	The No.8 Wire week had over 300 participants with some sessions in Te reo Māori for the first time. Over 500 people attended the Kāpiti Age on the Go expo in Waikanae. 80 people representing the not-for-profit sector attended two funders’ forums. 60 people attended the end of year social sector activity. 100 young people attending the Youth event hosted by the Youth Council and Zeal.

Economic development

· Whakawhanake umanga

Purpose

This activity is aimed at generating greater growth, employment and prosperity in the Kāpiti region

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate council’s activities
(Excluding Overhead Allocation)

$0.92m (ytd)

$0.97m budget (ytd) $2.01m budget (full year)

® Minor variance.

® Additional spending to budget on Kāpiti Gateway feasibility.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc
(Excluding Rates)

$0.07m (ytd)

$0.00m budget (ytd)

$0.03m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, on track for year end.

® The additional income this quarter is from NZTA for the Peka Peka to Ōtaki Expressway Project and Provincial growth funding.

Capital expenditure

Costs for our capital projects

$3.06m (ytd)

$1.05m budget (ytd)

FY forecast $1.28m overspend $2.56m budget (full year)

® Major variance, additional capital spending planned for year end.

® The additional capital spending relates to the Kāpiti Road project which will receive additional NZTA funding and strategic property purchases which are likely to be funded by proceeds from the sale of council land.

Projects

® The Strategic Land Purchase Fund and the Town Centres project are the two main projects in this area. Both are capex over $250,000 projects.

® Both projects are regarded as on target from a Council perspective.

Performance measures (KPI)

® Of the 3 KPIs one was on target as at the end of the first quarter 2019/20 and the results of the other two KPIs are not yet due .

Summary of projects

There are two economic development projects reported in this activity report (the Strategic Land Purchase Fund and the Town Centres project). We have reported on the Elevate Ōtaki project developments on the next page. This is not included as a Council project in the chart on the previous page as Council is providing resource and funding support for the project but is not managing it.

1. Town Centres project
® W3 Mahara Place upgrade project construction is now complete. ® Kāpiti Road shared path and road widening between Arawhata Road and Brett Ambler Way major construction works are complete. ® Continued coordinated SH1 Revocation works aligned with Town Centres master plan priority projects with a focus on Paraparaumu and Waikanae. Key risks/issues: § SH1 Revocation works do not align with Town Centres projects leading to re-prioritisation and re-scheduling.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
1,460	1,135	1,978	$Ý	This budget is largely for the planned Kāpiti road project with additional scope of works to undertake the road widening. The resultant additional costs are to be funded by the NZTA ‘Low Cost Low Risk’ budget. Works due to be completed by January 2020.

2. Strategic Land Purchase Fund
® 26 – 29 Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach was acquired by Council during this quarter. (there is no timeline set for this fund as it is dependent on when strategic parcels of land come up for sale).
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
1,604	1,428	1,863	$Ý	Mainly Marine Parade acquisitions and other strategic land/property acquisitions as outlined in the paper to Council on 26 September 2019.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

3. Elevate Ōtaki
® James Cootes has been confirmed as the Chair of Elevate Ōtaki . ® Ōtaki identity work by Flightdec is complete and the official outcomes will be released as part of the Identity Rollout Programme. ® Talk Creative have been appointed as the lead consultant for the Identity Rollout Programme. This programme will be in progress for the first six months of 2020 ® Elevate Ōtaki are providing a business promotion social media opportunity that is available to all Ōtaki businesses that will run from prior to Christmas through to after Maorilands Film Festival. ® Business Preparedness Survey of SH1 Ōtaki businesses is complete with the final report delivered on time by Kāpiti Business Projects. Elevate Ōtaki has completed an initial assessment of the recommendations from the report and whilst having undertaken some immediate action (networking event), are assessing the other recommendations.. ® Elevate Ōtaki hosted a networking event in Ōtaki on 10 December. The primary purpose of the event was to feedback the highlevel information from the Business Preparedness Survey. In addition, Bayleys presented on business happenings in Ōtaki and the Elevate Ōtaki Social Media campaign was introduced. The Talk Creative team was introduced. The event was well attended. ® A progress meeting was held on 19 December between representatives of Elevate Ōtaki and Economic Development. Topics included the Economic Development Strategy. ® Elevate Ōtaki attended the Community Expo held by Ōtaki Promotions Group (OPG). Key risks/issues: § Ōtaki Identity iwi engagement – following an initial meeting with Ngā Hapū early in the project, a further meeting has not been secured. There is a risk Ngā Hapū may not support the project however the risk is reduced as the identity aligns with Ngā Hapū’s “Maanakitaanga”, therefore the risk is considered low. Engagement between the two groups continue. § Ōtaki Identity project perception by the community. High potential for varied views on the topic by old and new residents and various sectors or groups. Works do not align with Town Centres projects leading to re-prioritisation and re-scheduling. (carried forward). § Administration and ED Support – there is a discrepancy in the expectations of the Council governance of the group and Elevate Ōtaki. From previous discussions with Council, Elevate Ōtaki believe the support was committed to until the end of the term of the funding support i.e. 2021/22. Whereas the Council governance of the group have committed only to 30 June 2020. This is an outstanding point within the Terms of Reference. The current support structure is confirmed until the 30 June 2020. (carried forward)
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
41	63	63		Activities planned for the current year are expected to utilise some of the unused budget from previous years.

Other key developments

Economic Development Strategy Refresh

· The Economic Development team continues to progress the refresh of the Economic Development Strategy with meetings with the Drafting Group occurring on a monthly basis, in addition stakeholder workshops are held regularly with the wider business community. Progress continues as follows with next steps outlined below:

· Council briefing (January 2020)

· Incorporate feedback into development of strategy document (Dec – Jan 2020)

· Circulate draft strategy and implementation plan for final feedback (Feb 2020)

· Finalise strategy (Mar 2020)

· Adopt and implement strategy (Mar 2020)

Filming requests

· Council has been advised that a feature file will be filmed on the Kāpiti Coast during Feb / Mar 2020. The film, “Poppy” is written by local resident, Linda Nicoll and tells the story of a young girl with down syndrome who wants to be a mechanic. The film has received funding from the NZ Film Commission, as part of their 125 years of Women’s Suffrage fund.

· Council is supporting the film with finding office space and accommodation as well as facilitating filming permits and locations.

· Discussions are to take place with the production company about hosting the film premier in Kāpiti in late 2020. This will be dependent on distribution rights for the film.

Major Events Fund

· In October 2019, Council received advice that the organiser of Flair had made the decision to postpone the event for 12 months until Feb / Mar 2021. As a result, the approved funding of $50,000 was not drawn down.

· A paper was presented to Council in December 2019 recommending the reallocation of the funds and the allocation of the feasibility funding. Council approved the following funding allocation:

Event	Amount	Type
Toot Suite Boutique Festival	$20,000	Major Event
2020 Takutai Kāpiti	$19,000	Major Event
Coasters Musical Theatre	$0	Ineligible
Te Tapoi Kāpiti	$11,000	Major Event
Dirt Farm – Mountain Biking Event	$15,000	Feasibility

· The funding process for the 2020/21 Major Event Fund will commence in March 2020.

· The Kāpiti Food Fair was held on 30 November 2019. Organisers were very pleased with the turnout which is expected to have increased on previous years. A survey is underway with results expected shortly.

Kāpiti Destination Story update

· The redevelopment of the Kāpiticoastnz.com website continues to make good progress, with the refreshed website now live. There will be additional development of the site which will include improved functionality, more stories and additional sections for Business, Meetings and Residents. A sample of the new site is shown below:

· The following information is held on visits to the website for the 3-month period and how users accessed the website:

Website Visitors - 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2019

Total Users 5,369

New users 5,290

Page views 12,770

· Audience Acquisition - 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2019

Organic Search (Search for keyword)	3,302
Direct (Typed url)	1,473
Referral (link from other website)	353
Social media (Facebook / Instagram)	289

· In addition to the website, Facebook and Instagram pages have been established under Kāpiti Coast NZ, which will be supporting the distribution of stories and information about the district. Sample pages are shown below

Kāpiti Youth Employment Foundation (Work Ready Kāpiti)

· The Foundation continues to work with the three local colleges - Kāpiti, Paraparaumu and Ōtaki, who run the Kāpiti Work Ready Passport Programme with their students and also host an #EmployerMeet event each, along with helping to advertise for the WEX work experience placements.

· The Foundation is now working in partnership with Te Kura to promote each other’s offerings to suitable students.

· Funding for the foundation has been extended for a further 12-month period commencing 1 April 2020.

Performance measures

There are three key performance indicators (KPI) in the economic activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
The economic development strategy implementation plan deliverables are achieved	Achieve	On target	In addition to the continued delivery of actions from the 2015 Economic Development Strategy work is well advanced on the refresh of the strategy. The refresh of the strategy is scheduled for presentation to Council in March 2020 and is on track for delivery.
Not yet due
Representatives of the business leadership forum that are satisfied that the economic development strategy implementation plan deliverables are being achieved	85%	Not yet due	The business leadership forum was dissolved in the previous triennium. Work on the governance structure for the new ED strategy is being undertaken alongside the drafting of the refreshed strategy. An external drafting group is assisting with this process, along with an external stakeholder group.
The Māori Economic Development Strategy implementation plan deliverables are achieved	Achieve	Not yet due	The Economic Development team are working with TWoK and Iwi representatives on the Economic Development Strategy Refresh and the Maori Economic Development and Well-being Plan.

Access and Transport

· Putanga me to ikiiki

Purpose	To maintain, protect and improve our roading network and strongly encourage and support sustainable transport options.
Financial key:
Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $6.38m (ytd) $6.42m budget (ytd) $13.37m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Operating income What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) $2.51m (ytd) $2.22m budget (ytd) $5.25m budget (full year)		® Moderate variance, additional income forecast for year end. ® The Council has received approved NZTA funding for the Ratanui roundabout and Kāpiti Road ahead of plan.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $2.85m (ytd) $2.51m budget (ytd) FY forecast $0.42m underspend $8.00m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end. ® Major variance ytd is due to Tasman & Mazengarb shared path and the road resealing program being delivered ahead of plan. Full year underspend is due to funds being spent on Kāpiti road in the Economic development activity (Town centres)
		® There are four significant projects in this activity. Three are on target. ® The SH1 Revocation project is behind time and forecast to underspend its budget.
Performance measures (KPI)		® One of ten KPIs was not on target - ’Residents who are satisfied with street lighting’ reported a provisional result from the first two quarters Resident Opinion Survey of 83.5% satisfied against a target of 85% (the result for 2018/19 year was 85%).

Summary of projects

The four significant Access and Transport projects are summarised below.

1. Sealed road resurfacing
Resurfacing of chipseal and asphalt sites has commenced, with completion by the end of April 2020.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
229	1,271	1,271		Work programmed to be complete by April 2020.

2. Footpath renewals and upgrades
Footpath work (renewals and new footpaths) has commenced. A total of 3 km of renewals and new paths are programmed. This is an area of 6,286 m2 (note that with the first year of increased budget in 2018/19 we completed 6,586 m2, after 3,147 m2 in the previous year). Work is progressing well and is on track for completion by 30 June 2020.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
579	930	1070	$Ý	Forecast overspend is due to additional funding from NZTA. There will be no overspend of the Council share of the budget.

3. SH1 revocation
The M2PP SH1 Revocation project is awarded to Higgins and programmed to start in Q3-early 2020. Council and the revocation team from NZTA are reviewing NZTA’s asset data and working through the agreement on the future take-over of these assets, including Council’s requirements for these assets. PP2O revocation process is contiuning with working on management plan and scheme design and further consultantion through out 2020. Key risks/issues: Poor condition of the existing culverts along M2PP revocation corridor. Meeting is arranged to discuss the resolution in early 2020.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
375	1,848	1,308	$Þ	Project is late starting.

4. Minor Improvements programme
® The Mazengarb Road/Ratanui Road roundabout completed in October 2019. ® Safety audit and road marking upgrade Rangiuru Rd/Marine Pde completed December 2019. ® Designs prepared for future minor safety upgrade works – Tasman Rd, Kāpiti Rd, Arawhata Rd. ® Work programmed for Ōtaki RSA car park. ® Raumati Town Centre safety design report in progress, additional traffic study required in Q3. ® Preparing preliminary work for potential 21-24 NZTA funded Safety Improvement Programme: Gray Ave, Donovan Rd, Te Moana Rd, Renown Rd.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
950	1,492	1,599	$Ý	Additional NZTA funding has been allocated and will be reinvested into these minor improvement projects.

Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Cycleways Walkways and Bridleways	18	160	169	$Ý	Kotuku bridge and Waimea boardwalk to be delivered in Q3/Q4.
Annual Reseal – including carparks	46	187	187		Programme scheduled to be delivered by April 2020.
Street Lighting	59	240	240		On track for year end.
Drainage renewals – including curb and channel replacements	122	297	297		Major curb and channel replacements forecast for Jan-March 2020. Aligned with the footpath programme.
Bridge repairs	16	327	377	$Ý	Programme scheduled to be delivered by June 2020.
Traffic services renewals	94	423	423		Programmed to be delivered by June 2020.
Targeted roading projects – including East-West connectors	14	650	216	$Þ	Forecast for Updating Programme Business case of East-West Connectors only.

Other key developments

Network Planning

· In addition to providing advice on resource consents received in the previous quarter 24 new resource consents were received this quarter. Advice has been provided at a number of pre-application, business start-up meetings and in response to temporary events.

· Activity Management Plan (AMP) progress is on track. A draft AMP will be completed in Q4.

· Sealed Road Condition surveying, SCRIM and HSD survery is programmed and committed for Q3 and Q4.

Expressways

· Physical works continue on PP2O and Fletcher Construction is liaising with Council and residents to enable the works.

Travel planning and safety initiatives

· There have been a range of safety initiatives this quarter, including:

· Our first Mobility Scooter Safety Course.

· The annual Orange Day School Patrols Parade was held with 276 School Patrollers taking part in the Parade with the Road Safety banner competition entries, presentations and speeches. Waitohu School won the School Patrol of the year. The School Patrol Road Safety banner competition was won by Raumati South School.

Performance measures

· There are ten key performance indicators (KPI) in the Access and Transport activity.

· One KPI was not on target - ’Residents (%) who are satisfied with street lighting’ reported a provisional result from the second quarter Resident Opinion Survey of 84% satisfied (83.5% cumulative over first two quarters) against a full year target of 85% (the result for 2018/19 year was 85%). This result has improved slightly from the first quarter but satisfaction will need to improve further in the next two quarters if the KPI is to be achieved. The results for the past two years can be seen below and show considerable volatility in the quarterly results.

2. Satisfaction with Street lighting – trend over the past two years

3.	4. Sep ‘17	5. Dec ‘17	6. Mar ‘18	7. Jun ‘18	8. Sep ‘18	9. Dec ‘18	10. Mar ‘19	11. Jun ‘19	12. Sep ‘19	13. Dec 19
14. Quarterly result	15. 83%	16. 91%	17. 86%	18. 83%	19. 77%	20. 86%	21. 91%	22. 87%	23. 83%	24. 84%
25. Annual result	26. -	27. -	28. -	29. 86%	30. -	31. -	32. -	33. 85%	34.	35.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Residents (%) who agree that the existing transport system allows easy movement around the district	80%	On target (80.5%)	The provisional result from the Resident Opinion Survey (ROS) over the first two quarters was a score of 80.5%. (2018/19 result was 74%)
Number of serious and fatal crashes on district roads is falling (DIA mandatory measure)	5-year rolling average reduces each year (it was 10.2 crashes for the 2015-19 FY period)	On target	There was 4 serious injury or fatal crash in the second quarter.
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the condition of roads	70%	On target (75%)	The provisional result from the second quarter ROS was 75%
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the condition of footpaths	65%	On target (65%)	The provisional result from the second quarter ROS was a score of 65%.
Not on target
Residents (%) who are satisfied with street lighting	85%	Not on target (83.5%)	The provisional result for the first two quarters ROS was a score of 83.5%. (2018/19 result was 85%)
Not due yet
Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced (DIA mandatory measure)	5% (expressed as kilometres)	Not yet due	This is reported on at the end of the year
Roads that meet smooth roads standards. (DIA mandatory measure)	Overall Smooth Travel Exposure is above 85%	Not yet due	This is reported on at the end of the year (2018/19 result was 87%)
Percentage of footpaths that fall within the service standard for the condition of footpaths as set out in the activity management plan. (DIA mandatory measure)	50% for 2019/20 (increases to 60% for 2020/21)	Not yet due	This is reported on at the end of the year. (2018/19 result was that, of the 20% of the network surveyed, 94% was in good or better condition.)
Average cost of local roading per kilometre is comparable with similar councils in New Zealand	Achieve	Not yet due	This is reported on at the end of the year. (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)
Percentage of service requests relating to roads and footpaths responded to within 3-5 hrs (urgent), 15 days (non-urgent. (DIA mandatory measure)	Roads 85% Footpaths 85%	Not yet due	This is reported on at the end of the year. (2018/19 result was ‘Not achieved’)

Coastal management

· Whakahaere takutai

Purpose	To assist in achieving the sustainable management of the coastal environment and to protect publicly-owned assets.
Financial key:
Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $0.54m (ytd) $0.58m budget (ytd) $1.17m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $0.26m (ytd) $0.37m budget (ytd) FY forecast $0.06m overspend $0.67m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Projects		The coastal renewals project is on target.
Performance measures (KPI)		® Both KPIs were on target at the end of the second quarter 2019/20.

Summary of projects

Significant coastal management projects this year are summarised below.

1. Coastal renewals
® Coastal assets renewals and replacements at Raumati Beach launching ramp, Willow Grove, and Rosetta Road – Materials purchased in 2018/19 financial year. Physical works to commence on site in early January 2020 and completed by June 2020. ® Replacement of the retaining wall situated on the left bank at the mouth of Wharemauku Stream – Designs completed and the plan is to lodge the Resource Consent in March 2020. ® The Wharemauku blockwall Long Term Solution – Option report completed and the plan is to present the options to affected residents in February- March 2020. ® Raumati Seawall – Gathering information on Council responsibilities/liabilities related to the Raumati Seawall is in progress.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
48	494	494		Remaining budget will be fully spent to complete the projects listed above.

Other key developments

· Paekākāriki seawall Building Consent application granted . (Note: The Paekākāriki seawall upgrade project had detailed designs completed on schedule in 2018/19 but the build is not due to start until 2021/22.)

· Resolving the Old Coach Route ownership issue is in progress.

· Work is underway to identify the critical assets needing renewal/ replacement based on the condition assessments undertaken in 2016/17.

Performance measures

There are two key performance indicators (KPIs) in the coastal management activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result (ytd)	Comment
On target
Respond within 48 hours to urgent requests to repair seawalls or rock revetments	90%	On target (100%)	There were 13 requests to-date. (9 in Q1 and 4 in Q2). One of these was urgent and was responded to within 24 hours. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Stormwater beach outlets are kept clear	80%	On target (100%)	All beach outlets cleaned and kept clear. (2018/19 result was 100%)

Solid waste

· Para ūtonga

Purpose	To provide accessible, effective and efficient waste management options, encourage waste minimisation, and provide landfill management.
Financial key:
Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $0.50m (ytd) $0.55m budget (ytd) $1.21m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Operating income What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) $0.28m (ytd) $ 0.29m budget (ytd) $0.58m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $0.02m (ytd) $0.08m budget (ytd) FY forecast $0.00 variance $0.18m budget (full year)		® On budget , on track for year end. ® Moderate variance, materials purchased if and when available.
Projects		® The Otaihanga Landfill Capping project is a multi-year capex over $250,000 project (although it is coming to the end of its life and will be under $250,000 capex in the current year spend). It is on target.
Performance measures (KPI)		® One of five KPI is not on target. The KPI regarding resident satisfaction with the waste minimisation education, information and advice available reported a satisfaction result of 63%, against a target of 75% for the year. Council is currently recruiting for additional waste minimisation resources to improve our services in this area.

Summary of projects

There is one solid waste significant project, the Otaihanga Landfill Capping project.

1. Landfill Capping
There remains 1.25 Ha of landfill to be formally capped as part of the landfill closure project. Capping is progressing as appropriate fill material becomes available. 14,000 m3 of capping material were accepted at the landfill site during the quarter and stockpiled for capping works.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
22	168	168		Full expenditure anticipated this financial year for further cap installation, re-contouring and stormwater control works.

2. Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Minor projects	.6	13	13		Planned to use for upgrading recycling drop off stations in Q3 and renewals work in Ōtaki and Otaihanga.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other key developments

· The Waste Minimisation Taskforce presented their final report to Council on 12 December 2019. The Taskforce recommended four main action towards towards Council’s 30% reduction target as listed in the 2017 WMMP. Officers will report to Council on the recommended actions in March.

· A Council submission was made to the Ministry for the Environment on the proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines.

· The Ministry for the Environment released the proposal “Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’ for public consultation on 27 November 2019. Council will be making a submission.

· Waste minimisation activities included:

· Recommendations for 2019/20 Waste Levy Grants were presented to Council on 12 December, resulting in $20,909.14 of waste levy funding being allocated to 14 community projects. Five of the ten applicants for New Technology and Seed Funding grants were invited to submit full applications.

· Work on a guide for minimsing waste at events with the regional group of Waste Minimsation Officers was completed. Two workshops for event organisiers introducing the guide as well as the earlier completed event packaging guidelines were held in November.

· We hosted the Wellington Region Waste Forum.

· Progressing the Maclean Park recycling bin project – bins are to be installed in January.

· Delivering Waste Free parenting workshop, visits to recycling stations to inform customers on waste diversion options (e.g. recycling, home composting) and assisting foodbanks with plastic free food donation drives.

Performance measures

There are five key performance indicators (KPIs) in the solid waste activity.

Performance measures		Target		Result (ytd)		Comment
On target
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the standard of kerbside collections		85%		On target (91%)		The average result for the first and second quarter Resident Opinion Survey was 91% satisfied.
Number of days disposal facilities are open		357 days per year		On target		Facilities met opening targets for the first quarter.
Licensed collectors are compliant with licence requirements		Achieve		On target		No official warnings issued.
Illegally dumped waste is removed within two working days		85%		On target (90%)		There were 87 service requests, of which 78 were resolved within two days.
Not on target
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the waste minimisation education, information and advice available	75%		Not on target (65%)		The average result for the first and second quarter Resident Opinion Survey was 65% satisfied.

Stormwater

· Whakahaere wai araha

Purpose

To provide a stormwater system to manage surface-water run-off from urban catchments while protecting the receiving environment, ensuring water quality and reducing risks to human life and health from flooding.

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate council’s activities
(Excluding Overhead Allocation)

$1.70m (ytd)

$1.84m budget (ytd)

$3.83m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc
(Excluding Rates)

$0.19m (ytd)

$ 0.09m budget (ytd)

$0.17m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, additional income forecast for year end.

® M2PP have agreed to pay Council $100,000 in lieu of undertaking lining works on several stormwater pipes they installed as part of the overall project.

Capital expenditure

Costs for our capital projects

$2.34m (ytd)

$1.48m budget (ytd)

FY forecast $0.0m variance

$3.66m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

® Projects brought forward such as William street & Margret road upgrades and on track for year end.

Projects

® Both projects (Major and Minor stormwater programmes) are broadly on target despite some consenting delays with individual projects within those programmes. This has been addressed by bringing forward other works that don’t require consents.

Performance measures (KPI)

® All seven KPIs were on target at the end of the second quarter 2019/20.

Summary of projects

Stormwater projects have been organised into major and minor stormwater programmes, with each group treated for reporting purposes as a single project. Both programmes are capital expenditure $250,000 and above and are summarised below.

1. Major stormwater projects

The major stormwater projects cover the design and construction of major drainage systems to accommodate run off from less frequent storms (1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year events). These projects include upgrading under capacity networks, stream works, pumping systems etc. and the main purpose of major stormwater projects is to eliminate the risk of loss of life and property damage due to flooding. The projects covered under this in 2019/20 are mainly focused on alleviating habitable floor flooding and include: stormwater upgrades for Kena Kena, Moa Road, Karaka Grove, Alexander Bridge, Titoki, Riwai, Amohia Stage 1, Kākāriki, Raumati Road Area 1, Sunshine Avenue, Amohia diversion, Charnwood Grove, Richmond Avenue, Ōtaki Beach Stage 2, William Street and Asset renewals in areas not affected by under capacity pipes in Paraparaumu Catchments 8 and 1.

Designs and Consents Completed in 2019/20

· Kena Kena Asset Renewals

· Moa Road flood Wall

· Raumati Road Area 1

· Asset Renewals in Paraparaumu Catchment 8

Designs and Consents In Progress in 2019/20

· Kena Kena Asset Upgrades	· Karaka Grove Flood Wall
· Alexander Bridge upgrade	· Kakariki stream works
· Riwai Stormwater Upgrades	· Sunshine Avenue
· Titoki Street	· Amohia Catchment diversion
· Charnwood Grove	· Richmond Avenue
· Ōtaki Beach Stage 2	· Asset Renewals in Paraparaumu Catchment 1

Physical works completed in 2019/20

Kena Kena Asset Renewals

Physical works in progress in 2019/20

Raumati Road Area 1 (Procurement phase)

Wiliam Street SW Upgrades (Construction 95% completed)

Moa Road flood wall (Procurement phase)

Asset Renewals in Paraparaumu Catchment 8 (Procurement phase)

Physical works planned for 2020/21

Kena Kena Asset Upgrades

Moa Road flood Wall

Kena Kena Asset Upgrades

Kakariki stream works

Riwai Stormwater Upgrades

Sunshine Avenue Stormwater Upgrades

Titoki Street Stormwater Upgrades

Amohia Street Stage 1 Stream works

Amohia Catchment diversion Phase 1

Ōtaki Beach Stage 2

Asset Renewals in Paraparaumu Catchment 1

Physical works Planned for 2021/22

Karaka Grove flood Wall

Alexander Bridge upgrade

Charnwood Grove

Richmond Avenue

Key risks/issues: difficulties in gaining GWRC consents and iwi inputs may cause delays to most of the stormwater major projects.

Costs ytd
( $000)

Budget
($000)

Forecast
($000)

Status

Financial Commentary

1,984

3,133

There are delays/difficulties with projects associated with resource consents. Advancing projects with no consents required to the physical works phase to deliver the programme.

2. Minor stormwater projects
The minor stormwater project includes the design and construction of minor drainage systems to accommodate run off from more frequent storms (1 in 5 year or 1 in 10 year events). These projects include renewal of existing assets, construction of overland flow paths, minor stormwater upgrades and extensions including upgrading inlet control devices such as stormwater sumps (cost of each project is in the order of $10,000 to $100,000). ® Completed the final two locations of 2018/19, 14 location minor improvement Contract. ® Completed physical works at Margaret Road Stage 2 Stormwater Upgrades. ® 2019/20 minor improvements work contract awarded. Out of 7 locations covered under this contract , work completed in 2 locations. Work associated with other 5 locations will be commenced in January 2020. ® Awanui Drive, Kauri Crescent and Matene Place – Procurement of physical works to commence in February 2020, once the designs are finalised. ® Margaret Road Stage 1 – Designs completed. Construction on site to commence once the land owner approvals are completed.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
329	523	523		Progressing well.

Other key developments

· To-date in 2019/20, there were 213 complaints , compared to 180 in the same period last year.

· Districtwide Water Quality monitoring tender ( for a period of 4 years) was awarded in December 2019. Work will commence in January 2020.

· “Districtwide Flood Hazard model update” tender is compiled and the plan is to advertise the tender in January 2020.

· To date: completed cleaning (including hand cleaning and gravel extraction) 6.2 km of open drains.

· In 2019/20 , completed stormwater asset condition Investigations in 3 Paraparaumu Catchments (3 catchments completed in 2018/19) making the total Catchments completed 6 out of 34 catchments in the districts. Currently, asset condition asesments are in progress in 11 other catchments in Paraparaumu.

Performance measures

There are seven key performance indicators in the stormwater management activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Median response time to attend a flooding event from notification to attendance on site (DIA mandatory measure)	Urgent = less than or equal to 24 hours	On target (median response time was less than 24 hours)	Year to-date, there were 280 service requests 213 were flooding related complaints. Of those 213, 53 were urgent and the median response time was 0 days (less than 24 hours). (2018/19 result was less than 24 hrs)
	Non-urgent = less than or equal to 5 days	On target (median response time was 3 days)	The median response time was 3 days for the 227 non-urgent flooding related complaints. (2018/19 result was 3 days)
Percentage of all buildings that have been inundated due to minor flooding are visited within four weeks	90%	On target (100%)	Year to-date, there was 1 building (garages) related minor flooding requests. Visited within less than 1 day. (2018/19 result was 100%)
Number of complaints received about the performance of the district's stormwater system (DIA mandatory measure)	Less than 30 per 1000 properties connected to the council’s stormwater system	On target (8.2 per 1000) On a pro-rata basis: the year-to date target is 15 per 1000.	The 213 flooding related complaints in the year to date translate to 9.5 per 1,000 connections (estimate of 22,390 connections – from 2018/19). (2018/19 result was 8.2 per 1,000)
Number of buildings (habitable floors) reported to be flooded as a result of a less than 1-in-50 year rain event (DIA mandatory measure)	Less than 3 per 1000 properties connected to the council’s stormwater system	On target	No habitable floors were affected by flooding events. (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)
Measure compliance with council’s resource consents for discharge from its stormwater system, by the number of: a) abatement notices; b) infringement notices; c) enforcement orders; and d) successful prosecutions, received by the council in relation those resource consents. (DIA mandatory measure)	None	On target (None)	There has been no non-compliance with Council’s resource consents for discharge from its stormwater system in the first quarter.
Major flood protection and control works are maintained, repaired and renewed to the key standards as defined in the council’s activity management plan (DIA mandatory measure)	Achieve	Achieve	Stormwater projects completed to date in this year are: - Kena Kena asset renewals - Margaret Road SW Upgrade Stage 2 (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)

Wastewater management

· Whakahaere wai para

Purpose

To provide wastewater (sewerage) infrastructure that protects public health and the natural environment and provides continuity of service for the Kāpiti community.

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate council’s activities
(Excluding Overhead Allocation)

$3.96m (ytd)

$3.92m budget (ytd)

$7.97m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc
(Excluding Rates)

$0.02m (ytd)

$ 0.15m budget (ytd)

$0.30m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

® The lower income this quarter is due to lower development contributions.

Capital expenditure

Costs for our capital projects

$0.42m (ytd)

$0.68m budget (ytd)

FY forecast $0.00 underspend

$1.70m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, on track for year end.

Projects

® There are three significant projects.

The Paraparaumu WWTP renewals: Additional works required above originally planned works following the clarifier failure.

Ōtaki WWTP upgrade projects is forecasting an overspend.

Performance measures (KPI)

® All five KPIs were on target at the end of at the end of the first quarter 2019/20.

Summary of projects

There are three significant wastewater management projects, all of which are capex projects of $250,000 and above, these are summarised in the first three tables below. There are a further three under $250,000 capex summarised briefly in table 4 below.

1. Paraparaumu wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) renewals
Drone and remote scanning technology was used to develop detailed 3D drawings for Clarifier 1 during recent an unplanned outage while the Ops team made some temporary repairs. The consultant will develop a design and procurement plan for the required mechanical upgrades in quarter 3. The procurement of sludge centrifuge renewal long-lead components has been actioned following the earlier detailed condition assessment. Delivery of equipment for this stage is expcted later in quarter 3. Design and procurement of renewal of the Return Activated Sludge Pumping Station #2 (RAS PS2) is underway to replace this aging equipment and improve the future maintainability of this pumping station. Significant challenges with flow isolation (for construction and future maintenance) are also being resolved during this work. The critical renewal works programmed for this year is currently forecast to exceed the allocated budget. Options to defer, or offset, this expenditure are being investigated; initial approaches include spreading the cost of the RAS PS2 design and renewal work and the Clarifier 1 renewal works across FY19/20 and FY20/21.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Estimate ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
158	284	584	$Ý	Forecast over budget due to urgent renewal work for the No1 clarifier.

2. Paraparaumu WWTP – resource consent renewals
The project is now on a critical path to develop an application and the next phase of development of the full list of future treatment options, fatal flaw considerations and the resulting long list is being worked through. Initial indications from a review of plant performance and of the new national baselines for discharges to surface water also question the suitability of the current stream discharge point. Meaningful engagement with mana whenua in the re-consenting process is still sought. All our iwi have been invited to participate and to identify how this could be best achieved. The draft project governance arrangements, vision and objectives, and engagement and communications strategy have been provided and continuing progress updates will be given as the work develops. The consent appllication sampling programme is progressing to plan. Improvements identified in the first year of sampling are being made to this programme including the use of a new influent composite sampler and automating downstream environmental sampling points. Key risks/issues Delays in consulation may create significant additional work for the project. The extent of consultation delay and likelihood of unsuitability of current discharge facilities indicates that Council will also apply for an extension to the existing consent, to allow for the development of options under the main application.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Estimate ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
133	695	462	$Þ	Currently forecasting an underspend.
3. Ōtaki WWTP upgrades
The approved discharge consent reapplication of 2016/17 directed improvements to the land treatment discharge area (LTDA) at the Ōtaki WWTP. The design is complete for upgrades, and procurement planned for Quarter 3. The planting for grounds maintenance is planned to be undertaken in the winter 2020 planting season, and thus costs wil spread across FY2019/20 and FY2020/21 budgets. A site-wide condition and capacity study nearing completion which will provide asset condition information and cost/ programming detail to inform the development of the 2021 LTP. A specialised pond depth/sludge study is being carried out in Quarter 3, using new remote scanning technology.
Costs ytd ( $000)	estimate ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
39	158	175	$Ý	Currently forecasting an overspend.

4. Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Estimate ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Other projects	87	560	474	$Þ	Planned & Unplanned renewals
Total	417	1,697	1,695

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other key developments

· The annual 2019/20 programme of investigations, inpections and feasiblity studies through the Water Professional Services Panel (WPSP) is now fully scoped and underway. This work will be used to identify any improvements needed and better inform future long term planning of renewals, upgrades and resilience projects. A number of interim reports are under review.

· Of particular focus is the condition and performance assessments and asset investment planning of the wastewater network. Current investigations include:

· The ongoing Wastewater Pumping Station condition assessments programme – initial study completed, waiting for preliminary forward works program for the 2021 LTP.

· Wastewater Network Performance programme – the development of draft design solutions and estimate costings for the to resolve a number of existing restraints identified.

· Further updates of our hydraulic models to consider the latest climate change and asset deterioration profiles and population growth information.

· An investigation a containment standard and to develop a prioritised asset performance assessment for our wastewater network that will inform investment planning for the 2021 long term plan, and will support the Paraparaumu WWTP Consents Renewal Programme.

Performance measures

There are five key performance indicators (KPIs) in the wastewater management activity. All five were on target at the end of at the end of the second quarter of FY2019/20.

Performance measures	Target	Result (ytd)	Comment
On target
Median response times to sewage overflows resulting from a blockage or other fault measured by attendance time (from the time council receives notification to the time that staff are on-site) (DIA mandatory measure)	Less than or equal to 1 hour	On target	Median attendance time was 26 minutes, for 61 blockages or faults attended in the first quarter. (2018/19 result was 20 minutes)
Median response times to sewage overflows resulting from a blockage or other fault measured by resolution time (from the time that council receives notification to the time that staff confirm resolution) (DIA mandatory measure)	Less than or equal to 5 hours	On target	Median resolution time was 2 hours and 8 minutes, for 61 blockages or faults resolved in the first two quarters. (2018/19 result was 2 hrs and 29 mins)
Number of complaints received by council about any of the following: a) sewage odour; b) sewerage system faults; c) sewerage system blockages, and d) council’s response to issues with the sewerage system. (DIA mandatory measure)	Less than 7.2 complaints per 1,000 connections to Council’s sewerage system.	On target (3.3 complaints per 1,000 connections)	66 complaints were received at the close of the second quarter (from a total of 20,292 connections). (2018/19 result was 4.8 per 1,000)
Number of dry weather sewerage overflows (DIA mandatory measure)	At or below 2 per 1000 connections to Council’s sewerage system	On target (nil overflows per 1,000 connections)	There were no dry weather overflows this quarter, thus no notifiable events so far this year (out of a total of 20,292 connections). (2018/19 result was 2.56 per 1,000)
Compliance with council’s resource consents for discharge from its sewerage system measured by the number of: a) abatement notices; b) infringement notices; c) enforcement orders; and d) convictions, received by council in relation to those resource consents. (DIA mandatory measure)	None	On target	No non-compliance actions in the first two quarters.

Water management

· Whakahaere wai

Purpose	The key goal for the water management activity is ensuring a safe, affordable and sustainable long-term water supply solution for our district.

Operating expenditure The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) $3.47m (ytd) $3.63m budget (ytd) $7.64m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
Operating income What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) $0.18m (ytd) $ 0.12m budget (ytd) $0.24m budget (full year)		® Moderate variance, on track for year end. ® The higher income this quarter is due to higher development contributions.
Capital expenditure Costs for our capital projects $0.69m (ytd) $0.61m budget (ytd) FY forecast $6.41m underspend $10.09m budget (full year)		® Moderate variance, lower capital spending planned for the year. ® The lower capital spending forecast is due to the intention to carry forward $6.2 million of the funding for the drinking water safety and resilience project to 2021/22.
Projects		® There are two water management projects. Both are over $250,000 capex projects. The DWRSP is not on target – design work will be completed this year but construction works are now planned for next year.
Performance measures (KPI)		® Eight KPIs were on target at the end of the first quarter 2019/20. ® Three KPIs are not yet due as results are only available at the end of the year.

Summary of projects

The two significant water management projects this year are summarised below.

1. Drinking water safety and resilience project (DWSRP)
Delays in the establishment of the Water Professional Services Panel in 2018/19, to allow for a strategic procurement review has meant the contract for the DWSRP was awarded December 2018. The design work is progressing well with construction programmed to start in 2020/21. Completed at the end of Quarter 2 of FY2019/20 are: · The preliminary design for the Waikanae WTP Stage 2 upgrades has been completed and detailed design has commenced. · The strategic review of the Ōtaki and Hautere water supply schemes was completed and is awaiting final Iwi considerations. The review affirmed the decision to invest in upgrading the existing treatment plants. The preliminary design stage has now been initated. · A procurement workshop to support the development of the strategy for the procurement of future physical works was undertaken. · A detailed communications plan for the project was developed and planning is underway for intial communications early in 2020. The activities planned for quarter 3 are: · Waikanae WTP Stage 2 upgrades detailed design workshops – especially for dosed chemical storage and handling equipment. · Design development for all works planned for FY2020/21 and FY2021/22.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
403	8,090	1,584	º▼ $Þ	The design of the works is progressing well now and construction has been deferred to 2020/21. Approval for a carry forward of the projected underspend will be sought in the near future.
2. Network renewals and upgrades
Work on reactive lateral replacements is ongoing. The new Zone Meter for Ngaio Road installed in 2018/19 is now fully operational following connection to the mains power supply and SCADA monitoring. Asset condition assessment and renewal planning are well advanced for the bulk main from the Waikanae water treatment plant to the Riwai Reservoir, and for districtwide network renewals. The consultancy for the design for the Tasman Road water supply main (to the Ōtaki CBD) has been awarded under the water services panel following the completion of the Ōtaki and Hautere water supply strategic review.. A programme of backflow prevention risk assessment and development of policy documentation has been submitted, to offer investment planning guidance by the end of 2019/20, waiting for review.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
86	1,576	1,507	$Þ	Underway – modest forecast underspend.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Network unplanned renewals	137	210	271	$Ý	Modest forecast overspend
Minor projects	7	217	251	$Ý	Additional forecast spend on water meter renewals and minor renewals at the Waikanae water treatment plant

Other key developments

· All Council’s water supply schemes have been given the highest compliance rating by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC). Compliance assessments are carried out annually. The green four-star rating means the scheme complies and has been managed with excellence. Council has been proactive in meeting consent requirements. If issues arose concerning consent conditions, Council responded promptly and effectively; and no further action was required for this compliance report. This maintains the top compliance rating achieved by the river recharge with ground water scheme since its inception in 2013.

· The replacement of the clarifier drive unit at the Waikanae WTP was completed Quarter 2 following the earlier interim mechanical repairs completed in quarter 1. These will reinforce the aging equipment and maintain reliable service while the new clarifier is constructed.

· The 2019/20 Consultant Service Orders (CSOs) for the Water Professional Services Panel (WPSP) are all now underway. The inspections of reservoirs hav been completed, pipelines and water treatment plants and in master planning for the growth projected in the Ōtaki water supply network and for coming legislative changes. This work will be used to identify any improvements needed and better inform the Long Term Plan of renewals, upgrades and resilience projects.

Performance measures

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Median response times to a fault or unplanned interruption to our water network measured by attendance time (from the time council receives notification to the time that staff are on-site) (DIA mandatory measure)	Urgent = less than or equal to 1 hour	On target	Median attendance time was 11 minutes for 42 urgent water interruptions. (2018/19 result was 15 minutes)
	Non-urgent = less than or equal to 3 days	On target	Median attendance time was 4 hours and 42 minutes for 442 non-urgent water faults. (2018/19 result was 3hrs, 27 min)
Median response times to a fault or unplanned interruption to our water network measured by resolution time (from the time that council receives notification to the time that staff confirm resolution) (DIA mandatory measure)	Urgent = less than or equal to 5 hours	On target	Median resolution time was 42 minutes for 42 urgent water interruptions. (2018/19 result was 1 hr, 38 min)
	Non-urgent = less than or equal to 4 days	On target	Median resolution time was 6 hours and 39 minutes for 442 non-urgent water faults. (2018/19 result was 25 hrs, 2 min)
Measure the total number of complaints received by council, per 1000 connections, to council’s networked reticulation system, about any of the following: a) drinking water clarity; b) drinking water taste; c) drinking water odour; d) drinking water pressure or flow; e) continuity of supply; and f) council’s response to any of these issues. (DIA mandatory measure)	At or below 6.2 complaints per 1,000 connections	On target	A total of 81 ‘complaints’ were logged so far this year (21 water quality [taste/odour], 42 service requests for no water supply, & 18 low pressure enquiries). With a total of 23,020 connections, 81 complaints translate to 3.52 complaints per 1,000 connections. (2018/19 result was 5.56 per 1,000)
Residents who are satisfied with the quality of council’s water supply (taste, odour, clarity)	80%	On target (86%)	The average result for the first and second quarter Resident Opinion Survey was 86%.
Peak water consumption in litres per person per day (l/p/d)	At or below 490 l/p/d	On target	Peak day water use for the year to date was 370 l/p/d. (2018/19 result was 399 l/p/d)
Average water consumption in litres per person per day (DIA mandatory measure)	At or below 325 l/p/d	On target	Average use for year to date was 297 l/p/d. (2018/19 result was 302 l/p/d)
Not yet due
Percentage of real water loss from the Council’s networked reticulation system. (DIA mandatory measure)²	At or below 23.6%	Not yet due	The water loss from the council’s network for 2019/2020 will be calculated at the end of the financial year. (2018/19 result was 18%)
Measure the extent to which the district’s drinking water supply complies with: a) part 4 of the drinking-water standards (bacteria compliance criteria); and b) part 5 of the drinking-water standards (protozoal compliance criteria) (DIA mandatory measure)	a) Achieve 100%	Not yet due	Confirmed compliance results are not due until later in 2020 from the Drinking Water Assessors (DWAs). The result for 2018/19 was ‘Not achieved’ because of a corrupt data block causing a loss of compliance data on 1 September 2018. A programme of remedial measures is underway to avoid a similar data corruption reoccurrence. The work planned over 2019-22 through the LTP will resolve any issues with turbidity spikes causing non-compliance. (2018/19 result was ‘Not achieved’)
	b) Achieve 100%	Not yet due	Note that the Ōtaki and Hautere supplies will not be 100% compliant until upgrade work is undertaken which is programmed in the 2018 LTP for 2019–2022. (2018/19 result was ‘Not achieved’)

Districtwide planning

· Ngā kaupapa takiwa

Purpose

To establish the development framework for the sustainable management of the district's natural and physical resources.

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate council’s activities
(Excluding Overhead Allocation)

$0.58m (ytd)

$1.00m budget (ytd) $2.10m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, on track for year end.

® The lower spending this quarter is mostly due to time spent planning the initial stage of the coastal programme and the timing of appeals.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc
(Excluding Rates)

$0.02m (ytd)

$0.00m budget (ytd) $0.00m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance, on track for year end.

® Additional income received in the first quarter from Greater Wellington for their contribution to the population forecast online platform.

Projects

® The District Plan Review is the only significant Districtwide Planning project.

® On track for year end.

Performance measures (KPI)

® Both Districtwide Planning KPIs were on target as at the end of the first quarter 2019/20.

Summary of projects

There is one significant project in this activity, the District Plan Review. It is an additional significant project that has greater than $250,000 but it’s all operational expenditure.

1. District Plan Review
Two appeals (Forest & Bird, Federated Farmers) fully resolved. Substantive progress made on the five remaining appeals (from the original list of 18 appeals). Further submissions received on Variation 2 to the Proposed District Plan. Hearing completed of Variation 3. Variation 4 publicly notified, submissions and further submissions completed. Key risks/issues: Limited capacity of Environment Court creates uncertainty about timeliness of resolving outstanding appeals. Recruiting for District Plan team vacancies in a competitive market for RMA planners.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
129	559	538		On track for year end.

Project status key
Complete On target Not on target On hold High risk

Ahead º▲ Lagging º▼ Underspend $Þ Overspend $Ý

Other key developments

Research and policy

· The Strategy and Operations Committee received an update on the policy work programme on 5 December 2019.

· The review of the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Library Strategy were both added to the work programme alongside a number of updates to project timeframes.

· Over the last quarter, work effort has been concentrated on the following:

· Beach Bylaw Review;

· Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment;

· NPS-UDC quarterly monitoring report.

· Submissions on:

· The Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill.

· Department of Internal Affair's Infrastructure Funding and Financing: Development contributions and targeted rates.

· Ministry for the Environment's Essential Freshwater: Action for Healthy Waterways.

Performance measures

There are two key performance indicators (KPI) in the districtwide planning activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result (ytd)	Comment
On target
Residents (%) who agree that the district is developing in a way that takes into account its unique character and natural environment	75%	On target (80%)	The average result for quarters one and two is 80%.
Develop and monitor a strategic policy framework and research programme to underpin the district plan and long term plan	Achieve	On target	The 2018-21 policy work programme was adopted by Council on 24 January 2019. The Strategy and Operations Committee received an update on the policy work programme on 5 December 2019. The review of the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Library Strategy were both added to the work programme alongside a number of updates to project timeframes.

Regulatory services

· Ratonga whakaritenga

Purpose

To manage a range of public health, safety and design needs associated with building control, resource consents, environmental health, food safety, animal control, noise management, alcohol licencing, designations and compliance.

Financial key:

Operating expenditure

The costs to operate this activity
(excluding overheads)

$2.49m (ytd)

$2.90m budget (ytd)

$5.71m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

® The lower spending year to date relates to personnel vacancies.

Operating income

What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc
(excluding rates)

$2.58m (ytd)

$2.63m budget (ytd)

$4.45m budget (full year)

® Minor variance, on track for year end.

Capital expenditure

Costs for our capital projects

$0.08m (ytd)

$0.16m budget (ytd)

FY forecast $0.26m overspend

$0.24m budget (full year)

® Moderate variance for this quarter, forecast higher spending for the year.

® Higher forecast spending relates to additional costs for the Animal Management Centre renewal.

Projects

® There is one significant Regulatory Services project, the Animal Management Centre renewal.

® It is forecast to cost more than initially budgeted as investigation found some hidden issues with the building.

Performance measures (KPI)

® Two of the seven KPIs was not on target but at least one of these should recover over coming quarters.

® Three KPIs are on target at the end of the first quarter and two are not yet due.

Significant projects

There is one significant Regulatory Services project summarised below.

1. Animal Management Centre renewal
The Animal Management Centre renewal project is currently reported as not on target as the scope of the works have increased since the budget was set and the project is now forecast to significantly exceed the initial budget. This project was initiated to address health and safety and animal welfare concerns. The detailed construction design documentation was completed for the Animal Management Centre. The Building Consent application was granted in October. The contract for the construction work at the Animal Management Centre has been awarded and work is scheduled to start late January, with a target completion of early May 2020. Key risks/issues: § The revised forecast costs are based on an increased scope of works. There is a dearth of suitably experienced contractors available for small construction works of this nature. § Works may go over schedule or exceed allocated budget.
Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Financial Commentary
78	238	498	$Ý	Detailed investigation of this project has resulted in an increased scope of works, due to the hidden condition of the building, and hence an increase in the forecast spend.

Other key developments

Regulatory services

· Regulatory Services received a total of 2,528 service requests in the second quarter of 2019/20. Of those requests 2375 (94.1%) were responded to within required times. This brings the year to date figure to 94.44% against a target of 95%.

· This second quarter, Regulatory Services received 19 compliments and one complaint about service received. This brings our year to date totals to 30 compliments and six complaints.

· This second quarter, 201 Land Information Memoranda (LIM) were issued with an average of five days to issue. All LIMs were issued within the statutory timeframes. Although the volume for the quarter is comparable with last year, volume for the calendar year is 12% less than last year.

Building

· In October the Building Consent Authority (BCA) was assessed by IANZ who were complimentary about the performance of BCA functions in Kāpiti Coast District Council. There were several items which required action, which has been underway. The team has undertaken further training to address a shortfall in information required in compliance schedules. The evidence of completed actions was provided to IANZ before Christmas and re-confirmation of accreditation is expected to follow.

· In December MBIE initiated a review of our territorial authority (TA) Building Act functions. Kāpiti Coast District Council is one of 2 TAs selected as a pilot for this review. Requested information has been collated and provided to MBIE who are progressing with a desk top audit before deciding if they also need to visit. The review is expected to be completed in the coming quarter.

· This second quarter, 268 building consents were processed compared with 282 for the second quarter last year. This is a 5% decrease continuing the trend of the first quarter. All except four were issued within 20 days (98.5% in time) with an average processing time of 12 days. Three of the 4 overtime consents were due to an agreement with Housing NZ regarding timing of fee collection not being effectively handled in our system.

· 1,398 building consent inspections were undertaken this quarter. This compares with 1,454 building inspections in the same quarter last year (a 4% decrease) continuing the trend of a lighter inspection workload. We are aware of the delayed start to many building consents due to the lack of builders available.

· 192 code compliance certificates were issued this quarter (229 for the same period last year).

Resource consents

· The Resource Consents team issued 74 consents in the second quarter (compared to 51 resource consents in the same quarter last year). All were processed non-notified and 22 had time extensions under section 37 of the Resource Management Act^{^[5]}. For those non-notified consents that did not have their statutory timeframes extended, the average processing time was 17 days against a target of 17 days.

· The Resource Consents team processed 14 permitted boundary activities and one certificate of compliance. The average processing time for permitted boundary activities was 7 days against a statutory timeframe of 10 working days.

· The Resource Consents team has processed 14 certifications for subdivisions in the second quarter of this year, compared to 13 at the same time last year. These certifications related to a total of 83 new allotments (34 last year).

· In October the Resource Consents and Building teams sent a newsletter to our regular customers providing information on common points raised in further information requests. This was requested at a meeting with architects and building designers and follows on from a newsletter sent in July by the Resource Consents team. It is the teams intention to send a newsletter to regular customer quarterly to provide them with information and keep them informed of process and legislation changes within the development sector.

· Major input has continued this quarter into the three major roading projects within the Kāpiti District. PP2O has continued to ramp up construction leading into the summer earthworks season, this has resulted in a significant increase in workload for the Development Control Team. Compliance staff have also been in discussions with Fletchers and NZTA around noise reporting and plantings and landscaping obligations. Transmission Gully continues to progress its works within the district and regular monitoring checks have been undertaken.

Environmental Health, Licensing and Compliance

· In the second quarter, 53 of the 218 currently registered food businesses which operate under a template food control plan were verified by the team bringing the year to date total to 115. In addition, 19 support, follow-up or investigative visits were undertaken.

· Eight health licensed premises (hairdressers) were inspected this quarter. A majority of premises are scheduled for inspection in the third and fourth quarter.

· Inspections were carried out of all 14 premises for which an alcohol licence was granted or renewed. 58 special licences were issued, and 89 managers’ certificates were issued or renewed, compared with 33 special licences and 59 managers’ certificates in the previous quarter.

· Compliance Officers carried out 90 inspections of swimming pool barriers, including taking follow-up action where the barrier was found to be non-compliant. This brings the year to date total to 151.

Public Spaces and Animal management

· This quarter the Public Spaces and Animal Management team received four urgent service requests for ‘dog attacks’. All were on people. The team received no service requests relating to ‘dog threatening’. All urgent requests were responded to within the required one hour.

Performance measures

There are seven key performance indicators (KPIs) in the regulatory services activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Average working days to process building consents will not exceed 17 days	Achieve	On target (12 days)	268 BCs were issued in the second quarter. All but 4 were completed within 20 working days. In the year to date 592 BC’s were issued with an average processing time of 12 days.
Average working days to process non-notified resource consents will not exceed 17 days	Achieve	On target (15.5 days)	For the second quarter the average processing time excluding consents deferred under s.37 was 17 working days. In the year to date the average processing time is 15.5 days. (2018/19 result was 15 days).
All dog attack and threatening behaviour requests for service (classified as urgent) are responded to within 1 hour of notification	100%	On target (100%)	There were 4 service requests for urgent dog attacks or threatening dogs for this quarter (Ten in the year to date). All complaints were responded to within one hour of receipt of call.
Ratio of compliments to complaints greater than 3:1	Achieve	On target (5:1)	Received 19 compliments and 1 complaint (not upheld) in the quarter. In the year to date Received 30 compliments and 6 complaints. 3 complaints were not upheld. (2018/19 result was 4.3:1).
Not on target
Percentage of service requests that are responded to within corporate standards are responded to in time	95%	Not on target (94.4%)	2,2375 of 2,528 service requests received in the second quarter were responded to within time. In the year to date 4,756 of 5,040 service requests received were responded to within time (2018/19 result was 95%)
Not due yet
Percentage of survey respondents that agree that the regulatory events are good or very good	93%	Not yet due	No stakeholder events were held this quarter (2018/19 result was 97.7%).
Building Consent Authority (BCA) accreditation is retained	Achieve	Not yet confirmed	The assessment went well and accreditation is expected to be re-confirmed.

Management KPIs

Target

Result

Comment

Percentage of alcohol, food, resource consent, and building consent application survey respondents agree that they have received good or better service.

75%

On target (79%)

For breakdown of survey results see Chart 1

(2018/19 result was 94%)

Percentage of users / respondents agree that pre-application processes are useful and informative.

75%

On target (96%)

For breakdown of survey results see Chart 2

(2018/19 result was 96%)

Chart 1: Application survey respondent’s results

Chart 2: Rating of pre-application services

Governance and tāngata whenua

· Kāwanatanga me ngā tāngata whenua

36. Purpose	37. To manage our democratic processes, provide administrative support, facilitate community input to decision-making and provide information to our community in support of that. Responsibility for liaising with iwi to ensure that, through Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti, they can contribute to council policy and practise.
Financial key:
38. Operating expenditure 39. The costs to operate council’s activities (Excluding Overhead Allocation) 40. 41. $1.23m (ytd) 42. $1.36m budget (ytd) $2.67m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
43. Operating income 44. What we earn – fees, charges, grants etc (Excluding Rates) 45. 46. $0.48m (ytd) 47. $0.41m budget (ytd) $0.71m budget (full year)		® Minor variance, on track for year end.
48. Capital expenditure 49. Costs for our capital projects 50. 51. $0.21m (ytd) 52. $0.04m budget (ytd) 53. FY forecast $0.00m variance 54. $0.44m budget (full year)		® Moderate variance, on track for year end.
55. Projects 56. There are no significant projects in this activity for 2019/20		® There are no significant projects in this activity this year. There are some projects that aren’t regarded as significant reported in the ‘Other projects’ table overleaf.
57. Performance measures (KPI) 58. 59. 60. 61.		® Three KPIs were on target at the end of the first quarter 2019/10 and three KPIs are not yet due.

Other projects

Other projects
Project	Costs ytd ( $000)	Budget ($000)	Forecast ($000)	Status	Comment
Civil Defence	-	13	13		On track for year end.
EOC building renewal	-	3	3		On track for year end.
Hardware	29	36	36		On track for year end.
Plant & vehicle renewals	185	393	393		On track for year end.

Other key developments

Governance

· Local body elections were held on 12 October 2019. The Council’s Electoral Officer managed elections for Council, the four Community Boards, and managed on behalf of other bodies the elections for the two District Health Boards spanning the District, and for Greater Wellington Regional Council.

· Newly-elected members were sworn in at an Inauguration Ceremony (and first formal Council meeting) on 31 October 2019, and at the first round of Community Board meetings.

· At the second meeting of Council a range of statutory governance mechanisms were put in place: the Mayor had exercised his powers under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002 and appointed the Deputy Mayor. He also established Committees and their Terms of Reference and appointed Chairs to them. Council appointed Deputy Chairs to the Committees and approved Committee delegations. Elected members were appointed to a range of external organisations.

· Elected members went through an induction programme during the period. This included briefings by senior staff on hot topics for the district, two days of team-building and strategic planning for Councillors, IT training, a workshop by Local Government New Zealand, media training, a legal seminar, civil defence emergency management training, a one-day seminar on Standing Orders and meetings, and bus tours of Council facilities and areas of interest throughout the District. In total, excluding meetings, the induction programme comprised around 80 hours.

· A calendar of meetings for 2019 and 2020 was approved.

· Council adopted a revised set of Standing Orders for the conduct of its meetings based on the Local Government New Zealand revised document.

· Councillors approved the distribution of the Remuneration Pool based on Councillors overall responsibilities. This was subsequently approved by the Remuneration Authority.

· There were two citizenship ceremonies, 2 October 2019 and 20 November 2019, which conferred citizenship upon 90 applicants. Their countries of origin included Britain, Fiji, Tibge, America, South Africa, Philippines, Australia, France, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Poland, Moldova, Solomon Islands, Samoa,Uruguay, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Iran, Ireland, Thailand and India.

· The Council received 59 requests under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act in the second quarter, compared to 53 in the same quarter last year.

· There were three Council meetings, one Committee meetings and one Subcommittee meeting in this quarter. There were seventeen briefings and no public workshops.

Tāngata whenua

· Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti (TWoK) met once in this quarter.

· Planning began for Waitangi Day, with Ngāti Haumia ki Paekākāriki, Te Whakamimenga ō Kāpiti and the Council working in partnership to develop this event at Campbell Park, Paekākāriki.

· Ongoing support was provided to iwi partners to engage within council activites.

· Ongoing support was provided to other internal Council activities to facilitate iwi engagement. This work continues to inform council on the critical values and aspirations that are significant to iwi.

Performance measures

There are six key performance indicators (KPI) in the Governance and tāngata whenua activity.

Performance measures	Target	Result	Comment
On target
Council meeting agendas are available in hard copy in council service centres and/or district libraries within two working days prior to the meeting	100%	On target
Percentage of official information requests responded to within 20 working days¹	100%	On target	All 59 official information requests were responded to within 20 working days in this quarter (there were 53 requests in the same quarter last year).
Māori have representation on standing committees of Council and tāngata whenua working parties contribute to significant Council work programmes	Achieve	On target	Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti has given in-principle approval to the appointment of a Māori representative to the Council’s Strategy and Operations Committee, and agreed to convene a recruitment panel to manage the initial phase of the recruitment process. Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti has noted the opportunities for iwi nominations for decision-making bodies in the new Triennium and will bring names of suitable nominees to the next meeting.
Not yet due
Number of households that have an emergency plan and kit sufficient for three days following an emergency event	70%	On target (79%)	The Residents Opinion Survey result is 79%.
The memorandum of partnership is renewed each triennium	Achieve	Not yet due	MoP yet to be signed for the 2019-2022 triennium. It was signed for the 2016-2019 triennium in December 2017.
Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti is satisfied or very satisfied with the partnership	Achieve	Not yet due	This will be reported at the end of the year (2018/19 result was ‘Achieved’)

1. Unless a time extension is notified under LGOIMA (1987) Section 14 (1).

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 March 2020

Kāpiti Coast District Council Submission on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB)

OVERALL HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY

The aspects we generally support the intent of are:

1. Hutia te Rito concept and Maori participation

2. Consistent management of biodiversity identification and protection in NZ

3. Protecting biodiversity outside SNA’s

4. Inclusion of the precautionary principle

5. Offsetting and compensation consistency nationally

6. Restoration and enhancement provisions intent

7. The consideration of species viability as the climate changes

The aspects we find most challenging are:

1. The survey of highly mobile fauna and managing impacts on them. Depending on the survey results this may be particularly challenging, for example if it leads to a requirement for plan provisions restricting the removal of exotic trees. It is also not clear what ‘highly mobile fauna’ includes e.g. flying insects and terrestrial species such as geckos.

2. The classification of SNA values as ‘medium’ is a new concept which will be open to interpretation, debate and litigation. The Council requests providing additional time to meet these requirements for Councils which already protect SNAs in their district plans. The Council considers it would be appropriate to allow such Councils to comply with this requirement at the next district plan review period.

3. Short timeframes proposed for giving effect to the NPS-IB and the potential for significant re-litigation as a result of re-opening recently settled District Plan provisions to ensure consistency with the NPS-IB.

4. The requirement to notify a plan change to map areas identified under clause 3.8 will be an expensive exercise with regard to appeals to the Environment Court. The Council requests the NPS-IB includes a very clear and directive policy which makes it clear territorial authorities are absolutely required to give effect to the NPS-IB. The Council also requests the policy lists the types of plan provisions that will be necessary to give effect to the NPS-IB e.g. restrictive rules and standards. This would greatly assist with section 32 preparation and appeal management by potentially minimising some of the implementation costs (including legal costs).

5. The strong directive to promote restoration and enhancement by various means would be costly to implement and the Kāpiti Coast District Council would have to significantly increase the scope and scale of its biodiversity restoration programme.

6. The requirement to control activities that takes place in or affects an SNA - the effects to be avoided are very wide and difficult to quantify, as are the exceptions. With no baseline monitoring how would the Council judge whether an SNA is affected? [particularly under the precautionary approach outlined under clause 3.6].

7. The requirements of Clause 3.13 for general rules outside of SNA’s are very broad, undefined and unquantifiable.

8. The definition of ‘nationally significant infrastructure’ does not include territorial authority infrastructure. Would territorial authority infrastructure be considered use or development that has a functional or operational need to be in a particular location under clause 3.9(2)(b)? The Council recommends this be clarified.

9. There appears to be tension between the objectives, policies and implementation requirements of the NPS-IB and those of the proposed NPS-UD. For example, do the exceptions under clause 3.9(2)(b) and (c) apply to subdivision, use and development that has been identified and provided for under the requirements of the proposed NPS-UD? If so the Council considers the Part 1 of the NPS-IB should clearly explain how it relates to all other relevant national direction.

10. The general rules applying to activities undertaken outside a SNA [clause 3.13] are very broad and difficult to quantify. The Council considers it would be appropriate for the NPS-IB to provide much greater clarity and direction within clause 3.13 (1) (a), (b), and (c).

11. Clause 3.12 – appears to provide for existing uses but only if the continuation of the activity does not lead to the loss [including through cumulative loss], of extent or degradation of the ecological integrity of any SNA. What are the legal and practical relationships between the requirements of Clause 3.12 and existing use rights provided for under RMA section 10?

12. The Council is concerned that pastoral farming as an existing activity is provided for with more certainty within clause 3.12 than existing territorial authority operational functions that are not managed under a designation.

13. How does the requirement in Clause 3.5 to consider the effects of climate change on indigenous biodiversity relate to the provision of infrastructure? The impacts of climate change on biodiversity are complex and carry a degree of uncertainty, and while the Council appreciates there are many strategic responses to climate change other than building bigger pipes to increase discharge volumes what happens if the ‘precautionary approach’ effectively means Council can’t physically respond to climate change because it is unable to meet clause 3.5?

14. Some of the strong directive requirements, such as the requirement to avoid the loss of ecosystem extent and buffers (Under Clause 3.9 (1) (a)(i) & (ii)) are likely to expose territorial authorities to legal proceedings under RMA section 85 (plan provisions rendering land incapable of reasonable use). This is likely to occur when territorial authorities are meeting their obligations under NPS-IB Clause 3.8 to identify and map SNA’s in their district plan via a RMA Schedule 1 process. Due to the natural justice issues associated with being required to implement the NPS-IB but also being liable to pay compensation for having done so, the Council requests this risk to local authorities be eliminated.

15. The Council requests the terms local authorities, regional councils and territorial authorities are checked in each instance to ensure the correct term is used (e.g. Clause 3.12 which appears to require territorial local authorities to manage activities which benefit from existing use rights). It is critical for the implementation of the NPS-IB that duties, powers and functions are clearly and correctly allocated.

16. The Council requests the relationship between the NPS-IB and the requirements of RMA section 76 (4A) -(4D) is clarified. Currently the protection of trees within an urban environment allotment^{^[8]} is difficult and costly. Is it the expectation that the identification of specific trees within SNA’s identified under the NPS-IB will still need to meet the requirements of these sections of the RMA?

17. While overall, Council supports the value and importance of halting the decline in indigenous biodiversity, there is significant concern about the substantial cost burden of complying with this NPS, which will largely fall on ratepayers and landowners. Council strongly advocates for availability of funding for territorial authorities to support this important work.

DETAILED RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Q1. Do you agree the NPS-IB is needed to strengthen requirements for protecting our native plants, animals and ecosystems under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes. Clear national direction on indigenous biodiversity identification, protection, maintenance and enhancement will assist Councils to effectively implement the Resource Management Act. An improvement in the consistency of identification, monitoring and protection will result in greater certainty about the state of indigenous biodiversity and provide improvements in the maintenance and restoration of indigenous biodiversity. The directive nature of some of the proposed provisions will over time strengthen protections provided through district plans under the Schedule 1 process e.g. the requirement to avoid under Clause 3.9 (1) (a). The Council considers this type of strong national direction is required for a number of other important resource management issues the country faces, such as responding to climate change and managing subdivision, use and development affected by natural hazards.

Q2. The scope of the proposed NPS-IB focuses on the terrestrial environment and the restoration and enhancement of wetlands. Do you think there is a role for the NPS-IB within coastal marine and freshwater environments? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes. Consideration should be given to referencing and supporting the sensible and well-reasoned recommendations on the scope of the NPS-IB contained in the report of the Biodiversity Collaborative Group (BCG) (‘Scope’ section under headings ‘Freshwater’ and ‘Marine”). There is certainly a role for the NPS-IB within freshwater environments if, as the BCG pointed out, indigenous biodiversity in that environment isn’t adequately protected by other means. It seems anomalous that Regional Biodiversity Strategies are required to apply to the freshwater and coastal marine environments, yet the NPS-IB is silent in relation to them. The NPS-IB should at least make clear how its provisions align with and complement other measures to ensure indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater and coastal marine environments is adequately protected and restored.

Q3. Do you agree with the objectives of the proposed NPS-IB? Yes/no? Why/why not? (see Part 2.1 of the proposed NPS-IB)

1. Yes - in principle the objectives are supported.

Q4. Hutia te Rito recognises that the health and wellbeing of nature is vital to our own health and wellbeing. This will be the underlying concept of the proposed NPS-IB. Do you agree? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes - the Council agrees with the concept that the health and wellbeing of nature is vital to the health and wellbeing of people and supports it as an underlying principle for the NPS-IB.

Q5. Does the proposed NPS-IB provide enough information on Hutia te Rito and how it should be implemented? Yes/no. Is there anything else that should be added to reflect te ao Māori in managing Indigenous Biodiversity?

1. The NPS-IB sets out the whakatauki in full with an explanation of the meaning in section 1.7 as well as identifying that local authorities will need to work with tangata whenua to develop meaningful and tailored objectives, policies and methods to operationalise this concept. Section 1.7 provides an indication of the concept that leaves the details to local authorities working in partnership with tangata whenua. This appears to be sufficient information to start the conversations between the parties.

Q6. Do you think the proposed NPS-IB appropriately takes into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. The NPS-IB requires that tangata whenua are involved in the development of district plan provisions, identify their values and protect taonga species. The NPS-IB appears to recognise the special status of tangata whenua as separate and distinct from other interest groups, and provides a partnership, participation and protection basis for tangata whenua involvement in achieving the objectives of the NPS-IB.

Q7. What opportunities and challenges do you see for the way in which councils would be required to work with tangata whenua when managing indigenous biodiversity? What information and resources would support the enhanced role of tangata whenua in indigenous biodiversity management?

1. The resources of our tangata whenua partners are often stretched due to other commitments including the development of iwi management plans, Treaty of Waitangi settlements, resource consents, and feedback on national direction/legislative consultations and contributions to other councils and wider iwi work. The Council requests additional support to be provided by central government to its Treaty partners in giving effect to all relevant national direction.

Q8. Local authorities will need to consider opportunities for tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga over indigenous biodiversity, including by allowing for sustainable customary use of indigenous flora. Do you think the proposed NPS-IB appropriately provides for customary use? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. The Council notes this is a question best answered by tangata whenua.

Q9. What specific information, support or resources would help you implement the provisions in this section (section A)?

1. Financial – grants or other financial support for Councils or Iwi authorities to undertake assessments and enable meaningful involvement in giving effect to the NPS-IB.

Q10. Territorial authorities will need to identify, map and schedule Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) in partnership with tangata whenua, landowners and communities. What logistical issues do you see with mapping SNAs, and what has been limiting this mapping from happening?

1. The Kāpiti Coast already has 186 SNA sites mapped and included in the District Plan. The challenges we experienced in mapping these sites included getting access to private land to assess the sites, the cost for ecologists to complete this fieldwork, the accuracy of GPS equipment when in forest canopy areas, debates with landowners over the extents and values of these sites (including environment court appeals).

2. Logistical issues will be to have these areas reassessed by ecologists to determine whether they are high or medium value areas, and to add any additional areas which may not have qualified previously due to the assessment methodology used by the ecologists.

3. Inserting maps into the district plan which identify SNAs on private land is a highly contentious process which is time consuming and expensive due to the Schedule 1 process and the resulting appeals.

Q11. Of the following three options, who do you think should be responsible for identifying, mapping and scheduling of SNAs? Why?

a. territorial authorities

b. regional councils

c. a collaborative exercise between territorial authorities and regional councils.

1. None of the above. The Council considers the identification and mapping should be carried out by the Department of Conservation. This would ensure consistency throughout the country, relieve and reduce friction between landowners and councils by deflecting it to a central government agency less susceptible to local pressure and influence, and draw the Department of Conservation into collaborating with councils on biodiversity protection and restoration. One of the more significant current problems with biodiversity management is the lack of collaboration between the various agencies involved. Mapping and scheduling of the sites identified by the Department of Conservation should be done by both regional and territorial authorities, also to promote a collaborative approach.

Q12. Do you consider the ecological significance criteria in Appendix 1 of the proposed NPS-IB appropriate for identifying SNAs? Yes/No? Why/Why Not?

1. Yes, these are very similar to the criteria set out in Policy 23 of the Wellington Regional Policy Statement which have been used to identify the sites within the Kāpiti Coast district.

Q13. Do you agree with the principles and approaches territorial authorities must consider when identifying and mapping SNAs? (see Part 3.8(2) of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No for the following reasons:

a) The Council supports the long-term biodiversity goals underpinning the reasoning for proposing a management hierarchy which categorises sites as either high or medium value. However, the additional requirement to categorise the sites as either high or medium will result in significant additional cost for Councils that already have SNAs protected in their district plans. The advice from Council’s consultant ecologist is that SNAs cannot be simply updated to split between medium/high from a desktop review and this change would require significant field work. Furthermore, all landowners would need the opportunity to request a site visit by an ecologist, as it would only be fair to give them the chance to refine the assessment as it relates to their property (especially with the regulatory implications of the high category). This extra field work would take significant time and resources’. The Council considers additional time to resource this work should be given to Councils which already protect SNAs within their district plans (e.g. by enabling this to be done at the next District Plan review).

Q14. The NPS-IB proposes SNAs are scheduled in a district plan. Which of the following council plans should include SNA schedules? Why?

a. regional policy statement

b. regional plan

c. district plan

d. a combination.

1. A combination would provide for better collaboration and awareness across the different agencies.

Q15. We have proposed a timeframe of five years for the identification and mapping of SNAs and six years for scheduling SNAs in a district plan. Is this reasonable? Yes/no? What do you think is a reasonable timeframe and why?

1. No, it is not reasonable to require this timeframe for Council’s (such as the Kāpiti Coast District Council) that have recently commenced or completed District Plan reviews which include the identification of SNAs (using a broadly consistent methodology with the criteria in Appendix 1), and included objectives, policies and rules to protect these areas. To ensure the costs of having to carry out this exercise again manageable, Councils should be able to rely on their existing provisions for SNA sites for 10 years from their operative district plan date.

Q16. Do you agree with the proposed approach to identifying and managing taonga species and ecosystems? (see Part 3.14 of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, in principle the Council agrees with the approach subject to additional resourcing being provided by central government to tangata whenua.

Q17. Part 3.15 of the proposed NPS-IB requires regional councils and territorial authorities to work together to identify and manage highly mobile fauna outside of SNAs. Do you agree with this approach? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No. The requirements for highly mobile fauna are unnecessarily onerous for the following reasons:

a) The survey of these species is a sound idea but will require significant resourcing under the current wording. The Council notes the wording is all-encompassing, and could include any trees (including private exotic gardens) where threatened species have rested or fed;

b) The collection and distribution of the information about the fauna is attached to ‘best practice methods’ for managing adverse effects on these species. A significant amount of guidance is required about what this will mean in practice. A national species management guide would potentially make this possible;

c) This policy could have the unintended consequence of discouraging landowners from planting some native species, or at least bird attracting species that might attract any at-risk or threatened species at all in their gardens.

d) The requirement for provisions (Objectives, Policies and Methods) for managing adverse effects for “highly mobile fauna areas” will be particularly problematic as the requirement implies an ability to identify and map areas, however in reality this could be anywhere and could change at any time.

Q18. What specific information, support or resources would help you implement the provisions in this section (section B)?

1. Apart from central government providing funding support to territorial authorities, a wide range of support for implementation is needed in the areas discussed below:

a) The Council requests consideration be given as to whether any of the implementation requirements in Part 3 of the NPS-IB can be incorporated into the NPS-IB policies, as this would allow Councils to use RMA section 55(2A) to update their district plans to more efficiently give effect to the NPS-IB.

b) Although the Council generally supports the right to appeal district plan provisions, the Council considers it is not appropriate to allow wide-ranging appeal rights on district plan provisions which are required to give effect to compulsory national policy statements. The Council requests consideration be given to providing clear, directive policies which demonstrate it is a requirement for all Councils in the country to give effect to the NPS-IB in their plans. It would also be beneficial if policies listed the types of plan provisions that will be required to give effect to the NPS-IB - such as restrictive rules and standards. This may help reduce the financial burden on Councils to give effect to a national instrument.

c) The Council notes the current wording of Clause 3.9 (1)(a) requires a number of adverse effects on SNAs to be avoided. The Council notes the existing resource management case law^{^[9]} on the use of the term avoid requires the Council to “not allow”, or to “prevent the occurrence of”. This current wording would require the use of non-complying or prohibited activity status for the effects identified in Clause 3.9 (1)(a). The Council notes some of the listed matters are very much open to interpretation as they are not defined, such as the extent of buffering. When applied to a typical scenario where an SNA is surrounded by exotic vegetation, gardens or weed species, the implications of the avoid direction may make the management of buffers very difficult under the existing wording. Therefore, the scenario described on page 53 of the discussion document is unlikely to play out as described. The Council recommends giving careful consideration to the legal meaning of avoid under resource management case law when considering the list of effects which are to be avoided, and the potential consequences.

d) Should the list of effects which are to be avoided under Clause 3.9(1)(a) remain unaltered, the Council requests the addition of a ‘no RMA section 85 proceedings’ clause to ensure the Council is not faced with applications to the Environment Court under RMA s.85 on the grounds the district plan provisions will make land incapable of reasonable use. The Council considers it is inappropriate for an NPS to require the Councils to amend its district plan to avoid certain adverse effects, while exposing Councils to significant legal risk of being liable to pay compensation to landowners in doing so.

e) The implications for infrastructure repair and upgrading for local authorities could be severe under the current wording of Clause 3.9 a). Figure 1 shows examples of the following types of existing undesignated KCDC infrastructure which pass through existing ecological sites/SNAs within the district:

· Green areas = ecological sites/SNAs

· Red lines = waste water main

· Solid green lines = storm water main

· Dashed green lines = storm water open channel

· Green dots = stormwater inlet/outlet

· Blue lines = stream managed for stormwater purposes

Figure 1

If these sites are determined to be High value, the upgrading and repair of this infrastructure within these SNAs will likely be extremely difficult due to the proposed requirement to avoid the adverse effects listed in Clause 3.9(1).

The likely adverse effects that may result from the repair or replacement within the SNAs may include the clearance of indigenous vegetation along the length of, or portions of, the infrastructure to enable them to be removed and replaced. It is unclear how this activity would be provided for under Clause 3.12 – Existing activities in SNAs. This uncertainty arises from the length of time much of this infrastructure has been in place (decades), and how much the SNA vegetation has matured since that time. Because of this time delay, the character, intensity and scale of the effects that would be likely to result from the repair or upgrading of this infrastructure would likely be greater than before the commencement date of the NPS-IB. This would mean these existing activities are not provided for under Clause 3.12 of the NPS-IB, and it therefore follows the activities would be subject to the avoidance requirement of Clause 3.9. The potential cost implications of this are significant (re-routing infrastructure).

f) With regards to research the Council requests the Department of Conservation or the regional council be responsible for undertaking research into highly mobile species and their habitats, including the survey work required by Clause 3.15 to a level of detail appropriate to be used in District Plans.

g) Guidance – many of the implementation requirements have phrases that are open to interpretation such as “buffers”, and “necessary to maintain indigenous biodiversity”. The Council considers it would be necessary to have terms such as this clarified. This clarification must be in the NPS itself to afford it legal weight through the RMA Schedule 1 and resource consent processes.

h) Timeframes – remove some of the arbitrary timeframes in the NPS to make implementation less onerous for Councils that already protect ‘significant indigenous vegetation’ identified and protected in their district plan. The Council notes a two-year requirement to initiate a Schedule 1 process to include any newly identified sites extremely unrealistic. The Council also notes the 2-year timeframe is highly likely to overlap the appeal resolution period of the previous two-year review process.

Q19. Do you think the proposed NPS-IB provides the appropriate level of protection of SNAs? Yes/no? Why/why not? (see Part 3.9 of the proposed NPS-IB)

1. No, unless the interpretation issues and the short to medium term implementation issues identified in this submission are addressed.

Q20. Do you agree with the use of the effects management hierarchy as proposed to address adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity instead of the outcomes-based approach recommended by the Biodiversity Collaborative Group? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. In principle the use of the effects hierarchy is supported but the directive verbs (e.g. avoid) in the wording have their meanings defined through RMA case law^{^[10]}, and the legal meaning of this word will make it difficult to use in most cases without rendering land incapable of reasonable use.

Q21. Are there any other adverse effects that should be added to Part 1.7(4), to be considered within and outside SNAs? Please explain.

1. The list appears to be comprehensive.

Q22. Do you agree with the distinction between high and medium-value SNAs as the way to ensure SNAs are protected while providing for new activities? Yes/no/unclear? Please explain. If no, do you have an alternative suggestion?

1. In principle yes, subject to the interpretation, implementation and legal issues identified in this submission being adequately addressed.

Q23. Do you agree with the new activities the proposed NPS-IB provides for and the parameters within which they are provided for? (see Part 3.9(2)-(4) of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No, these activities should be provided for with the addition of other local authority infrastructure which does not benefit from a designation as discussed above.

2. The Council notes that the nationally significant infrastructure provided for under Clause 3.9(2) would capture recent examples such as the Transmission Gully Motorway and the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway. Both these are Roads of National Significance which are highly likely to have adversely affected high value SNAs, and included habitat used by five threatened and at risk bird species^{^[11]}. The Council notes that under the current wording of Clause 3.9(1)(a), the consenting of projects such as these may be made considerably more difficult.

Q24. Do you agree with the proposed definition for nationally significant infrastructure? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No. The Council does not agree that this is the only infrastructure that should be provided for by the NPS-IB. The exclusion of local electricity distribution lines, local roads, water, wastewater and stormwater systems from this definition will mean that it will be very difficult to maintain infrastructure in parts of the Kāpiti Coast that is not provided for under a designation.

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed approach to managing significant indigenous biodiversity within plantations forests, including that the specific management responses are dealt with in the NESPF? (see Part 3.10 of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. The Council considers it is appropriate for the management of significant indigenous biodiversity to fall under the NESPF, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. The Council notes the current methods used in the Kāpiti Coast District for harvesting plantation forests does not appear to leave much indigenous biodiversity in its wake.

2. It is unclear under Clause 3.10 (3) how plantation forest biodiversity areas that contain threatened or at-risk flora are to have adverse effects from plantation forestry activities managed. Managed how? Managed to achieve what outcome?

Q26. Do you agree with managing existing activities and land uses, including pastoral farming, proposed in Part 3.12 of the proposed NPS-IB? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. In principle this is a good idea and it makes sense for regional councils. However, the Council notes any new district plan provisions which are put in place as required by Clause 3.12(3) would not apply to any existing uses or activities which are being carried out under section 10. This raises the question – what existing activities (apart from farming) are being targeted from a territorial local authority perspective?

2. The Council also reiterates the issues raised under question 18 with regard to existing infrastructure which does not benefit from a designation.

Q27. Does the proposed NPS-IB provide the appropriate level of protection for indigenous biodiversity outside SNAs with enough flexibility to allow other community outcomes to be met? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Maybe, this will depend on the specific rules for use and development that are “necessary to maintain indigenous biodiversity”. There is no certainty about what this will look like and how much it will vary from plan to plan.

Q28. Do you think it is appropriate to consider both biodiversity offsets and biodiversity compensation (instead of considering them sequentially) for managing adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity outside of SNAs? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Where significant adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity are proposed the Council prefers biodiversity offsetting to be the preferable starting position due to the ‘no net loss and preferably a net gain’ requirement. This appears to offer the most opportunity to mitigate the proposed loss of indigenous biodiversity compared to biodiversity compensation.

Q29. Do you think the proposed NPS-IB adequately provides for the development of Māori land? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. The Council notes this is a question best answered by tangata whenua. It is noted however that there is a lack of any specific recognition for Māori land development in the objectives and policies. Therefore, it appears the NPS-IB does not give any specific provision for this apart from a small number of references in the implementation requirements. It is also noted that in many districts Māori-owned land still retains much indigenous biodiversity, and therefore the NPS-IB implementation may disproportionately affect Māori-owned land.

Q30 Part 3.5 of the proposed NPS-IB requires territorial authorities and regional councils to promote the resilience of indigenous biodiversity to climate change. Do you agree with this provision? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, the resilience of indigenous biodiversity to the effects of climate change is an important element in achieving Objective 1 of the NPS-IB. However, there is a need to make a stronger link with this aim to delivery mechanisms – such as Clauses 3.16 – Restoration and enhancement, 3.17 – Increasing indigenous vegetation cover, and Appendices 3 & 4 with respect to biodiversity offsetting and compensation.

Q31 Do you think the inclusion of the precautionary approach in the proposed NPS-IB is appropriate? (see Part 3.6 of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, the inclusion of the precautionary approach in the NPS-IB is useful for consenting processes as it sets a clear expectation of the approach to be adopted by decision makers in the absence of sufficient information where the effects on indigenous biodiversity are potentially significantly adverse.

Q32. What is your preferred option for managing geothermal ecosystems? Please explain.

a. Option 1

b. Option 2

c. Option 3

d. Or your alternative option – please provide details.

1. No comment.

Q33. We consider geothermal ecosystems to include geothermally influenced habitat, thermo-tolerant fauna (including microorganisms) and associated indigenous biodiversity. Do you agree? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No comment.

Q34. Do you agree with the framework for biodiversity offsets set out in Appendix 3? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, in principle it appears comprehensive and appropriate.

Q35. Do you agree with the framework for biodiversity compensation set out in Appendix 4? Yes/no? Why/why not? Include an explanation if you consider the limits on the use of biodiversity compensation set out in Environment Court Decision: Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited v Otago Regional Council as a better alternative.

1. No, the Council prefers the approach set out in Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited v Otago Regional Council, as it sets demonstrable bottom-lines to avoid specifically identified significant adverse effects on biodiversity^{^[12]}.

Q36. What level of residual adverse effect do you think biodiversity offsets and biodiversity compensation should apply to?

a. More than minor residual adverse effects

b. All residual adverse effects

c. Other. Please explain.

1. The Council notes biodiversity offsets and compensation would need to be applied to all residual effects if Objective 1 of the NPS-IB is to be met (to maintain indigenous biodiversity). However, the Council considers such an approach would not be appropriate for all residual adverse effects, and therefore considers biodiversity offsetting and compensation (in this sequence) should apply to more than minor residual adverse effects only.

Q37. What specific information, support or resources would help you implement the provisions in this section (section C)?

1. Resource requirements are outlined at question 18.

Q38. The proposed NPS-IB promotes the restoration and enhancement of three priority areas: degraded SNAs; areas that provide important connectivity or buffering functions; and wetlands. (see Part 3.16 of the proposed NPS-IB) Do you agree with these priorities? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No, unless the interpretation and implementation issues associated with buffer areas identified in question 18 are addressed and clarified in the NPS-IB.

Q39. Do you see any challenges in wetland protection and management being driven through the Government’s Action for healthy waterways package while wetland restoration occurs through the NPS-IB? Please explain.

1. The Council notes there are always potential challenges where different pieces of national direction cross paths over the same issue, and where it is not clear within the national direction how the two pieces of national direction work together.

Q40. Part 3.17 of the proposed NPS-IB requires regional councils to establish a 10 per cent target for urban indigenous vegetation cover and separate indigenous vegetation targets for non-urban areas. Do you agree with this approach? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No, not in its current form. The Council requests the ‘methods’ required to be included in regional policy statements and plans is clarified so it is clear the methods cannot include devolving this responsibility to rules and standards within district plans. The current wording would enable regional councils to effectively pass the onus onto territorial local authorities to meet the regional council’s targets under Clause 3.17. This would also pass on the costs arising from the Schedule 1 and appeals processes to territorial authorities.

Q41. Do you think regional biodiversity strategies should be required under the proposed NPS-IB, or promoted under the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy? Please explain.

1. The inclusion of a biodiversity strategy as an NPS requirement creates uncertainty, especially as provisions in district or regional plans will be in the process of being developed.

2. It is also unclear what recourse territorial authorities would have should they object to the content of a biodiversity strategy, particularly with respect to:

a. Clause 3 b) ii) - which specifies (emphasis added) the actions that will be undertaken by local authorities or central government; and

b. Clause 3 b) d) – which requires the specification of measures to be taken if milestones are not being met.

It is unclear what these actions and measures would be, and what their associated costs to territorial authorities would be. The Council request the requirement for a biodiversity strategy is changed to a requirement for a biodiversity regional plan. Such an approach would appear to fit within the remit of RMA section 63(1). This would enable territorial authorities to have greater ability via the Schedule 1 process to influence the content of the document in the event the proposed actions and measures result in significant and unreasonable costs to territorial authorities.

Q42. Do you agree with the proposed principles for regional biodiversity strategies set out in Appendix 5 of the proposed NPS-IB? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, but there should be additional requirements for inclusion of pest plant and animal control provisions to protect and enhance biodiversity, and integration of these provisions with Regional Pest Management Strategies.

Q43. Do you think the proposed regional biodiversity strategy has a role in promoting other outcomes (eg, predator control or preventing the spread of pests and pathogens)? Please explain.

1. No comment.

Q44. Do you agree with the timeframes for initiating and completing the development of a regional biodiversity strategy? (see Part 3.18 of the proposed NPS-IB) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. The completion in 6 years will be too late for use in relation to the SNA plan change required of local authorities, however a shorter timeframe would likely result in a poorly conceived strategy which would not be helpful.

Q45. What specific information, support or resources would help you implement the provisions in this section (section D)?

1. Response above for Question 18.

Q46. Do you agree with the requirement for regional councils to develop a monitoring plan for indigenous biodiversity in its region and each of its districts, including requirements for what this monitoring plan should contain? (see Part 3.20) Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, monitoring is required to inform effective biodiversity management, and to ultimately determine whether plan provisions and resource consent decisions are achieving the NPS-IB objectives. Many regional councils are already doing this.

Q47. Part 4.1 requires the Ministry for the Environment to undertake an effectiveness review of the proposed NPS-IB. Do you agree with the requirements of this effectiveness review? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes. A ten-year review of plan provisions, resource consents, designations and other decision-making appears to be a realistic timeframe for monitoring the effectiveness of the NPS-IB provisions in achieving its objectives.

Q48. Do you agree with the proposed additional information requirements within Assessments of Environment Effects (AEEs) for activities that impact indigenous biodiversity? (see Part 3.19 of the proposed NPS-IB). Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, on the proviso the issues identified above with regard to the interpretation and implementation issues that are likely to arise from the current use of the term buffer, and the issues associated with the identification of highly mobile fauna are addressed.

2. The Council requests the ability to insert the requirements of Clause 3.19 into district plans without formality (no Schedule 1 process). There is no benefit to the community (costs, resourcing, time) if Councils have to use the formal plan change process to insert mandatory information requirements into their district plans. In any case the Council notes there does not appear to be any opportunity to change the Clause 3.19 requirements in response to any submissions made on a plan change process to insert them, effectively rendering the Schedule 1 process an unnecessary expense

Q49. Which option for implementation of the proposed NPS-IB do you prefer? Please explain.

a. Implementation as soon as reasonably practicable – SNAs identified and mapped in five years, scheduled and notified in plans in six years.

b. Progressive implementation programme – SNAs identified and mapped within seven years, scheduled and notified in plans in eight years.

1. Neither are appropriate for districts, such as Kāpiti Coast, that have recently identified and protected biodiversity in their District Plans. A 10-year timeframe (from operative date of the current biodiversity provisions would be more appropriate for many councils. The timeframes suggested in the NPS would appear appropriate for Councils that do not currently protect SNAs.

Q50. Do you agree with the implementation timeframes in the proposed NPS-IB, including the proposed requirement to refresh SNA schedules in plans every two years? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No the refresh timeframe is too short. It typically takes 18 months for a plan change to be generated and completed (from initial consultation to decision) if it is not appealed. This 2-year requirement would mean that updating SNAs would be a constant task for District Planning teams if any are identified via other methods (resource consents, notices of requirement etc).

Q51. Which of the three options to identify and map SNAs on public conservation land do you prefer? Please explain.

a. Territorial authorities identify and map all SNAs including public conservation land

b. Public conservation land deemed as SNAs

c. No SNAs identified on public conservation land

1. The Kāpiti Coast District Council has prepared this response assuming Option A is what the NPS-IB proposes. However, Option B would be an efficient option for other Councils or alternatively for the Department of Conservation to undertake the assessments for their own land and provide these to the relevant Council.

2. The Council does not support Option C as public conservation land which is managed under an established conservation management strategy, conservation management plan or management plan under the Conservation Act is already excluded from having to comply with the NPS-IB^{^[13]}. The Council considers all other public conservation land needs to fall under the RMA and be subject to district plan rules.

Q52. Other option. What do you think of the approach for identifying and mapping SNAs on other public land that is not public conservation land?

1. The Kāpiti Coast District Council has undertaken an SNA assessment for all public land. Significant parts of the Council, NZTA and Regional Council’s landholdings have been identified as SNAs (regardless of ownership, designations, resource consents & existing uses). It is appropriate that all areas that meet SNA criteria are identified as SNAs are independent of land ownership.

Q53 Part 3.4 requires local authorities to manage indigenous biodiversity and the effects on it of subdivision, use and development, in an integrated way. Do you agree with this provision? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. In principle this is supported. The effects of a subdivision or development may occur on indigenous biodiversity at a distance from the development site (for example downstream or on a nearby property not involved in the subdivision or development) so integrated management is appropriate and necessary.

2. The Council notes buffer areas and areas important for connectivity between SNAs may be present on land which does not contain an SNA. This highlights the importance of taking an integrated approach if the NPS-IB objectives are to be achieved.

3. This creates a potential conflict with land supply for housing and meeting the NPS-UD, as this could create a potential restriction.

Q54. If the proposed NPS-IB is implemented, then two pieces of national direction – the NZCPS and NPS-IB – would apply in the landward-coastal environment. Part 1.6 of the proposed NPS-IB states if there is a conflict between these instruments the NZCPS prevails. Do you think the proposals in the NPS-IB are clear enough for regional councils and territorial authorities to adequately identify and protect SNAs in the landward-coastal environment? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes this is clear, however the relationship between the NPS-IB and other pieces of national direction is not. The Council requests the NPS-IB includes a clear hierarchy which shows how it relates to other pieces of national direction.

Q55. The indicative costs and benefits of the proposed NPS-IB for landowners, tangata whenua, councils, stakeholders, and central government are set out in Section 32 Report and Cost Benefit Analysis. Do you think these costs and benefits are accurate? Please explain, and please provide examples of costs/benefits if these proposals will affect you or your work.

1. The plan change costs, implementation costs and the costs arising from unintended consequences are likely to be significantly greater than the $71-247,000 indicated in the Section 32 analysis.

2. KCDC’s experience in the process of including SNAs in its proposed district plan shows that the upper estimate of $247,000 would not get close to covering the costs of completing a SNA plan change.

3. The Council notes the cost estimates in the section 32 do not include the costs of having to meet the requirements of section 76(4D) – (4D) with respect to the identification and protection of trees within SNAs which also happen to be within an urban environment allotment^{^[14]}. The costs to KCDC to comply with section 76(4D) – (4D) (Variation 1 to the Proposed District Plan) was in excess of $231,000 in planning and ecological advice alone. There are many other costs not included in this figure such as hearings commissioners and administration (draft and formal schedule 1 consultation requirements).

4. KCDC breakdown of SNA mapping and proposed district plan process based on recent SNA and tree/biodiversity protection RMA Schedule 1 processes:

Process	Cost estimate
Ecological and planning advice underpinning the identification, mapping, classification and listing of the SNAs within the KCDC proposed district plan, complying with RMA section 76(4A) – (4D) including advice during the hearing and ecological advice on appeals	$280,000
Hearing (4.5 days, 3x independent hearing commissioners, 2 x councillor commissioners) and decision writing costs	$30,000
Legal costs to resolve appeals (at $300 - $400 per hour) – these are the legal costs incurred by KCDC to resolve PDP appeals on biodiversity matters	$100,000 (@ $230 - $460 per hour)
Total	$410,000

5. The cost implications of implementing the NPS-IB are difficult to quantify but may be significant under the current wording of Clause 3.9 if the identification of ‘high’ value SNAs results in land being incapable of reasonable use. Under these circumstances Councils are likely to be liable to having to pay affected property owners financial compensation under RMA Section 85^{^[15]}. These potential liability costs have not been calculated.

6. The (presumably) unintended costs to Councils in relation to the maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure which may be within, or pass through SNAs have been vastly underestimated. Councils generally have a lot of infrastructure that is not provided for under a designation (e.g. wastewater, stormwater and water supply pipes). Under the current wording of Clause 3.9, it may be necessary for Councils to reroute important infrastructure to avoid SNAs rather than upgrade them. The costs of rerouting such infrastructure can run into the millions of dollars.

7. The estimated cost is a significant sum. The opportunity cost is that the money could have been spent on on-the-ground activities. It may be better spend working with land-owners directly on maintaining and enhancing indigenous biodiversity (e.g. trapping, fencing and planting) around the country.

Q56. Do you think the proposed NPS-IB should include a provision on use of transferable development rights? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. No. The Council considers there are better tools available to incentivise restoration and enhancement of biodiversity. The Council also considers the long-term outcomes of transferable development rights with respect to achieving the other objectives of a district plan (such as retaining productive rural land) are untested. The council also considers the recording and monitoring systems that would be required to keep a record of which development rights have been purchased from which land would be a burden on local authorities, particularly over a long time period.

Q57. What specific information, support or resources would help you implement the provisions in this section (section E)?

1. It is not necessary to require the inclusion of any of the content of Clause 3.19 into plans. The Council notes all applicants for resource consent are already required to include an assessment of the activity against any relevant NPS under Schedule 4 Clause 2 (1)(g).

2. If the NPS-IB insists the content of Clause 3.19 is inserted into plans the Council requests this all be provided for under Section 55(2A) of the RMA. There is no benefit in requiring local authorities to insert specific content into their plans but at the same time requiring local authorities to use the formal Schedule 1 process.

Q58. What support in general would you require to implement the proposed NPS-IB? Please detail.

a. Guidance material

b. Technical expertise

c. Scientific expertise

d. Financial support

e. All of above.

f. Other (please provide details).

1. All of the above, plus the response to Question 18.

Q59. Do you think a planning standard is needed to support the consistent implementation of some proposals in the proposed NPS-IB? Yes/no? If yes, what specific provisions do you consider are effectively delivered through a planning standard tool?

1. Yes, a regulation is needed to enable Councils to withdraw any conflicting provisions or make consequential amendments without formality to their plans. This could be a planning standard or an NES. The Council also requests consideration be given as to whether any other requirements in the NPS-IB could be incorporated into district plans without formality.

Q60. Do you think there are potential areas of tension or confusion between the proposed NPS-IB and other national direction? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Yes, with no hierarchies specified in national direction/proposed national direction there will be areas of tension and potential areas of confusion between them unless clarity is provided. For example:

a. would the absolute verbs used in the NPS-IB (to avoid) take precedence over the directive nature of the proposed NPS-UD to provide for additional land for housing?

b. how would the 10% urban target of increased biodiversity under the NPS-IB fit with the intensification direction under the proposed NPS-UD?

c. what status would buffers around SNAs and areas which provide connectivity between SNAs have under the proposed NPS-UD if they happen to be on land identified for future urban development?

2. The Council request that all emerging national direction clearly specifies how it relates to other national direction to enable easier implementation without having to rely on the courts to provide direction. With the emergence of more national direction than ever before it is even more necessary to ensure the relationships between them is clear.

3. As currently written, it does not seem possible to achieve all national direction and proposed national direction without there being trade-offs between them, even though trade-offs are not written into any of them. For example, land adjacent to an existing town is generally the best place to provide for additional housing capacity but this will require additional water resources (less for the river), and may result in some loss of productive land. If the land is less productive it may have indigenous vegetation or provide habitat for indigenous fauna. The development of such land is likely to be contrary to the NPS-IB. If intensification of the existing urban area is preferred to provide housing capacity in order to avoid fragmenting highly productive land, the 10% urban biodiversity target in the NPS-IB will be unlikely to be met.

4. Collectively the suite of national policy statements is putting councils in an expensive lose-lose situation without sufficient direction on how to prioritise between different NPS.

Q61. Do you think it is useful for RMA plans to address activities that exacerbate the spread of pests and diseases threatening biodiversity, in conjunction with appropriate national or regional pest plan rules under the Biosecurity Act 1993? Yes/no? Why/why not?

1. Not for territorial local authorities as this will require a different skill set. It may be appropriate for Regional Councils.

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 March 2020

Proposed National Policy Statement

for Indigenous Biodiversity

Kāpiti Coast District Council Road Testing Report

February 2020

Purpose

Kāpiti Coast District Council has been asked to provide technical feedback on the implementation implications and support requirements of the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB). This feedback will assist the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) in drafting the proposed NPSIB.

The draft NPSIB is currently open for public consultation, and Councils have the opportunity to make submissions on the purpose, intent and overall matters of the NPSIB. Kāpiti Coast District Council intends on making a submission, which will be separate to, but draw on some of the matters contained within this report. In contrast to the formal Council submission, this road testing report is purely a technical review document. It covers matters relating to costs, impacts, challenges for implementing specific policies, unintended consequences, and support required for effective implementation.

The Proposed NPSIB and supporting document can be found on the MfE website at https://www.mfe.govt.nz/consultations/nps-indigenous-biodiversity .

Background

Kāpiti Coast District Council has recently reviewed the District Plan and has just settled all appeals related to terrestrial indigenous biodiversity. The Proposed District Plan is on track to become operative in late 2020. The indigenous biodiversity provisions were some of the most difficult provisions to settle including resolving appeals from Federated Farmers of New Zealand and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society which attracted 13 section 274 parties. Resolving these appeals took over 150 hours of planner resources and cost over $100,000 in legal fees.

The indigenous biodiversity provisions were one of the significant topics of the District Plan Review, attracting 131 submissions, making 316 decision requests and 52 further submissions. The majority of these submissions sought that the strength of the Proposed District Plan provisions to protect significant indigenous biodiversity be reduced or removed. Responding to the Significant Natural Area (SNA) submissions required 20 site visits to SNA’s (ecological sites) for further fieldwork by an ecologist.

Section 1: Implementation of NPSIB policies

The policies in the Proposed NPSIB span a range of topics including biodiversity protection, effects management, the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki, resilience, restoration and monitoring. MfE has asked a series of questions around challenges for implementing the policies within the district. These questions are answered below.

Question 1 - Which policies present implementation challenges or risks to your Council?

The draft policies (Part 2) are written in a way that is open to interpretation and therefore could present implementation difficulties. Challenges also occur with Part 3 of the Proposed NPSIB, which specifies how the objectives and policies are to be implemented. In general, these implementation requirements read as if they are ‘policies’ and use very directive verbs, more so than the policies themselves.

Specifically, we have identified the following requirements that present implementation challenges:

3.2 Hutia Te Rito and 3.3 Tangata whenua as kaitiaki

Wel request resourcing is provided to assist the Council’s iwi partners in giving effect to the NSPIB.

3.5 - Resilience to climate change

We consider aiming to promote resilience to climate change is a good (and necessary) aspiration if the objectives of the NPSIB are to be achieved in the long term. However the meaningful implementation of part (a) presents a challenge for councils as “providing for the maintenance of ecological integrity through natural adjustments of habitats and ecosystems” appears to require Councils to understand and identify how ecosystems may change in the future. This requires research of complex ecosystems to be undertaken by experts, which would be costly and resource intensive.

We consider it would make sense to incorporate information on resilience to climate change to Clause 3.17, so regional councils consider resilience more directly in giving effect to the 10% coverage identification process and response. We consider the assessment under Clause 3.17 should not just be about a 10% coverage calculation. The assessment should also consider the vulnerability of the ecosystem types within those areas to climate change, and prioritise increasing them in areas where they will be more resilient in the future. This information could also be used to guide applicants and decision makers on applications which propose compensation and offsetting though requiring the creation of new areas at appropriate locations to improve ecosystem resilience to climate change.

Part (b) requirements need to be inserted into clause 3.19 so applicants must consider resilience to climate change effects when preparing resource consent applications that propose restoration, enhancement, offsetting and compensation. Resilience to climate change should also be considered for activities that affect connectivity between, and buffers around SNAs. If these matters are not added as information requirements for applicants, Councils will need to employ suitably qualified experts to provide advice to decision makers to ensure the NPSIB is being implemented as required. We strongly consider the onus should be on applicants to provide information to support their own application. It is the decision maker’s role to consider it, not source it.

3.8 – Identifying significant natural areas

The timing requirement and implications of this implementation requirement will be challenging for the Kāpiti Coast District Council. Inserting maps into the district plan which identify SNAs on private land is a highly contentious process which is time consuming and expensive due to the need for expert ecological advice, the costs associated with the Schedule 1 process and the resulting appeals. As Clause 3.9 (1) of the draft NPSIB sets out the effects which are to be avoided within identified areas, this will make the identification process even more contentious as the term avoid under case law^{^[16]} means to “not allow”, or to “prevent the occurrence of”.

The Kāpiti Coast already has 186 SNA sites mapped and included in the District Plan. The challenges we experienced in mapping these sites included getting access to private land to assess the sites, the cost for ecologists to complete this fieldwork, the accuracy of GPS equipment when in forest canopy areas, debates with landowners over the extents and values of these sites, and the extent of the rules and standards that were apply to the identified sites (including Environment Court appeals).

We support the long-term biodiversity goals underpinning the reasoning for proposing a management hierarchy which categorises sites as either high or medium value. However, the additional requirement to categorise the sites as either high or medium will result in significant additional cost for Councils like ours that already have SNAs protected in their district plans, unless this cost is deferred until the next review of the district plan.

The advice from Council’s consultant ecologist is that our SNAs cannot be simply updated to split between medium/high from a desktop review, determining high and medium status would require significant field work. Furthermore, all landowners would need the opportunity to request a site visit by an ecologist, as it would only be fair to give them the chance to refine the assessment as it relates to their property (especially with the regulatory implications of the high category). This extra field work would take significant time and resources. We consider that additional time to resource and fund this re-work should be given to Councils which already protect SNAs within their district plans.

We suggest that the identification and mapping should be carried out by DoC. This would ensure consistency throughout the country, relieve and reduce friction between landowners and councils by deflecting it to a central government agency less susceptible to local pressure and influence, and draw DoC into collaborating with councils on biodiversity protection and restoration. One of the more significant current problems with biodiversity management is the lack of collaboration between the various agencies involved. Mapping and scheduling of identified sites in plans should be done by both regional and territorial authorities to promote a collaborative approach and a more holistic understanding of the environment.

We also request the relationship between the NPSIB and the requirements of RMA section 76 (4A) -(4D) is clarified. Currently the protection of trees within an urban environment allotment^{^[17]} is difficult and costly. Is it the expectation that the identification of specific trees within SNA’s identified under the NPSIB will still need to meet the requirements of these sections of the RMA?

3.9 - Managing adverse effects on SNAs

a) The use of the term avoid in this clause does not enable any activity to happen in a ‘high value’ site if it would result in any of the listed effects. Therefore the construction of a single dwelling or the upgrading, repair or provision of infrastructure within any high value site will need to be a non-complying or prohibited activity in a plan due to the use of the word avoid in relation to high value sites in the requirement.

We note that existing resource management case law^{^[18]} on the use of the term avoid requires the Council to “not allow”, or to “prevent the occurrence of”. This current wording would require the use of non-complying or prohibited activity status for the effects identified in Clause 3.9 (1)(a). We note some of the listed matters are very much open to interpretation as they are not defined, such as the extent of buffering. When applied to a typical scenario where an SNA is surrounded by exotic vegetation, gardens or weed species, the implications of the avoid direction may make the management of buffers very difficult under the existing wording. We recommend giving careful consideration to the legal meaning of avoid under resource management case law when considering the list of effects which are to be avoided.

b) On the Kapiti Coast we are aware of 4 residentially zoned sites and 12 rural zone vacant sites which have an ‘ecological site’ (SNA) over so much of the site, many of these are likely to be a high value SNA due to their rarity (lowland forest remnants), so that it would not be possible to construct a dwelling on any of these allotments under this implementation requirement. These property owners will have a current expectation they can seek a resource consent to construct a dwelling within their property. Under the proposed wording (to avoid), any resource consent application would be unlikely to be successful.

This would mean that in implementing this NPS (through a plan change) the Council would be highly likely to be making land incapable of reasonable use on these properties and would need to compensate the landowners for loss of use under section 85 of the RMA.

Further, the requirement to avoid will mean that any new, upgraded or repaired infrastructure works within a ‘high’ value SNA could not be carried out if any of the adverse effects listed in a) would occur. We consider that it is likely that many of the 186 existing Kāpiti Coast sites will be determined to be high value, as only one ‘high value attribute within the ecological site means the site is ‘high’. Figure 1 below shows an example of existing Council infrastructure which pass through SNAs:

· Green areas = ecological sites/SNAs

· Red lines = waste water main

· Solid green lines = storm water main

· Dashed green lines = storm water open channel

· Green dots = stormwater inlet/outlet

· Blue lines = stream managed for stormwater purposes

Figure 1

The likely adverse effects that may result from the repair or replacement of this infrastructure within the SNAs may include the clearance of indigenous vegetation along the length of, or portions or, the infrastructure to enable them to be removed and replaced. It is unclear how this activity would be provided for under Clause 3.12 – Existing activities in SNAs. This uncertainty arises from the length of time much of this infrastructure has been in place (decades), and how much the SNA vegetation has matured since that time. Because of this time delay, the character, intensity and scale of the effects that would be likely to result from the repair or upgrading of this infrastructure would likely be greater than before the commencement date of the NPSIB. This would mean these existing activities are not provided for under Clause 3.12 of the NPSIB, and it therefore follows the activities would be subject to the avoidance requirement of Clause 3.9. The potential cost implications of this are significant (re-routing infrastructure can cost millions of dollars).

We also believe there is a conflict between requirements 3.7 and 3.9. While we can appreciate that there will always be a tension between allowing development and protecting SNAs, there appears to be little ability to consider any form of urban development and the provision and maintenance of three waters and road infrastructure by Councils in any identified Significant Natural Areas.

We suggest that the use of the effects management hierarchy be allowed for truly essential activities in high SNAs, and for other activities in medium SNAs which meet the no practicable alternative / functional operational need tests. No net loss would still need to be achieved and the purpose of the NPS would still need to be maintained.

3.12 - Existing activities in SNAs

The implementation of subclause (3) of this requirement is problematic because there is duplication with the restrictions of clause 3.9 and section 10 of the RMA. The protection of ecological integrity within SNAs is already provided for through clause 3.9, and the assurance that existing rights can operate without extending their adverse effects is already given in section 10 of the RMA.

The only real change to existing use rights through subclause (3) appears to be the difference between the wording same or similar (in extent, character… s10) and no greater (character, intensity… NPSIB). The NPSIB cannot override section 10, and the use of no greater, seems at best, to marginally increase the restriction on existing use rights beyond section 10. This leaves councils in a position where officers must make decisions between differing provisions of the RMA and NPSIB, ultimately leaving the council open to legal challenge.

We also have concern over the implications of subclause 3.12 (3) if councils are required to monitor all existing activities for loss to ecological integrity of all SNAs. Our compliance, monitoring and enforcements resources are already stretched to capacity and such requirements above those already established by the RMA would incur significant resourcing costs to council. If this is not the intention of the Proposed NPSIB, this should be made clearer in this implementation requirement.

Subclause 4 of the implementation requirement is challenging, as a resource consent may be required to remove vegetation on a regular basis to maintain pasture and an assessment is needed based on 4 criteria (with a lot of information on the vegetation to be cleared), to determine whether the clearance is a permitted activity or not. The information requirements are likely to cause difficulty for both the applicant and processing officers, and monitoring for the removal of regenerating vegetation will be difficult for small councils and councils with large areas of SNA’s.

It is worth noting that the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan has a relatively simple approach to regenerating vegetation (outside of SNAs) in that all vegetation can be regularly cleared (no assessment needed) unless the trees within the area to be cleared are a locally indigenous species (listed) and have reached a substantial size (specified per listed species) typically of 4m or more. This approach to existing pastoral activities is, in our opinion, more efficient and effective as costly information requirements are avoided while landowners can still regularly clear vegetation without compromising ecological integrity.

3.13 - General rules applying outside SNAs

The implementation of this provisions presents difficulty for council as the broad range of rules that could fall under the requirement to “maintain indigenous biodiversity” leaves council open to litigation over what is ‘necessary to maintain indigenous biodiversity’.

To undertake the steps required by clause 3.13, council would first need to undertake extensive surveys of the biodiversity in the district outside SNAs to determine a baseline. Decisions would then need to be made about what vegetation or habitats should be maintained, and therefore what controls on subdivision, use and development are required. This will be a highly costly process for councils, and would require significant ecological advice over a long time period. A potential alternative which would solve this issue is for a consistent national survey to be undertaken which provides more detailed information (at a district level) of biodiversity to be maintained.

If all indigenous biodiversity (insects, birds, lizards and vegetation, including species such as tutu, rushes or bracken) is to be maintained there will be problems with the interaction of this Proposed NPS with the NPS-Urban Development Capacity and the Proposed NPS-Urban Development as the consequential restrictions may inhibit the use of vacant land for urban development.

3.15 - Highly mobile fauna

The implementation of this requirement will incur costs associated with the collection and distribution of the information about the fauna is attached to ‘best practice methods’ for managing adverse effects on these species. A significant amount of guidance is required about what this will mean in practice. A national species management guide would potentially make this possible.

This policy could have a very unfortunate unintended consequence of discouraging gardeners from planting native species, or bird attracting species at all in their gardens or worse yet removing existing vegetation before the survey is carried out or before proposed district plan rules are publicly notified. Although we note it is an offence to disturb nesting habitat for threatened species under the Wildlife Act, enforcement powers sit with DoC.

Question 2 – Can you effectively implement the NPSIB in the proposed timeframes?

The proposed timeframes and funding implications will be challenging for Kāpiti Coast District Council. Many (if not all) of the above requirements have significant cost implications. These costs need to be considered in wider planning budgets and the proposed timeframes for the NPSIB may cause other priorities to be pushed back or lost. The sheer volume of national policy statements about to be gazetted will place an enormous funding burden on councils. In the case of our Council, we have already identified and protected areas of indigenous biodiversity, and have also listed and identified many thousand significant indigenous trees under RMA section 76. The requirement to undertake a second review of Proposed NPS Indigenous Biodiversity related matters and identify more trees under RMA section 76 requirements may come at the cost of reviewing other district planning issues which have not been reviewed for some time (e.g. heritage, flood hazards).

Further, the detailed assessments for implementation requirements 3.8 (Identifying significant natural areas), 3.13 (General rules applying outside SNAs), and 3.15 (Highly mobile fauna) will need to occur across the whole country over the same time period. This will result in ecologist resources being stretched significantly nationwide, creating flow on implications for implementation of this NPS.

It is unclear how the requirements of the NPSIB relate to the limitations of RMA sections 76(4A) -(4D). If the requirements of these provisions of the RMA remain in place it will make the identification process and plan changes significantly more expensive, complicated and time consuming. We recommend the relationship between these requirements is clearly addressed in the NPSIB.

Question 3 – Will NPSIB implementation align with implementation of other national direction (existing or proposed, e.g. NPS Freshwater Management)?

No, it would appear that there will be significant clashes with other NPS including the NPSUDC, Proposed NPSUD, NPS FM, the Proposed NSP HPL, and Proposed NPSFM. The issue is these different pieces of national direction do not ‘talk’ to each other. It would make sense if each new piece of national direction included clear statements on how it relates to other existing national direction.

These clashes occur because of the wording in each of the national direction which prioritises their particular activities above all else. The NPSIB talks about avoiding any loss of indigenous biodiversity’ while the NPSUDC says talks about providing for housing and business land everywhere there is a demand for such land, then the NPS freshwater says ‘prioritise water for river ecology’.

It does not seem possible to achieve all of these on the same area of land. For example, land adjacent to an existing town is generally the best place to provide for additional housing capacity but this will require additional water resources (less for the river), and may result in some loss of productive land. If the land is less productive it may have indigenous vegetation or provide habitat for indigenous fauna, or it may be highly productive but contain significant SNAs. The competing requirements of the existing and emerging national direction will cause significant implementation issues unless their relationship to each other (hierarch) is not clarified.

The NPS FM requires all wetlands to be mapped by Regional Councils, and the NPSIB requires the promotion of the restoration of wetlands which are degraded. We note this requirement to identify degraded wetlands is likely to capture large areas of land which have not traditionally been considered to be wetlands. This will likely further conflict with the objectives of the NPS-UDC and proposed NPS-UD.

Question 4 – Would you implement the required changes through a single plan change or multiple plan change? What would be your target year for notifying plans to comply with the NPSIB?

Ideally through a single plan change as this is most efficient, however the complexity and resources required may mean that two or more plan changes are required – particularly if the Council must continue to comply with the requirements of RMA section 76(4A) – (4D).

Question 5 – Is there any other implementation related feedback you would like to provide?

It would be helpful if District Plans which identified SNAs prior to the gazettal of this NPS could be exempt from full compliance with this NPSIB until their 10-year plan review. Ideally such councils would be identified in the same way as they are in the National Planning Standards.

Section 2: Cost implications and impact

The NPSIB proposed to strengthen requirements for the protection, management and restoration of biodiversity. MfE has asked what the cost implications and community impact of the NPSIB implementation will be.

Question 6 – How much do you expect implementation of the NPSIB to cost your council:

a) As a total cost for NPSIB only activities, and

b) As a total biodiversity programme cost, which may include non-NPSIB biodiversity activities you already undertake?

Table 1: Cost estimates for NPSIB activities.

Requirement	Existing	New	Cost estimate
Identify SNAs	Identified using Wellington RPS criteria which are very close to Appendix 1	Assessment of ‘high and medium for approx. 235 SNAs in the District	$100,000 of ecologist consultants based on the cost for the 2008-2015 work done for KCDC.
Identify trees within urban area allotments within identified SNA’s, map and schedule them in the district plan to meet requirement of RMA sections 46(4A) – (4D)	Many trees within urban area allotments are already identified and protected via Variation 1 to the PDP – however only those trees with a biodiversity value of 9 out of 10 or higher were included.	Assessment of all other trees within urban area allotments will need to be identified as ‘high’ or ‘medium value, and then specifically identified and mapped in the PDP.	Variation 1 – Urban Trees costs: Ecological survey and advice: $61,555 Planning consultant: $170,000. Total $231,555 (excludes hearing commissioners and administration)
Consultation with affected landowners			$50,000 planner and facilitator
Iwi involvement in implementing the NPS			$80,000 based on $140 an hour remuneration for iwi time (or alternatively 1 FTE) including time to identify taonga species and develop objectives, policies and rules to recognise Hutia Te Rito
Hearing Commissioners			$80,000 assuming a panel of 3 commissioners
Appeals on plan change			$100,000 - $300,000 for legal costs to resolve all appeals
Total for part a)			Total Estimate of $561,555 – $761,555

Table 2: Additional costs for biodiversity program.

Requirement	Existing	New	Cost estimate
Hutia te Rito	N/A	Socialise and embed Hutia te Rito within the organisation, and communicate to public as underpinning new approach	Combination of external consultant for socialisation and internal biodiversity, policy and communications staff time plus communications costs - $25,000
Clauses 3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7, 3.9, 3.10,3.12.3.13, 3.15,3.16,3.17,3.19	N/A	Implementing these provisions would require councils to develop and maintain a high level of awareness of, and expertise in administering, biodiversity protection policies. Achieving this culture change would require recruitment of at least 1 suitably qualified FTE to coordinate and facilitate implementation through the planning, policy, partnership, communications and compliance departments	$80-100,000 per year ongoing at least until the first round of necessary policy and plan changes were completed.

Impact

With the above information presented, it is a timely reminder that these additional costs need to be recuperated through the mechanisms available to local government. In the absence of external funding of these costs, the additional costs to ratepayer’s will justifiably incur scrutiny from elected members and costs to existing budgets will come at a cost to other council operations. For context, in the Kapiti Coast District every additional $690,000 in expenses represents a 1% rise in rates to the community. The outcome of these costs will inevitably be a balance of the following possibilities:

a) NPSIB implementation requirements are adequately funded through increased costs to ratepayers.

b) NPSIB implementation requirements are adequately funded through changes to existing budgets.

c) NPSIB implementation requirements are not adequately funded and desired outcomes are not achieved.

In order to achieve the first two possibilities, councils need to be able to demonstrate to elected members the value which NPSIB implementation adds to their local communities. The associated documents which have been released alongside the Proposed NPSIB have helped and will help to do this. However, for councils who have already undertaken SNA identification, the value added from NPSIB implementation will be less obvious if we are required to redo existing SNA identification work within the short timeframes proposed.

Question 7 - Does your Council have the existing capacity and capability to implement the NPSIB? If not what expertise are you missing?

No. Kāpiti Coast District Council will need to implement the NPSIB at the same time as other national direction including the NPSUD(C) NPSHPL and NPSFM as well as National Planning Standards. We estimate that a minimum of one additional full time senior/principal policy planner would be needed.

Kāpiti Coast District Council does not have an in-house ecologist available to undertake the assessments required and would likely require this capability.

It is difficult to estimate capacity implications for resource consent and Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement operations. However, the Council may be required to employ an ecologist to peer review and provide independent advice on ecological assessments supporting resource consent applications.

Question 8 - Which of the following FTE’s are included in your response to question 7?

Table 3: FTE Requirements.

	Existing	Needed
Policy Planners	3.5	4.5
Scientists/ecologists	0	1
Iwi engagement staff	3	3
Biodiversity staff	1	1
Consents	5	6
Monitoring and compliance	1	3
Other (communications & engagement)	1	1
Total	14.5	19.5

Question 9 - What external expertise will you need to bring in to implement the NPSIB? Any information on FTE of these is useful but not essential.

Council will need help from a specialist terrestrial ecologist over a period of several years. Ideally this would be as an employee however the reality of Council salaries is that it will be very difficult to recruit a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist when they will be highly in demand. It is likely that Council will need to contract a consultant ecologist for the necessary assessments, fieldwork evidence to hearings and appeals required.

Experienced planners are also currently scarce across the country with most Council’s in the Wellington Region having a senior or principal planner vacancy at the current time.

Question 10 - How do you think the NPSIB will impact the different parts of your local community, eg iwi, landowners? How do you think this will affect implementation?

The NPSIB will be likely to place a significant resourcing burden on the Council’s iwi partners.

The landowners and other stakeholders who have been involved in the recently completed biodiversity related District Plan changes are unlikely to be pleased with going through similar matters in a plan change process within the proposed timeframes.

The imposition of new biodiversity requirements on a community that has only recently settled the indigenous biodiversity debates will not be welcomed by the ‘ratepaying’ community due to the high cost and likelihood of substantial litigation on plan changes.

Section 3: Support required.

The proposed NPSIB provisions will require most councils to do more than identified in the guidance material (for example having to comply with RMA section 76(4A) – (4D).

The support needed is MfE to ensure the NSPIB provides sufficient clarity and addresses the implementation issues, uncertainty, and unintended consequences identified in the Council’s submission and this road testing report.

Question 11 - Across all policies, what kind of support would be required for you to effectively implement the NPSIB?

1. Plan making process – We request the NPSIB includes a very clear and directive policy which makes it clear territorial authorities are absolutely required to give effect to the NPS-IB. The Council also requests the policy lists the types of plan provisions that will be necessary to give effect to the NPS-IB e.g. restrictive rules and standards. This would greatly assist with section 32 preparation and appeal management by potentially minimising some of the implementation costs (including legal costs).

2. Research – We suggest that DoC are best placed to undertake research into highly mobile species and their habitats including the survey work required by clauses 3.5 (resilience to climate change) and 3.15 (highly mobile fauna) at a level sufficient to be used in District Plans.

3. Guidance – Many of the implementation requirements have phrases that are open to interpretation such as “necessary to maintain indigenous biodiversity” which it would be very helpful to have clarified (ideally in the NPS but if this is not possible) in guidance material. Any guidance needs to be available when the NPS comes into effect, or very soon after as otherwise it will be useless to assist implementation. Preferably the NPSIB itself will contain sufficient clarity to render guidance material unnecessary.

4. Financial – Funding for the additional requirements described above for councils and iwi authorities would ensure more effective and meaningful implementation of this NPS.

5. Timeframes – Removal of the arbitrary timeframes in the NPS to make implementation less onerous for Councils that already protect ‘significant indigenous vegetation’ in their District Plan. This includes the initial 5-year timeframe and subsequent 2-year review requirement. These timeframes (especially the 2-year requirement) are too short and will result in constant plan changes for SNAs (including the appeals process).

Question 12 - If your district has a large area of public land, what supporting measures will you need to implement the relevant policies?

The Kāpiti Coast district has approximately 50,000 hectares of DoC estate and most of this is already identified as ‘significant indigenous vegetation’ with protection in the District Plan. If the further assessments (such as high/medium assessment or highly mobile fauna) were required for this land it would be helpful if DoC could provide the necessary resources for this assessment.

[1] Note that there are other work programmes and projects reported in the ‘Across Council Work Programmes’ section of this report (and in that chapter in Appendix A) that are not included in Figure 1.

[2] This is a net effect of the improvement in the grid emissions factor and a countervailing increase in electricity consumption in the Operations division of 13.7% in 2018/19, compared to the previous year. Further investigation will be needed to determine why electricity consumption increased so much.

[3] The major part of this increase in energy use (and hence emissions) from Aquatics, is due to 2018/19 being the first full year of operation of the Ōtaki Pool since it was closed for rebuilding in February 2017. However, even allowing for that there has been a significant increase in electricity consumption (8.5%) compared to 2015/16 (the first full year of use prior to the rebuild). Gas use has increased 3.6% compared to 2015/16. Presumably these energy consumption increases are largely due to the additional plant installed to operate separate filtration and pumping systems at Ōtaki Pool.

[4] In this division the consumption of electricity increased slightly (by 1.05%) on the previous year. This was more than offset by the change in the grid-emissions-factor.

[5] Section 37 allows for the extension of a statutory timeframe provided special circumstances apply or the applicant agrees; and the interests of any person or the community is not affected and unreasonable delay is avoided.

[7] The Kāpiti Coast already has 186 SNA sites mapped and included in the District Plan.

[8] RMA Section 76(4C): urban environment allotment or allotment means an allotment within the meaning of section 218—

(a) that is no greater than 4 000 m²; and

(b) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and

(d) that is not reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977) or subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977.

[9] Supreme Court – Environmental Defence Society Incorporated versus The New Zealand Kind Salmon Company Limited, [2014], NZSC 38, at [96]; and High Court - Environmental Defence Society v Otago RC [2019] NZHC at [109].

[10] Supreme Court – Environmental Defence Society Incorporated versus The New Zealand Kind Salmon Company Limited, [2014], NZSC 38, at [96]; and High Court - Environmental Defence Society v Otago RC [2019] NZHC at [109].

[15] RMA section 85: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM233831.html

[16] Supreme Court – Environmental Defence Society Incorporated versus The New Zealand Kind Salmon Company Limited, [2014], NZSC 38, at [96]; and High Court - Environmental Defence Society v Otago RC [2019] NZHC at [109].

[17] RMA Section 76(4C):

urban environment allotment or allotment means an allotment within the meaning of section 218—

(a) that is no greater than 4 000 m²; and

(b) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and

[18] Supreme Court – Environmental Defence Society Incorporated versus The New Zealand Kind Salmon Company Limited, [2014], NZSC 38, at [96]; and High Court - Environmental Defence Society v Otago RC [2019] NZHC at [109].


AGENDA Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Strategy and Operations Committee will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 5 March 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
James Jefferson Group Manager Place and Space

Cr James Cootes	Chair
Cr Gwynn Compton	Deputy
Mayor K Gurunathan	Member
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Member
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member

Description	Fees and charges includes all non-rates revenue earned by the Council for providing services to the community. This also includes fines and penalties charged.
Variance Analysis	Minor variance, additional revenue forecast for the year.

Description	Interest is incurred on borrowings.
Variance Analysis	The lower finance expense is due to the Council finishing the year last year with lower net borrowings and due our lower average cost of borrowings.

2020/21	$
Coastlands Aquatic centre	48,000
Escarpment	201,000
Otaki Beach development	333,000
Self-Insurance fund	510,000
Districtwide access system	120,000
2021/22	$
Drinking water Safety and resilience	6,410,000

Asset classification	Revaluation date	Subsequent revaluation
Land and buildings (including land under roads revaluations)	31 Mar 2020	Every three years thereafter
Parks and reserves structures	31 Mar 2020	Every three years thereafter
Water, wastewater and stormwater (including seawalls and river control)	31 Mar 2020	Every two years thereafter
Roading and bridges, (excluding land under roads)	31 Mar 2021	Every two years thereafter

Strategy and Operations Committee meeting	Contract
5 December 2019 (covering the period 1 July to 31 September 2019)	Contract 2018/C210 – Stormwater Asset Renewals in Paraparaumu Catchment 7. The Contract was awarded to Interflow New Zealand Limited for the sum of $640,227.
	Contract 2019/C247 – Kapiti Coast East West Connection Business Case. The Contract was awarded to Jacobs New Zealand Limited for the sum of $268,726.
	Contract 2019/C250 – K9 Kapiti Road Shared Path Project. The Contract was awarded to Brian Perry Civil for the sum of $1,156,919.
	Contract 2019/C278 – Traffic Counting Services 2019-2022. The Contract was awarded to Quik-Shot trading as AES Limited for the sum of $265,486.
	Contract – Youth Development Centre (and satellite services). Zeal Education Trust continues the nine-year term contract (currently in year five). Three-year renewal at $281,000 per annum.

Report prepared by:	Approved for submission by:

Julie Lloyd	Gary Simpson
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & LICENCING OFFICER	GROUP MANAGER ASSETS AND SERVICES