Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Finance and Performance Committee MEETING

19 November 2018

Order of Business

NOTE: The Finance and Performance Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Committees will conduct business in the following order:

- Finance and Performance Committee

- Audit and Risk Committee

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

4. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting of 15 October 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Uplifting of report regarding Proposed Increase to the Admission and Concession Rates at The Lido and Freyberg Aquatic Facilities Page 11

7. 2018 Rating Valuations Page 17

Memorandum, dated 5 November 2018 presented by the Strategy Manager Finance, Steve Paterson.

8. New emergency operations centre (EOC) Fit Out - Programme 1513 Budget Adjustment Page 25

Memorandum, dated 1 November 2018 presented by the Head of Emergency Management, Stewart Davies.

9. Detailed Costings of Infill Lighting Required to Achieve Compliance for P and V Category Street Lights Page 29

Memorandum, dated 17 October 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

10. E-Waste Recovery Options in Palmerston North Page 53

Memorandum, dated 30 October 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

11. Committee Work Schedule Page 63

12. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
13.	Follow Up - Aquatic Facilities	Third Party Commercial	s7(2)(b)(ii)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer (Ray Swadel), Acting General Manager – Strategy and Planning (David Murphy), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Acting General Manager – Customer (Sheryl Bryant), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), Acting Operations Manager (Ray McIndoe) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Acting Governance and Support Team Leader (David Murphy) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Rachel Corser and Courtney Kibby), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

Acting Property Manager (Bryce Hosking), because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 15 October 2018, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Susan Baty (in the Chair), and Councillors Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

Non Members:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Duncan McCann, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (Council Business) and Councillor Rachel Bowen (early departure Council Business).

Councillor Rachel Bowen entered the meeting at 11.07am during consideration of clause 57. She was not present for clauses 54 to 56 inclusive.

Councillor Tangi Utikere left the meeting at 12.03pm during consideration of clause 59. He was not present for clauses 59 to 60 inclusive.

76-18

Apologies

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 76-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am

The meeting resumed at 10.50am

When the meeting resumed Councillor Rachel Bowen was not present.

77-18

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Jim Jefferies.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting of 17 September 2018 Part I Public and Part II Confidential be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 77-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Abstained:

Councillor Tangi Utikere.

78-18

Treasury Report for 3 months ended 30 September 2018

Memorandum, dated 8 October 2018 presented by the Finance Manager, Stuart McKinnon.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Jim Jefferies.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the performance of the treasury activity for the 3 months ending 30 September 2018 be noted.

Clause 78-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

79-18

Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - Quarter Ending 30 September 2018

Memorandum, dated 5 October 2018 presented by the Finance Manager, Stuart McKinnon and the Head of Community Planning, Andrew Boyle.

Councillor Rachel Bowen entered the meeting at 11.07am

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Jim Jefferies.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the capital expenditure carry forward values in the 2018/19 Annual Budget be increased by a further $145,000 for Programme 94 - Walkways and Shared Path – Purchase of Land to Extend Network.

2. That Council receives the September 2018 Quarterly Performance and Financial Report and note:

a. The September 2018 financial performance and operating performance.

b. The September 2018 capital expenditure programme progress together with those programmes identified as unable to be completed this financial year.

Clause 79-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

80-18

Proposed Increase to the Admission and Concession Rates at The Lido and Freyberg Aquatic Facilities

Memorandum, dated 24 September 2018 presented by the Acting Property Manager, Bryce Hosking.

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the item be left to lie on the table and reported to the November 2018 Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

Clause 80-18 above was carried 11 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann and Aleisha Rutherford.

81-18

Report on Bacterial Status of Palmerston North Groundwater Bores

Memorandum, dated 26 September 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

Councillor Tangi Utikere left the meeting at 12.03pm

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Lew Findlay QSM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee note the bacterial status of Palmerston North groundwater bores as provided in the memorandum dated 26 September 2018 and titled `Report on Bacterial Status of Palmerston North Groundwater Bores.’

Clause 81-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

82-18

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Finance and Performance Committee receive its Work Schedule dated October 2018.

Clause 82-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 12.06pm

Confirmed 19 November 2018

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Finance and Performance Committee

MEETING DATE: 19 November 2018

TITLE: 2018 Rating Valuations

DATE: 5 November 2018

PRESENTED BY: Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance, Finance

APPROVED BY: Grant Elliott, Chief Financial Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Finance and Performance Committee

1. That it be noted the 2018 City rating revaluation has been completed and new values, with an effective date of 1 September 2018, has been authorised for implementation by the Valuer-General through the issue of an unqualified audit opinion on 26 October 2018.

1. ISSUE

The 2018 city rating revaluation has recently been completed. This memo and an associated presentation will highlight the main outcomes.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Process

There is a legislative requirement that the Council commission a revaluation of the City (for rating purposes) at least once every three years. As the previous revaluation was completed in 2015 a new revaluation is required this year. The Council engaged Quotable Value (QV) to undertake this task and this work has now been completed.

The process for the revaluation is determined by the Rating Valuations Act and the Rules issued by the Valuer-General pursuant to that Act. Key dates in the revaluation timetable are:

Effective date of revaluation	1 September 2018
Implementation date of new values	27 October 2018
Approximate date of posting to new owners	7 November 2018
Period for objections closes	13 December 2018

The new values cannot be implemented without approval from the Valuer-General. His unqualified audit opinion was received on 26 October 2018.

The 2015 values have been used as the rating base for the 2018/19 rating year. The new values will become effective for rating purposes on 1 July 2019. At the present time the City Council uses the land value as the base for its general rate whilst Horizons utilises the capital value for many of its rates.

2.2 Revaluation Outcome

The previous revaluations in 2009, 2012 & 2015 saw minimal movements in property values following reasonable movements in 2003 and 2006 and a long period with little growth before that.

	2006	2009	2012	2015	2018
Land value	+125%	-0.5%	-1.1%	+4.7%	+56.0%
Capital value	+54.7%	+1.9%	+0.1%	+3.7%	+28.7%

In this latest revaluation the capital value of the City has increased by 28.7% and the land value by 56% as shown in the following table:

Summary changes by Category

Sector	No. of rating units	2018 CV ($000)	% Change	2018 LV ($000)	% Change
Farming	297	499,820	13.1	412,001	12.9
Crop & Specialist	94	90,598	22.9	62,255	29.1
Forestry	17	8,825	13.0	8,084	13.1
Lifestyle	1,499	1,042,220	24.5	527,523	40.8
Residential	28,484	11,914,872	36.3	7,047,543	67.9
Commercial	1,083	2,016,616	17.7	825,204	29.0
Industrial	1,018	1,453,097	24.8	662,501	37.3
Other	763	1,795,567	24.4	475,614	58.9
Utilities	81	714,465	-5.3	33,504	10.6
TOTAL	33,336	19,536,079	28.7	10,054,327	56.0

Average residential movements by valuation roll are shown in following table:

Residential – Rating Value movements by Valuation Roll No. since 2015:

Valuation Roll	Area	Average CV $	Average LV $	CV change %	LV change %
14030	Ashhurst	357,000	169,000	43.6	92.5
14590	Airport	402,000	217,000	37.5	71.4
14640	Awapuni	331,000	209,000	52.2	94.3
14630	Awatapu	378,000	235,000	43.7	79
14690	Brightwater	371,000	243,000	41.2	91.4
14040	Bunnythorpe	295,000	143,000	42.5	98.5
14740	CBD Central	358,000	202,000	38.6	65.2
14660	Central	470,000	290,000	31.1	51
14550	Central West	386,000	257,000	36.4	68.4
14500	Cloverlea	468,000	262,000	43.7	101.1
14570	Freyberg	358,000	220,000	41	83
14520	Highbury	300,000	167,000	41.7	90.3
14670	Hokowhitu	498,000	326,000	30.7	50.4
14560	Hospital	468,000	310,000	33.8	57.6
14471	Kelvin Grove - newer area	475,000	254,000	34.1	41.6
14470	Kelvin Grove - older area	486,000	245,000	36.3	66
14710	Lagoon	781,000	503,000	24.3	46.6
14050	Longburn	303,000	143,000	41.8	115
14510	Milson	389,000	233,000	40.8	85.1
14680	Parklands	424,000	271,000	35.8	72.8
14480	Racecourse	469,000	258,000	34.2	74.2
14620	Rangiora	355,000	223,000	40.8	84
14730	Riverdale	418,000	261,000	38.6	69.2
14580	Roslyn	330,000	197,000	44.4	98.7
14450	Rural - Eastern	615,000	268,000	27.2	47.3
14461	Rural - Old Manawatu area	469,000	215,000	29.0	40.0
14460	Rural - Western	558,000	270,000	32.3	47.8
14700	Summerhill	571,000	297,000	28.3	41.2
14600	Takaro East	330,000	207,000	38.7	75.2
14540	Takaro West	315,000	195,000	40.1	99.4
14610	Terrace End	425,000	263,000	34.9	60.9
14650	West End	362,000	229,000	43.6	74.6
14530	Westbrook	328,000	180,000	37.3	88.5
14720	Winchester	477,000	315,000	35.3	58.5
	All	418,000	247,000	36.3	67.9

Movements for the main areas of commercial and industrial properties are shown in following table:

Commercial/Industrial - Changes in the main areas

		Commercial		Industrial
Area (Roll)	No	CV change %	LV Change %	CV Change %	LV Change %
Central Commercial (14740)	394	12.2	26.0	16.7	32.8
Northern Fringe Commercial (14610)	229	17.5	21.6	19.0	20.3
Western Fringe Commercial (14550, 14560, 14600)	269	21.3	33.1	22.9	40.1
Eastern Fringe Commercial (14650, 14660, 14670)	149	22.7	30.4	18.8	41.4
Terrace End Suburban (14570, 14620, 14680, 14690)	89	28.6	45.6	25.2	51.5
Highbury/Awapuni Suburban (14520, 14530, 14540, 14630, 14640)	51	28.1	65.1	36.2	74.5
Hokowhitu/Summerhill/Riverdale (14700, 14710, 14720, 14730)	61	26.7	44.1	38.7	79.4
Northern Industrial (14460, 14470, 14580, 14590)	384	31.2	45.5	25.3	36.9
Western Industrial (14500, 14510)	308	23.5	32.8	23.8	31.2
Villages (14030, 14040, 14050)	87	31.3	82.2	29.9	59.8
Rural (14440, 14450, 14461, 14490)	44	19.6	28.6	23.8	47.8

2.3 Potential Impact on Rating Incidence

The new valuations do not generate additional rates revenue for the Council. They do, however, impact on the allocation of rates from 1 July 2019. The land value is the base for the general rate. A system of differential rating charges a different rate in the dollar to the each of the various differential rating categories. The portion of the total value in each category influences the general rates allocated to each category.

The table and the graph below show there has been a significant movement in the share of the total land value from Non residential and Rural & Semi-Serviced to Residential. This will lead to the residential sector bearing a greater share of the general rate than previously.

	% of old CV	% of new CV	% of old LV	% of new LV
Single Unit Residential	60.1	63.0	63.0	68.2
Multi Unit Residential	3.2	3.2	3.1	3.3
Miscellaneous	3.0	2.8	2.7	2.5
Non Residential	20.2	18.4	16.0	13.4
Rural & Semi-Serviced	13.5	12.7	15.1	12.6

In addition to that the movement in land values has not been consistent within the residential sector. The most significant movements, in percentage terms, have been for properties in the lower to mid land value band. This is demonstrated in the following table:

2015 Land values ($)	2018 Land Values ($)	Market Movement
75,000	155,000	106%
100,000	190,000	90%
200,000	320,000	60%
300,000	450,000	50%
400,000	580,000	45%
500,000	710,000	42%
600,000	840,000	40%

The following graph shows the number of properties in each band of %age movement in the land value. For example, 9,214 single unit residential properties had land value increases of between 50% and 75%.

A presentation will be made to the Committee to supplement this report.

3. NEXT STEPS

Property owners will have the opportunity to consider individual property valuations and lodge objections if they wish. All objections will be reviewed and a decision made as to whether or not any alteration to the values is warranted. The outcome will be formally communicated to each objector.

Council staff will analyse the new values, and assess what effect they will have on rates incidence so that this can be incorporated in the information contained in Council’s annual plan for 2019/20.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Not Applicable
Contribution to strategic direction	Determining rating valuations every three years is a legislative obligation that is required to enable the Council to set rates.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Finance and Performance Committee

MEETING DATE: 19 November 2018

TITLE: New emergency operations centre (EOC) Fit Out - Programme 1513 Budget Adjustment

DATE: 1 November 2018

PRESENTED BY: Stewart Davies, Head of Emergency Management, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Ray Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That approval be given to bring $200,000 forward one year in the LTP from 2019/20 to 2018/19 for Programme 1513 – New emergency operations centre (EOC) Fit Out to enable timely design and consenting of the fit out.

1. ISSUE

1.1 As part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP) Council has approved a budget of $903k under programme 1513 - New Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) Fit Out in year two (2019/20) of the LTP.

1.2 At the time of preparing the LTP it was understood that the requirement for the budget would not be required in its entirety until July 2019 at the earliest.

1.3 Since preparing the budget, the project has matured to the point that the phasing of the budget is clearer. The building will be available for occupancy from October 2019.

1.4 Without budget available in 2018/19 to enable the design and costing, the construction contractor will not be able to procure the fitout materials at the same time as construction resulting in increased costs.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 1 July 2017 the Earthquake-prone Buildings Amendment Act 2016 took effect. In the future all emergency services are required to operate out of an importance level 4 (IL4) building. Both PNCC and HRC have responsibilities under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to provide emergency centres to facilitate the response to, and recovery from an emergency event.

2.2 Currently both councils operate their respective emergency centre’s from buildings which are constructed to IL2 meaning either significant structural strengthening of existing buildings or alternatively moving their emergency operations to meeting building act requirements.

2.3 Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council Holdings (MWRCH) is developing the site at 17-23 Victoria Avenue. The proposed new building will be 100% new building standard (NBS) for an IL4 building making it suitable accommodation for emergency management facilities.

2.4 The plan is to co-locate emergency operation/coordination centres for PNCC and HRC to leverage opportunities for shared space, equipment and staff learning thereby enabling efficacy of operation. The facility will be purpose designed, comprise space for each council and shared facilities and meeting requirements for 48 hours off-grid post event functionality.

2.5 The Emergency Operations facilities will be leased from the building owner on a long term basis.

2.6 Programme 1513 – New Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) fit out in year two (2019/20) of the 2018-28 LTP has a $903k budget to fitout the space with specialist equipment to enable the above needs to be met.

3. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Safe Community Plan The action is: Work with Horizons and government agencies to develop a plan to relocate the emergency operations centre into a more appropriate location and purpose built facility (by end of 2018/2019).
Contribution to strategic direction	Having the PNCC Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) operate out of a purpose built facility in a more appropriate location will ensure that critical work in times of emergency will continue to operate.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Finance and Performance Committee

MEETING DATE: 19 November 2018

TITLE: Detailed Costings of Infill Lighting Required to Achieve Compliance for P and V Category Street Lights

DATE: 17 October 2018

PRESENTED BY: Robert van Bentum, Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Ray Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Finance and Performance Committee

1. That the Committee receive the report titled “Detailed costings of infill lighting required to achieve compliance for P and V category street lights” dated 17^th October 2018.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Committee Work Schedule includes an item requesting detailed costings of infill lighting to achieve compliance for P and V category street lights. The infill lighting work is being undertaken under approved Programme 1367 included in the 2018-28 10 Year Plan.

2. Background

2.1 As part of the previous 2015-25 LTP Council had approved funding for upgrading of existing streetlights throughout the City with LED luminaires to replace less efficient older technology from two programmes:

· Capital Renewal – Programme 74 – Street Light Replacements

· Capital New Programme - 1274 City Wide Street Lighting Upgrade to Current LEDs

2.2 The scope of the work comprised replacing luminaires on the existing light poles. The provision of additional new capital funding was based on the significant benefits associated with reduced energy costs and reduced maintenance costs due to the longer service life of the luminaires. Note that areas of the City yet to be undergrounded under Programme 829 were not included in these works.

2.3 During implementation of the LED replacement works through 2017 Council received several complaints from residents about the light levels in some streets where LEDs had been installed. Officers reported to Council on several occasions during 2017 and confirmed the existence of level of service gaps in some streets where light pole spacings and designs did not deliver on current minimum standards for light levels.

2.4 In response to the concerns around levels of service deficiencies, Officers commissioned an external consultancy assessment of the city roading network to confirm compliance with the relevant standard and identify those streets requiring remedial action. The work included development of a three level priority ranking as well as robust and detailed cost estimates for the remedial work to bring street lights up to the required standard. The estimated total costs for the upgrades to P and V categories are summarised in Table 1 below and outlined in greater detail in the attachments.

Table 1. Estimated Costs for Streetlight Infill Improvements.

P category total	Estimated cost
Priority rating 1	$1,976,400
Priority rating 2	$1,189,500
Priority rating 3	$37,000
Total	$3,202,900

V category total	Estimated cost
Priority rating 1	$1,730,500*
Priority rating 2	$559,500
Priority rating 3	$181,500
Total	$2,471,500
*Includes $240,900 State Highway costs
Grand Total	$5,674,400

2.5 Officers presented a report to Council’s Audit and Risk Committee on 20 November 2017 outlining the estimated costs for the programme of work. That report outlined the work required to be completed and allocated priority for works on a number of criteria, broadly as follows: Priority 1: Streets with significant pole spacing issues, trees creating shading, or locations requiring a greenfield design approach; Priority 2: Streets with relatively straightforward design solutions and or low level traffic volumes; Priority 3:- Marginal compliance issues only.

2.6 Council subsequently approved the inclusion of funding in the 2018-28 10 Year Plan within Capital New Programme 1367 - Streetlight Infill Improvements. A total budget of $5.734 million was approved over 7 years ($5.4 million adjusted for inflation) as detailed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Capital New Programme 1367 - Streetlight Infill Improvements.

2018/2019	2019/2020	2021/2022	2022/2023	2023/2024	2024/2025	2025/2026
$446k	$865k	$884k	$904k	$951k	$974k	$710k

2.7 Council Officers sought approval from the Finance and Performance on 18 June 2018 to award the tender for works to implement Programme 1274 Stage 2 works. The award of tender was approved and the Committee passed the following additional resolution:

“2. That the Chief Executive report back on detailed costings of infill lighting required to achieve compliance in P and V categories”, being the subject of this report.

3. Report on Progress and Costs

3.1 Martin Street was the first street to be upgraded, at a cost of $24,052.25. Work was completed as part of Programme 74 during 2017/18. The initial estimate for work in Martin Street was $40,000, but following detailed design the actual scope of work was significantly reduced. Council has received positive feedback from at least one resident since that work was completed.

3.2 Implementation of the 2018/19 programme of work has started and streets identified in Table 3 below are being progressed. The works will be funded from the budget allocated for Programme 1367 of $446,000. Work may in part be supplemented from Programme 74, a renewal programme with an annual budget of $135,000, where asset renewal is required. The selection of the priority for implementation is based on the categories outlined in the consultant’s report and reference to historical complaints lodged with Council.

3.3 To date construction works have been completed under one contract and a tender accepted for a second area as summarised below in Table 3. Based on actual costs to date the estimated costs prepared by the external consultant and used to inform the programme budget in late 2017 are proving to be robust.

Table 3. Programmes 1367 – Progress Summary

Programme / Street	Estimated costs	Cost to Date	Current Status
Programme 1367 (2018/19)
Chippendale Crescent (incl. Gainsborough and Sheraton)	$51,000	$59,122.50	Completed
Apollo Parade (incl Gemini, Saturn, Jupiter & Venus)	$265,900	$208,323.65	Tender accepted
Sutherland Crescent (incl. Shetland, Waterford & Kimberley)	$56,000	Not available (n/a)	Design stage
Panako Place	$18,000	n/a	Design stage
Aintree Crescent (incl. Caulfield, Kentucky and Carbine)	$67,000	n/a	Design stage
Havelock Avenue	$48,500	n/a	Briefed for design
Totals	$506,400	$267,446.15

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Council will continue implementation of Programme 1367 as design work is completed. Routine monitoring of progress will be available through quarterly reporting as the programme is delivered. At this early stage there is no reason to believe the programme cannot be delivered for the approved budget, however any funding issues will be addressed through the Annual Plan process.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Strategic Transport Plan The action is: • Identify and implement a package of safety measures across the network. • Maintain street lighting and energy efficiency across the network.
Contribution to strategic direction	Council has a substantial investment in street lighting, which supports safe movement and access for people and goods around the transport system. Programme 1367 contributes to this by raising the standard of existing street lighting to conform with the relevant national standard current today. The benefits to the community are enhanced safety, reduced costs and a more liveable city.

Attachments

1.	Infill Lighting Cost Schedule P Lights 2017 ⇩
2.	Infill Lighting Cost Schedule V Lights 2017 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Finance and Performance Committee

MEETING DATE: 19 November 2018

TITLE: E-Waste Recovery Options in Palmerston North

DATE: 30 October 2018

Presented By: Robert van Bentum, Transport and Infrastructure Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Ray Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Finance and Performance Committee

1. That the information provided in the Report dated 30 October 2018 and titled ‘E-Waste Recovery Options in Palmerston North’ be received and used to inform the preparation of a further Report on the results of the first six months of reduced E-Waste Recovery fees to be considered by the Finance and Performance Committee in February 2019.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Following consideration of a report titled “Report on Proposal for 6 Month Trial of Free E-Waste Drop-Off Service, the Committee requested: That the Chief Executive report back on options for Palmerston North City Council to increase e-waste recovery in the city.

2. Background

2.1 In the absence of any mandated or government funded stewardship scheme for end of life electrical and electronic waste in New Zealand, e-waste recycling services are either fragmented or patchy. The majority comprise: voluntary, not for profit initiatives or fee for service provided by commercial companies. This is in contrast to overseas examples where product stewardship or extended producer responsibility schemes provide funding for e-waste recycling and recovery. A levy is charged at point of sale to cover the recycling and recovery costs at end of life.

2.2 E-waste recycling typically comprises end of life disposal of electronic and electrical items once any residual life has been exhausted following re-sale. Larger appliances such as washing machines, fridge and freezers can usually be disposed of through metal recyclers. However, many smaller items have limited easily recoverable component materials.

2.3 For a majority of items, the cost of responsibly recycling and re-processing items to recover the valuable materials far outweighs any returns achieved. As a result, significant funding is required to support e-waste recycling and recovery.

2.4 Even where recycling and recovery of e-waste is undertaken for the recovery of metals and other components, a portion of many items cannot be recycled and must be landfilled. This particularly applies to many plastic casings, mountings and cables. Ensuring the net environmental outcome of e-waste recycling is greater than the disposal to landfill requires careful verification of product traceability and selection of providers committed to safe and sustainable recovery and reprocessing.

2.5 Currently there are only a small number of e-waste processors offering a full reprocessing service. Typically, once products are broken down, component parts are sent to third party processors. For the metals and some plastics New Zealand processors are typically used, while for specialty components such as circuits boards, these are usually sent to overseas based processors. Other recovered materials of low value such as plastic cases and wire casings are sent to landfill.

2.6 In some locations community enterprises have been set up which carry out the product breakdown, recover the high value items for re-sale and send the remainder of the material for further processing or to landfill.

2.7 The current e-waste recycling service offered by Council is provided by Auckland based provider, E-Cycle Limited. This has been in place since 2014, following a review by staff of a range of New Zealand based recycling processing service providers. E-Cycle Limited is a well-established company, with high standards and a process of traceability of its products, providing e-waste recycling services to over 20 Councils, community groups and landfill operators. E-Cycle has significant contracts with 3 large international electronics re-processors to take a significant portion of recovered components e.g. circuit boards.

2.8 Officers have independently visited E-Cycle’s processing facility in Auckland. E-Cycle can provide customised reports if required detailing product serial numbers, data destruction and recycling certification. E-Cycle complies with the Basel and Stockholm conventions and adheres to the Australian/NZ e-waste standard.

2.9 Council historically provided e-waste recycling services on a full cost recovery basis, whereby the fee charged for items covered the transport costs and reprocessing charges from Council’s Auckland based provider E-Cycle. Council staff costs for managing the e-waste are not charged, but recovered as part of the operating costs for the Ferguson Street Recycling Centre, which is funded from the public rubbish and recycling targeted rate.

2.10 The volumes of e-waste presented at Ferguson Street had been relatively modest, for 2017/18 around 2.8 tonnes per month (33 tonnes per year), comprising up to 3,050 items annually. The quantity of e-waste being presented has remained steady since 2014. The fees charged are certainly a factor in any increase in tonnages of e-waste that is bought in for recycling. E-waste recycling is expensive when compared to disposal within the household rubbish collection (PNCC or privately provided).

2.11 To encourage an increase in the quantities of e-waste being diverted from landfill to recycling and recovery, Officers recommended a reduction in the fees and charges effective 1 July 2018, this was presented in the fees and charges report to the 19 March 2018 Finance and Performance Committee Meeting.

2.12 That report included a recommendation to rationalise and simplify the e-waste charges. The report included provision to reduce many of the charges for e-waste to encourage greater e-waste diversion from landfill. The proposal was adopted by Committee. However, an additional resolution was adopted as follows:

2.13 That fees for household e-waste categories of ‘TV and Electronics”, ‘Consumer Electronics’ and ‘Other’ excluding photocopiers, be set to $0 on a trial basis, for a 6 month period FY19, subject to a financial analysis report being bought back to Finance and Performance April 2018.

2.14 A report was presented to the 23 April 2018 Meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee, titled ‘Report on Proposal for 6 Month Trial of Free E-Waste Drop-Off Service”, presenting information on e-waste recycling and a financial analysis of setting the fee for e-waste to $0, excluding photocopiers for a period of 6 months in 2018/19.

2.15 The Finance and Performance Committee at the 23April 2018 made the following recommendations:

2.16 That the decision on zero waste fees be deferred until after the results of the first six months of reduced fees are available.

2.17 That the Chief Executive report back on options for Palmerston North City Council to increase e-waste recovery in the city.

2.18 That the report, estimating an additional cost of $300,000 for a six month trial of e-waste charges for $0 for ‘TV and Electronics’, ‘Consumer Electronics’ and ‘Other’ excluding photocopiers be received.

2.19 This report seeks to respond to the recommendation in Clause 2.12: That the Chief Executive report back on options for Palmerston North City Council to increase e-waste recovery in the city.

3. current actions to increase e-waste diversion

3.1 The fees and charges were reduced effective 1 July 2018 as adopted by Council following the fees and charges report presented to the 19 March 2018 Finance and Performance Committee.

3.2 Table 1 below, summarises the new fees compared with the fees previously charged.

Table 1: E-Waste Fees – Current and Previous Year

Item	Current Fees (2018/19)	Previous Fees (2017/18)
TV’s and Computers
Desktop Computers/Servers	Free	Free
Mice	Free	Free
Small Computer Items (e.g. speakers/keyboards/docking stations/hubs/modems/switches/routers)	$2	$4
Copier Toner (per kg)	$4	$4
UPS	$5	$5
Laptops and Tablets	$5	$6
Computer Monitors	$10	$12 - $17
Printers/Scanners/Fax Machines	$15	$15
TV’s	$20	$25 - $40
Photocopiers	$50	$70
Consumer Electronics
Mobile Phones	Free	Free
GPS Systems	Free	Free
Digital Camera’s	Free	Free
Stereos/Car Stereos/Gaming Consoles	$2	$7
Miscellaneous (per kg)	$2	$3
DVD/VCR/CD Players	$5	$7
Household Appliances
Small Appliances (e.g.heaters/fans/toasters/kettles/blenders/alarm clocks/phones/cameras)	$2	$6
Medium Appliances (e.g. vacuum cleaners/microwaves)	$5	$12
Large Appliances (e.g. fridge/freezers/washing machines/dryers/dishwashers)	$25	$29
Other
Batteries from handheld devices (up to 2kg)	Free	Free
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs	$1.50	$1.50
Bulk Batteries (quantities over 2kg) (per kg)	$5	$5

3.3 In preparation for the reduced fees for e-waste at Ferguson Street Recycling Centre, Officers undertook a marketing/communications campaign to promote the new fee structure and, in addition to increase awareness of the e-waste recycling service option available.

3.4 Various strategies were implemented on consultation with the Communications and Marketing Team, these are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: E-Waste – Communications and Marketing Strategies

Strategy	Location(s)	Timing	Cost
Radio Advertising	More FM, The Sound, Magic	23 – 30^th June	$1,995
Facebook	N/A	From 30^th June	Nil
Leaflets/DLs/Posters	Various	July Onwards	$1528
Media Release	N/A	5^th July 2018	Nil
Website		1^st July 2018	Nil
Print Billboards	Grey Street The Plaza	July - September	$5,500
Digital Billboards	Broadway Main Street Bus terminal (4)	July	$1,600
Bus Backs	Various	July - August	$2,050
Short Videos (2)	N/A	December/January	$2,200
Total			$14,873

3.5 Further marketing and communications initiatives are either in development or being considered to further increase awareness of e-waste recycling options available. These are summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 3: E-Waste – Communications and Marketing: In Process and Under Consideration

Strategy	Location(s)	Timing	Proposed Cost
Facebook (Boost)	N/A	December/January	$300
Cinema Advertising	Downtown Cinemas	4 Weeks	$1,725

The short videos are currently in development and are expected to be ready in November 2018. Officers are proposing to post them to Facebook during December 2018 and January 2019, followed up by cinema advertising in early 2019.

3.6 The impact of the reduced fees effective 1 July 2018, and associated communications and marketing there has been a noticeable increase in the number of items received at Ferguson Street. There was a significant increase in the first month (July) of the reduced fees, this has fallen away slightly.

3.7 A summary of the quantities received in the three-month period (July – September 2018) are shown in Table 4, along with the extrapolated figures for 2018/19 and a comparison to quantities received in 2017/18.

Table 4: E-Waste – Quantities of items received July – September

Item	Qty (Jul-Sep 2018)	Qty (est.) 2018/19	Qty 2017/18
TV’s and Computers
Desktop Computers/Servers	14	55	201
Mice			-
Small Computer Items (e.g. speakers/keyboards/docking stations/hubs/modems/switches/routers)	217	865	494
Copier Toner (per kg)	1	1	-
UPS	15	30	9
Laptops and Tablets	99	400	231
Computer Monitors	155	620	331
Printers/Scanners/Fax Machines	140	560	442
TV’s	328	1,300	464
Photocopiers	7	25	13
Consumer Electronics
Mobile Phones/GPS/Digital Camera’s	0	0	1
Stereos/Car Stereos/Gaming Consoles	140	560	119
Miscellaneous (per kg)	145*	580*	579*
DVD/VCR/CD Players	72	290	179
Household Appliances
Small Appliances (e.g.heaters/fans/toasters/kettles/blenders/alarm clocks/phones/cameras)	215	860	253
Medium Appliances (e.g. vacuum cleaners/microwaves)	172	690	287
Large Appliances (e.g. fridge/freezers/washing machines/dryers/dishwashers)	13	50	30
TOTAL ITEM COUNT	1,587	6,305	3,054

* Not included in total as this is a weight figure not an item count

3.8 Table 4 above shows that in the first three months the number of e-waste items bought into Ferguson Street for recycling is currently just over half the total number received for 2017/18. If this trend continues, Officers are expecting a total of 6,300 items for 2018/19. This represents a 100% increase (doubling) in the number of e-waste items from 2017/18.

3.9 A total of approximately 33 tonnes of e-waste was processed by E-Cycle in 2017/18, Officers expect that approximately 55 tonnes will be diverted in 2018/19.

3.10 The significant increase has had an impact on the capacity at Ferguson Street to handle the volumes of items received. Additionally, there has been a financial impact in the operation of the Ferguson Street Recycling Centre. If the volumes received at Ferguson Street continue at a similar rate, Officers estimate the net financial position will be reduced by $30,000 for 2018/19.

3.11 Officers are in advanced discussions with a local provider who will be able to take a portion of the e-waste. This provider will largely take computers and computer accessories for recycling and recovery. Where possible, items will be refurbished for reuse. This does not have any contractual implications with Councils current provider E-Cycle.

4. potential options to increase e-waste recovery

4.1 Several further interventions could be considered to lift the diversion of e-waste in Palmerston North. Possible options have been summarised in Table 5 below. Options considered range from reasonably cost effective that will likely result in minor to moderate increases in diversion, through to options that have the potential to be very costly.

4.2 Table 5: E-Waste – Possible Options to increase diversion

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Regular communications (e.g. Radio Advertising, Billboards, cinema, FB)	· Minor increase in diversion likely	· Funding could be directed to further fee subsidies
Further fee reduction	· Moderate increase in diversion likely	· Increases funding requirement from Council · Ferguson St capacity/conflicts between activities
Fee reduction on specific items (e.g. TV’s/Monitors)	· Moderate increase in diversion likely · Removes barrier for illegal dumping of these items	· Increases funding requirement from Council · Ferguson St capacity/conflicts between activities
One off amnesty days for specific e-waste items (e.g. TV/Monitors)	· Moderate increase in diversion likely · Removes barrier for illegal dumping of these items	· Increases funding requirement from Council · Ferguson St capacity/conflicts between activities
Establish Drop Off Points at existing Council locations	· Increases accessibility · Relieves pressure on Ferguson Street	· Moderate - High level of funding required from Council
Investigate options to provide a partial dismantling hub locally	· Reduce transport costs · Job creation in local economy	· High level of funding required from Council

5. summary

5.1 Several interventions have been considered by Officers as described in Table 5 above to improve the recovery of e-waste from landfill, ranging from regular communications through to provision of a local dismantling hub (possibly in conjunction with a commercial enterprise or community organisation), or working with other Councils.

5.2 The fee reduction effective 1 July 2018 has seen a significant increase in the number of items received at Ferguson Street for recycling.

5.3 If Ferguson Street remains the only location to receive e-waste, coupled with further fee reductions it is likely that capacity and resourcing could become an issue that would need addressing.

5.4 Significant fee reductions for e-waste could result by default in the establishment of a ‘regional product stewardship’ subsidy for e-waste funded by Palmerston North City Council Ratepayers.

5.5 Officers suggest that Council continue to lobby central government to introduce a mandatory product stewardship scheme for e-waste similar to other jurisdictions.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Waste Plan The action is: Investigate asset management for the rubbish and recycling activity
Contribution to strategic direction	Contribution to the development of future options to assist with the planning of the future direction for the Waste Activity

Attachments

Nil

Susan Baty (Chairperson)
Jim Jefferies (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Adrian Broad	Leonie Hapeta
Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke	Lorna Johnson
Vaughan Dennison	Karen Naylor
Lew Findlay QSM	Bruno Petrenas