Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 6 April 2022

Council MEETING

6 April 2022

Order of Business

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. Farewell to the Chief Executive Heather Shotter Page 7

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 9

“That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 2 March 2022 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 19

“That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of 16 March 2022 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Reports

7. Draft Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Amendment (e-scooters) - Approval for Consultation Page 29

Report, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager.

8. Infrastructure Capital Works Dashboard January 2022 Page 111

Memorandum, presented by Sue Kelly, Acting Manager Project Management Office.

9. Deliverability Planning in Response to Covid - Briefing Page 115

Memorandum, presented by Sarah Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer.

10. Update on the Main Street West Cycleway Page 123

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Senior Climate Change Advisor and Sarah Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer.

11. Shareholding in FoodHQ Innovation Limited Page 131

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.

12. Trustee for Caccia Birch Trust Board Page 183

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager.

13. Review of Appointment of Directors & Trustees Policy Page 187

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager.

14. Exemption of the Manawatū-Wanganui Disaster Relief Fund from being a Council Controlled Organisation Page 219

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager.

15. Work Schedule Page 223

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

16. Presentation of the Part I Public Community Development Committee Recommendations from its 9 March 2022 Meeting Page 227

“That the Committees recommendations be adopted or otherwise dealt with.”

17. Presentation of the Part I Public Planning & Strategy Committee Recommendations from its 9 March 2022 Meeting Page 229

“That the Committees recommendations be adopted or otherwise dealt with.”

18. Presentation of the Part I Public Finance & Audit Committee Recommendations from its 23 March 2022 Meeting Page 231

“That the Committees recommendations be adopted or otherwise dealt with.”

19. Presentation of the Part I Public Environmental Sustainability Committee Recommendations from its 30 March 2022 Meeting Page 235

“That the Committees recommendations be adopted or otherwise dealt with.”

20. 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
21.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 2 March 2022	For the reasons setout in the ordinary minutes of 2 March 2022, held in public present.
22.	Minutes of the extraordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 16 March 2022	For the reasons setout in the extraordinary minutes of 16 March 2022, held in public present.
23.	Tender Award – Contract 04113 Transport and Three Waters Design Panel	Third Party Commercial and Negotiations	s7(2)(b)(ii) and s7(2)(i)
24.	Minutes of the extraordinary meeting – Part IIB Confidential – 16 March 2022	For the reasons setout in the extraordinary minutes of 16 March 2022, held in public present.

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.

[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 Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 02 March 2022, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (in the Chair) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

Apologies:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford (for lateness).

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford entered the meeting at 9.24am during consideration of clause 4. She left the meeting at 10.08am and entered the meeting again at 10.27am during consideration of clause 4. She was not present for clauses 1 to 4.1 inclusive.

Councillor Rachel Bowen was not present when the meeting resumed at 11.30am. She was not present for clauses 5 to 10 inclusive.

1-22

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 1-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

2-22

Presentation - New Year's Honours 2022

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Karen Naylor.

RESOLVED

1. That Council note that congratulations have been conveyed on behalf of the Council to the local recipients of the New Year’s Honours 2022.

Clause 2-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

3-22

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett.

RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 20 December 2021 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 3-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Reports

4-22	Ferguson/Pitt Street Intersection Upgrade Report, presented by Sandra King, Acting Group Manager Transport and Development. Councillor Aleisha Rutherford entered the meeting at 9.24am. Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 10.08am.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta. RESOLVED 1. That Council endorses the modified Ferguson/Pitt Street Intersection Upgrade design (Option 1) and proceeds to tender.
	Clause 4.1-22 above was carried 13 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett and Lorna Johnson. Councillor Aleisha Rutherford entered the meeting again at 10.27am.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED 2. That Council directs the Chief Executive to plan and undertake further investigations, to identify additional safety management options and timings. This includes another signalised crossing at Linton Street.
	Clause 4.2-22 above was carried 12 votes to 4, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Lorna Johnson. RESOLVED 3. That Council directs the Chief Executive to report to Council with additional safety management options and timings.
	Clause 4.3-22 above was carried 15 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillor Lew Findlay QSM.
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Lorna Johnson.
	Note: On a motion ‘That Council directs the Chief Executive to report to Council with an option for a temporary cycle lane trial in the additional road space created in Ferguson Street’ the motion was lost 5 votes to 11, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lorna Johnson and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. The meeting adjourned at 10.58am. The meeting resumed at 11.30am. Councillor Rachel Bowen was not present when the meeting resumed.

5-22	Update to Delegation Changes for emergency purpose Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Brent Barrett. RESOLVED 1. That where the New Zealand government has placed limits on Palmerston North that would require Democracy and Governance staff and/or Elected Members to work from home OR where the Chief Executive (or in their absence Deputy Chief Executive) in concurrence with the Chair (or in their absence Deputy Chair) has determined that staff and/or member capacity limits the holding of meetings in person, then that particular Council/Committee meeting will move online, meeting at their scheduled times via digital means according to LGA Sch.7, s.25B, under the Epidemic Preparedness COVID-19 Notice 2020. In the event that a standing committee or a meeting of Council cannot be serviced, the Chief Executive will advise the Chair of the committee (or in their absence the Deputy Chair or in their absence the Mayor) that the committee or Council meeting will need to be cancelled and any urgent business moved to the next appropriate meeting. 2. That where Palmerston North is under the COVID-19 Protection Framework “Traffic light Orange, or Green,” Council and Committees will continue to meet in person following public health guidance, unless Recommendation 1 is in effect. 3. That where Palmerston North is under the COVID-19 Protection Framework “Traffic light Red,” Council and Committees will continue to meet in person following public health guidance with those present required to present a New Zealand government regulated Vaccine Pass, unless Recommendation 1 is in effect. 4. That Council note that where the Epidemic Preparedness COVID-19 Notice 2020 remains in force, members, staff and the public may choose to attend meetings remotely or in person, with those present in person required to present a New Zealand government regulated Vaccine Pass. Digital access to the meeting will be provided for members who request to attend remotely. 5. That the delegations relating to the Business Continuity Committee be updated according to Attachment 1. 6. That Council rescind Council resolution 28-20.
	Clauses 5.1-22 to 5.6-22 above were carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Brent Barrett. RESOLVED 7. That Council agree that attendance statistics of members will not be recorded, other than to ensure that the Local Government Act (Sch 7, s.5(1)(d)) is met, tor the period for which Recommendation 1 is in effect.
	Clause 5.7-22 above was carried 8 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillors Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

6-22

Council Appointments

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager.

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Orphée Mickalad.

RESOLVED

1. That Council appoint Councillor Findlay as the councillor liaison on the Seniors Reference Group for the remainder of the Council term.

2. That Council appoint Councillor Renee Dingwall as the councillor liaison on the Pasifika Reference Group for the remainder of the Council term.

3. That Council appoint Mayor Grant Smith as the elected member on the Design Working Party for Te Motu o Poutoa for the remainder of the Council term.

Clause 6-22 above was carried 12 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Renee Dingwall and Lew Findlay QSM.

7-22

Submission to the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill (Huia Street Reserve)

Memorandum, presented by Jono Ferguson-Pye, City Planning Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council note the Submission to the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill (Huia Street Reserve).

Clause 7-22 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Note:

Councillor Brent Barrett declared a conflict of interest on the above item and withdrew from discussion and removed himself from the table.

8-22

Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Susan Baty.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive its Work Schedule dated March 2022.

Clause 8-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

9-22

Finance & Audit Committee Part I Public - 23 February 2022

Consideration was given to Finance & Audit Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Karen Naylor.

RESOLVED

1. Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - Quarter Ending 31 December 2021

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Quarterly Performance and Financial Report – Quarter Ending 31 December 2021’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 23 February 2022.

2. That Council note and approve that the capital expenditure and associated revenue values in the 2021/22 Long Term Plan Budget relating to Three Water Reform funding will be changed as per the details in Appendix 4 of this report.

3. That the Chief Executive quantify the likely underspend across PN City Council 2021/2022 events and events-related budgets and bring forward a report on options to reallocate funds to provide relief and support to the city's events sector.

4. That a report is presented to the March Finance & Audit Committee meeting outlining ‘expected / forecast variations’ to operational budgets.

5. That ongoing reporting on variations to operational budgets is included in future quarterly reports, as outlined in clause 210 of the Delegations Manual.

2. Awapuni Park - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Awapuni Park Community and Recreation Centre Incorporated

1. That Council approves notifying the public of the proposal to grant a lease at Awapuni Park, 22 Newbury Street, Palmerston North to Awapuni Park Community and Recreation Centre Incorporated, in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That the Council notes the land area affected by the lease to Awapuni Park Community and Recreation Centre Incorporated is described as part of Lot 97 DP20548. The lease area is shown in Figure One of this report.

3. Bunnythorpe Recreation Ground - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Bunnythorpe Community Centre Association Incorporated

1. That the Council approves notifying the public of the proposal to grant a lease at Bunnythorpe Recreation Ground, Raymond Street, Palmerston North to Bunnythorpe Community Centre Association Incorporated, in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That the Council notes the land area affected by the lease for Bunnythorpe Community Centre Association Incorporated is described as part of Lot 82 DP217. The lease area is shown in Figure One of this report.

4. Huia Street Reserve - Manawatū Lawn Tennis Club Lease Proposal

1. That Council approves entering a new lease with Manawatū Lawn Tennis Club Incorporated for part of the Huia Street Reserve, Palmerston North for a term of 10 years with a right of renewal for another 10 years.

2. That Council notes the lease will not include an early termination clause.

Clause 9-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

10-22

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

RESOLVED

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

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.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 20 December 2021	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 20 December 2021, held in public present.
14.	PNCC Wastewater Consent Renewal Irrigation requirements - Decision on funding early land negotiation and purchase	Third Party Commercial and Negotiations	s7(2)(b)(ii) and s7(2)(i)
15.	Part IIB - Chief Executive Contract	Privacy	s7(2)(a)
16.	Part IIB - Chief Executive Recruitment	Privacy	s7(2)(a)

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

Clause 10-22 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 12.03pm

Confirmed 6 April 2022

Mayor

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 16 March 2022, commencing at 11am.

Members

Present:

13-22

Additional Items

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

That Council receive the following additional item:

Item 7 - Selecting Consultant for Chief Executive Recruitment

Reason for Urgency: To enable Council to start the recruitment of a Chief Executive immediately

Reason for Lateness: The deadline for a response from the recruitment companies was on the day of the publication of the agenda.

Clause 13-22 above was carried.

14-22	Recommendations from the Committee of Council Part I Public – 2 March 2022 Consideration was given to the Committee of Council recommendations below.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED 1.That the uniform annual general charge be modelled at $200, $100 and $0 and reported to Council on 16 March 2022. 2. That the draft annual budget include an assumption the differentials for the general rate will be modified as outlined in Table 1 of the report and that the uniform annual general charge will be $300.
	Clauses 14.1-14.2 above were carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED Clause 1- 22: Annual Budget (Plan) 2022/23 - Adopting Supporting Information and the Consultation Document 1. That the Chief Executive incorporate the assumptions regarding carry forwards of capital programmes from the 2021/22 year as detailed in Schedule A in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget. 2. That the Chief Executive incorporate the deferrals of capital programmes from 2022/23 to later years as detailed in Schedule B. 3. That a budget of $65,000 be allocated to programme 2129 to undertake a trial of a free rubbish bag a month to low income households. 4. That the following proposed new Operational programme is removed from the draft 22/23 Annual Budget, and is included in a list titled: “Considered but not included”: • Programme 2136 – City Marketing Campaigns - $150,000 5. That the following proposed Operational programme is removed: • Programme 2135 - $21,000 – LGNZ Conference 6. That an additional budget of $100,000 is allocated to continue that COVID-19 Relief Fund for 2022/23. 7. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to operating programmes as detailed in Schedule C in the draft 2022/23 Annual Budget, subject to the resolutions 3 to 6 above. 8. That the Chief Executive incorporate the changes to assumptions and operating income and expenses as summarised in Schedule G in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget. 9. That the following proposed Capital New programme is added to the draft 22/23 Annual Budget: • $300,000 for on-demand crossing Ferguson/Linton Street. 10. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to capital renewal programmes as detailed in Schedule D in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget. 11. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to capital new programmes as detailed in Schedule E in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget, including resolution 9 above. 12. That the following programme’s funding is reduced: • Programme 86 - $103,000 – (capital renewal) Furniture replacements – reduce to $50,000. 13. That the following programme’s funding is reduced: • Programme 2047 - $154,000 – (capital new) Furniture transformation – reduce to $75,000. 14. That the Chief Executive incorporate the programmes with no proposed change to the budget shown in year 2 of the 10 year Plan as detailed in Schedule F in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget, incorporating resolutions 12 and 13 above. Clause 3-22: Annual Budget (Plan) 2022/23 - Adopting Supporting Information and the Consultation Document 1. That the Chief Executive incorporate the outcomes from recommendation 1 into the updated versions of the supporting information and consultation document to be presented for adoption at the Council meeting on 16 March 2022.
	Clauses 14.3-14.17 above were carried 10 votes to 6, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

15-22	Annual Budget (Plan) 2022/23 - Adopting Supporting Information and the Consultation Document Memorandum, presented by Cameron Mackay, Acting Chief Financial Officer Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance. Councillor Naylor moved an amendment to include the $ amounts alongside items on page 7 and 8 of the consultation document. This will improve clarity for the reader. The Mayor thanked the Finance Team for their hard work.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Grant Smith. RESOLVED 1.That the Council adopt the Supporting Information (Attachment 1) as the material relied upon to prepare the Consultation Document for the 2022/23 Annual Budget (Plan). 2. That the Council adopt the Consultation Document (Attachment 2) for the 2022/23 Annual Budget (Plan) “with $ amounts included alongside items on pages 7 and 8”. 3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated authority to make minor amendments to the Consultation Document prior to publication.
	Clauses 15.1-15.3 above were carried.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Brent Barrett. Amendment: That the words “with $ amounts included alongside items on pages 7 and 8” be added to the end of recommendation 2.
	The amendment above was carried.

Exclusion of Public

16-22

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

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

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
7.	Selecting Consultant for Chief Executive Recruitment	Third Party Commercial	s7(2)(b)(ii)
8.	Part IIB - Confirmation of Part IIB Minutes 2 March 2022	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
9.	Part IIB - Appointment of Acting Chief Executive	Privacy	s7(2)(a)
10.	Part IIB - Chief Executive Contract	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)

Clause 16-22 above was carried.

The public part of the meeting finished at 12.05PM

Confirmed 6 April 2022

Mayor

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Draft Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Amendment (e-scooters) - Approval for Consultation

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Consultation Document – Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Amendment (e-scooters), as attached as Attachment 1, be approved for public consultation.

2. That the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to approve minor changes to the Consultation Document prior to publication.

Summary of options analysis

Problem or Opportunity	Limitations with the current approach of issuing e-scooter operators with mobile trading permits under the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw provide the opportunity to develop a new regulatory framework. This new framework for public hire and shared micromobility services involves amendments to the Bylaw and development of new processes requiring consultation with the community.
OPTION 1:	Approve the consultation document for public consultation
Community Views	Some initial views have been sought from identified stakeholders on the scope of the proposal. Some suggestions have been incorporated into the draft proposal, but these and other stakeholders may have further suggestions to make through a formal consultation process.
Benefits	Consulting with the community on these proposals gives them the opportunity to provide detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Risks	If extensive feedback is received that warrants a significant revision of the proposal, then further consultation may be required which would not be able to be completed before the election. As a consequence, the existing permits would expire in November 2022 unless the Chief Customer Officer made a decision to extend them.
Financial	No significant financial implications have been identified.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the consultation document for public consultation
Community Views	Some initial views have been sought from identified stakeholders on the scope of the proposal. Some suggestions have been incorporated into the draft proposal, but not consulting on the proposal would prevent the community from being able to give feedback on the specific details of the proposal.
Benefits	There are no identified benefits of this option.
Risks	The main risk of not consulting on the proposal is that this would limit the Council’s ability to regulate the activity of e-scooter operations, which could lead to increased safety risks - such as an unregulated number of operators increasing the overall size of the fleet.
Financial	The Council has no specific fees or charges for e-scooter operators, and therefore no effective way to recover costs related to this activity.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Three e-scooter operators have permits to operate e-scooters for hire from a public place. During the development of the permits in 2021 staff identified that the Council had no legal power to limit the number of e-scooter operators under the current Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw.

1.2 This limitation leads to a potential issue in that the number of operators is uncontrolled. Currently there are four operators permitted to operate e-scooters (the fourth has yet to launch their platform in Palmerston North). If additional operators applied for a permit, and were able to show that they could meet the same conditions that existing operators are meeting, Council would be unable to refuse to issue them a permit.

1.3 Council has been able to institute a limit of sorts, by limiting the number of scooters that individual operators can deploy. This is currently set at 200, but if additional operators applied for permits and were granted the same limit, then it could create an overall fleet too large for a city of our size.

1.4 This problem could be addressed by either limiting the number of operators, or by setting an overall fleet size that is divided equally by the number of operators. Staff concluded that the latter option was untenable; a large number of operators with very small fleets would likely create additional administrative burdens in managing relationships with a large number of operators, whilst the small size of individual fleets would likely be uneconomic for the operators. On that basis, it was decided that the more favourable option was to limit the number of operators. However, in order to be able to legally limit the number of operators the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw needs to be amended.

1.5 In addition to this problem, the charge for a mobile trading permit (which is used for a wide range of general activities) does not reflect the true cost of the process to develop and issue the permit, or the ongoing monitoring and enforcement costs. A new structure for fees and charges related to this activity requires an amendment to the Schedule of Fees and Charges and is subject to consultation.

1.6 The issues present an opportunity to design a new regulatory framework specific to the activity of public hire and shared micromobility services. A new regulatory framework could include specific rules to address the identified issues, including new fees and charges. The proposal presented in this report includes amendments to the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw and the associated Administration Manual to establish a new licensing system, a new Code of Practice for Micromobility, and proposed fees and charges related to the new licensing system.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Mobile trading permits were issued to three e-scooter operators in October 2021 under the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015. These permits contained a comprehensive suite of conditions designed to ensure that e-scooters were deployed by operators safely.

2.2 Three operators (Beam, Flamingo and Lime) began operating on 1 November 2021. Each operator can operate up to 200 e-scooters.

2.3 The Council has made no decisions about e-scooters previously, as issuing permits is an operational matter under the existing Bylaw.

3. Description of options

3.1 There are two key options related to the recommendations. The first is to approve the proposed consultation document for public consultation. This consultation document includes the draft amended Bylaw and Administration Manual, the draft Code of Practice for Micromobility, and the proposed fees and charges. The new fees and charges would be created, following this consultation, by a Council resolution to amend to the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

3.2 The second option is to not approve the proposed consultation document for public consultation. The Council may take this course of action either to stop work on the new regulatory framework, or to seek further changes before consultation is undertaken. If significant changes are sought, then further work may be required before a decision to approve the consultation document is made.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Before directly analysing the options, it is helpful to understand the current context. This context includes the feedback from initial engagement with stakeholders, and how e-scooters have performed in the three months since they launched in November 2021.

Initial stakeholder engagement

4.2 A range of stakeholders were identified at the outset of the project for targeted engagement through the development of the proposal. They included the Disability Reference Group, the Safety Advisory Board, Horizons Regional Council, Police, and Public Health, as well as the current e-scooter operators. Workshops were scheduled to be held with these groups in November and December, but various constraints meant that not all groups were able to be involved. Additionally, the scope of work was more complex than anticipated, and the full details of proposals couldn’t be shared at those workshops.

4.3 A second round of engagement was planned for February. More details of the proposal were available, and this enabled more in-depth engagement. Some groups were still unavailable, such as the Safety Advisory Board and the Public Health Unit, but the Disability Reference Group and Police were available and participated. Additional groups and representatives were identified and were able to participate, including Chris Teo-Sherrell on behalf of Living Streets Aotearoa, Ros Powell, Russell Powell, and Marian Dean as individual members of their groups (Age Friendly, Grey Power and Age Concern respectively).

4.4 The workshops outlined the scope of the proposed changes and offered an opportunity for those groups and individuals to provide feedback and suggestions as part of the development process.

4.5 Most of those spoken to about e-scooters observed that generally they were being used safely and responsibly, although all had observed or been advised of situations where e-scooters had been used in an unsafe way or in some cases caused accidents.

4.6 The common themes that emerged were to do with parking and riding. Parking of e-scooters was found to be generally good, though again some instances of e-scooters blocking footpath access were reported. One suggestion was to develop a cascading set of conditions for parking– wherever possible park on the grass berm, and if not possible on the footpath closest to the roadside edge, and always with a minimum 1.5m of clear unobstructed footpath width. A variation of this suggestion has been incorporated into the proposal.

4.7 A further suggestion was that the minimum unobstructed footpath width should be greater inside the CBD. One approach would be to set the minimum unobstructed footpath width by reference to zones, with wider allowances in the inner city, and zones in the suburbs requiring a smaller allowance. This approach has not been incorporated in the proposal, as staff consider the cascading parking rules approach described above is a more effective tool to regulate the way e-scooters are parked. However, this could be considered further through the formal consultation process.

4.8 The presence of a double-kickstand on some e-scooters was noted as being more stable and less likely to topple and present a hazard on the footpath. It was suggested that this should be made a minimum licence condition. This condition is included in the draft Code of Practice.

4.9 Stakeholders expressed concerns about rider behaviour, especially the impact of such behaviour on vulnerable footpath users. One example of these concerns is intimidation (whether deliberate or accidental) where the rider of an e-scooter may startle other footpath users. Where the footpath is used by those with vision or hearing impairments inconsiderate behaviour by other users can have a significantly detrimental impact and may discourage them from using the footpaths. While this issue predates e-scooters, the increase in the number of people riding on the footpath will undoubtedly have exacerbated the issue. All e-scooters are fitted with a bell, but this is not always used, and is not always effective.

4.10 Another example of rider behaviour that is of concern to some of the stakeholders is the risk of collision, especially when scooters are travelling at speed. Within the city centre the speed is automatically limited to 15 km/h; outside the city centre the maximum speed is 25 km/h. Some stakeholders felt that even 15 km/h was too fast to be used on footpath, and suggested it should be as low as 12 km/h or even 10 km/h. Another suggestion was that there should be slower speed zones (10km/h or lower) around some areas more likely to be used by vulnerable footpath users, such as elder-care facilities and schools.

4.11 E-scooter operators argued against a reduction in speed limits, countering that at lower speeds it can be harder to maintain balance on the scooter and can make riding more dangerous. Reducing speeds could also potentially reduce their usefulness, if riding an e-scooter is not noticeably faster than walking.

4.12 The existing speed limits have not been changed in the proposal. As with roading speed limits, they are not a ‘target’ and users are able to adjust their speed up to the maximum limit. Also, as has already been noted, rider behaviour has been generally good. The issue of speed is likely to be a significant question during the consultation, and this will be an element on which feedback will be specifically sought – including whether to add new slower speed zones around places such as elder-care facilities and schools, and what the speed limit should be.

4.13 There are also regulatory changes coming soon which may impact on the issue; the Government is expected to adopt the Accessible Streets package in coming months, which is widely expected to make it legal to ride an e-scooter in cycle lanes. This change would enable the Council and operators to actively encourage users to ride e-scooters in cycle lanes wherever possible, rather than on footpaths.

4.14 Beyond speed, concern was also expressed about rider behaviour when passing other footpath users. It was suggested that more could be done to require particular manoeuvres when passing another footpath user to improve safety, reduce the risk of collision, and minimise the potential for intimidation of other users. However, the Council is unable to directly regulate the behaviour of users; Council’s regulatory role is limited to the operators who are being licensed to place e-scooters on the footpath and other public places for hire. The strongest action that the Council could take regarding rider behaviour is to promote safe use and behaviour. The conditions of the licence also include a requirement for the licence-holder to conduct regular user education and public safety campaigns.

4.15 In general terms, the stakeholders spoken to did not identify any significant gaps in the proposal, or major concerns with the proposed regulatory approach. More specific comment is likely to be received through the formal consultation process.

Assessment of current e-scooter operations (November – January)

4.16 Supporting the anecdotal feedback about the first three months of e-scooter operations, the available data shows relatively few issues or concerns. Where minor issues have been identified, they have been resolved quickly by the current operators.

4.17 In the three-month period between November 2021 and January 2022 there were 101,396 trips taken, with a median of 1093 trips taken daily over that period. The peak was 1,969 trips taken on a single day, and the lowest was 358. Usage was notably higher in November and December, perhaps as users were becoming accustomed to a new transport choice. Usage has become more settled through January. It should also be noted that a range of factors will affect usage including weather, COVID-19 restrictions, and public holidays.

4.18 The number of formal complaints or requests for service has been relatively small. For the initial six weeks of e-scooter operations, the public was encouraged to make direct calls to the Council’s call centre. Our call centre then triaged calls, sending the information to the operators to resolve as appropriate. From mid-December, staff transitioned to directing complaints about scooters (such as dangerous parking) to the operators so that requests could be dealt with more efficiently.

4.19 For the first two months the Council received 96 e-scooter related requests for services, with about three-quarters of those calls received in the first month. The initially high number of requests for service was to be expected, given the unfamiliarity of e-scooters in those initial weeks.

4.20 E-scooter operators have supplied data on the performance measures included in their permit, such as complaints. These were broken down into: e-scooters parked in a hazardous way; e-scooters parked incorrectly but not causing a hazard; and e-scooters reported as unsafe or faulty. The tables below show these numbers aggregated for all three operators, for the first two months of operation.

	Reported to operator	Responded to within 60 minutes
Number of e-scooters parked or left to cause a hazard or nuisance	71	66

	Reported to operator^{^[1]}	Responded to within two hours
Number of e-scooters parked incorrectly (not causing a hazard)	8	8

	Reported to operator	Number immediately deactivated
Number of e-scooters reported as unsafe or faulty	139	139

4.21 In addition to these internal measures, we also sought data from the public health unit on the number of e-scooter-related admissions to the emergency department over that three-month period. However, with public health resources prioritised towards the pandemic response, only limited data for the first five weeks is available.

1 November – 6 December	2020		2021
1 November – 6 December	Under 15	Over 15	Under 15	Over 15
E-scooter	n/a	n/a	1	14
Scooter	10	2	6	10
Total	10	2	7	24
Grand total	12		31

4.22 The data has some limitations – such as the short period of time it covers, and the limited breakdown of age. Furthermore, the data for the same period in 2020 does not make a distinction between e-scooters and push scooters, though it is possible some privately-owned e-scooters could have been involved in the data recorded for “scooters”. Similarly, the Public Health Unit has inferred that some of the data recorded as “Scooter” in 2021 for those over 15 years may actually be “e-scooter”.

4.23 Nevertheless, there is an increase in the number of people presenting to the Emergency Department with injuries related to scooters, including e-scooters. During this period, the highest number of presentations in a single day was two, and the mean for the period was less than one presentation per day. None required hospitalisation. A breakdown of the number of each type of injury is not available due to privacy concerns, but typically included bone, joint and laceration injuries.

4.24 To support the data on emergency department admissions, we also sought data from ACC on claims related to e-scooters. ACC has supplied data for the three-month period from 1 November to 31 January. In November ACC accepted 21 claims in Palmerston North related to e-scooter accidents. In December this number fell to 11, whilst in January the number of accepted claims rose to 22.

4.25 ACC has also supplied data showing claims for e-scooter injuries for all local authorities from 2018 until January 2022. This has enabled us to identify trends where e-scooters have been introduced elsewhere, and to infer some possible projections. For example, in Auckland (the first city where e-scooters were introduced) there was a substantial increase in injury claims in the months following the introduction of e-scooters, reaching a peak of 192 claims in November 2018. However, the three-month rolling average of claims has trending downwards ever since. Claims in Auckland have begun to rise again since November 2021, which could be attributed to changes in the alert level and traffic light status during the pandemic.

4.26 Dunedin and Hamilton further illustrate this trend, with both cities introducing a fleet similar in size to Palmerston North. After e-scooters were introduced in late 2018, Dunedin saw a sharp increase in the number of ACC claims to a peak of 75 in January 2019. As with Auckland the three-month rolling average of claims has consistently trended downwards since then. The average for the previous three months is 5.67. Similarly, in Hamilton, when e-scooters were introduced in mid-2019, the number of e-scooter injury claims sharply peaked at 37. The subsequent trend was downwards, though the trend has been slightly upwards again since May 2020. The average number of claims for the previous three months is 14.

4.27 Palmerston North is relatively early in the operation of e-scooters in the city, so there is less data on which to base any projections. However, the data from other cities show a sharp decline in ACC claims for e-scooter related injuries a few months after their introduction. The general trend is an overall decline in the number of injury claims. This is to be expected, as users become more familiar with the devices and become more confident using them to travel safely around our city.

4.28 Taken together, the data we have been able to acquire supports the general views shared anecdotally, that e-scooters are being used safely by the overwhelming majority of the users. While there will undoubtedly be a proportion of unreported incidents, we have a reasonably high level of confidence that the current approach has been undertaken as safely as possible.

4.29 There are opportunities to improve the data we hold about e-scooter operations in the future. For instance, measuring compliance is currently limited to data reported by the operators. However, this could be supplemented by a program of observational studies: counts at specific sites for numbers of e-scooters being ridden safely, numbers parked dangerously or in a hazardous way, near misses/collisions, etc. This data, collected as part of a robust methodology, could be used to assess operator compliance and to inform changes in operations.

Option one – approve the consultation document for public consultation

4.30 The consultation document includes the following components:

· Introductory text that summarises the proposal, the reason for the proposal, and a summary of the options analysis formed while developing the proposal.

· The draft amended Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw. The significant amendment is the addition of a new clause 18, which gives Council the authority to set the licensing period, the maximum number of licences to be issued, and the size of the fleet. The new clause 18 also gives Council the power to adopt a Code of Practice for Micromobility and set the fees and charges for licences. These are matters which would be set by the Council by resolution.

· The Administration Manual. This would include a new part 5 that records the key licensing terms, including those set by resolution of the Council such as the licensing term, the number of operators and the size of the fleet. We have recommended that the licensing term be set at three years; the maximum number of licences at two; and the maximum size of the fleet as 400 for an individual operator and 800 for the city-wide fleet. The Administration Manual would also record the process for evaluating and selecting licence applicants to be issued with a licence, and the process for suspending or terminating a licence.

· The Code of Practice for Micromobility. This is a new document that sets out the expectations for holders of a licence to operate a public hire and shared micromobility service. It includes guiding principles derived from Council’s strategic direction set in a wellbeing framework; assessment criteria informed by those guiding principles, which are used for the evaluation and selection process for assessing licence applicants; and the licensing conditions. The licensing conditions are closely aligned to the existing permit conditions and include specific requirements around speed limits set by zone, parking and operation restrictions set by zone, and conditions for safe deployment and parking. Staff propose that the Code of Practice for Micromobility is adopted by resolution of Council at the same time as the Bylaw, as the basis for operational enforcement of the licences once issued.

· An explanatory document setting out the proposed fees and charges for the licence. There are three components to this structure: an application fee payable by all applicants regardless of whether a licence is issued; an annual fee reflecting the costs of ongoing monitoring and enforcement; and a recovery charge payable when the Council is required to intervene when an operator fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the licence (for instance, removing a scooter that is dangerously parked). Following consultation, the fees and charges would be set by a resolution of Council to amend the existing Schedule of Fees and Charges by inserting the new charges. Any subsequent changes to the fees and charges would be made through the usual review of the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

· An explanatory document setting out the process for evaluating licence applications and selecting which should be issued with licences. The overall process is summarised in the Administration Manual, while the criteria and the score weightings are contained in the Code of Practice. This part of the Consultation Document brings this information together and explains how the process will work in practice.

4.31 Consulting on this document gives the community and identified stakeholders the opportunity to make submissions on the Council’s proposal. While initial engagement has been carried out with some stakeholders, the formal consultation process provides an opportunity for the community to comment on the package as a whole and identify if there are any specific details that need to be changed or problems that need to be resolved.

4.32 There are no significant risks associated with consulting on the proposal. However, the scope of the proposal is substantial, with a significant level of detail and many aspects that could be shaped differently depending on the perspective being applied. Consequently, there is a good possibility that submitters on the proposal may suggest different policy settings. Depending on the significance of those suggested changes, further consultation could be required. If that situation arises, the overall project could be delayed, with local authority elections being held in October preventing a second consultation process from being completed in time for new licences to be issued before the current permits expire in November.

4.33 If Council wishes to progress the development of a new regulatory framework for public hire and shared micromobility services with amendments to the Bylaw, then consultation is needed and option one is the recommended course of action. However, the Council may wish to revise the specific details set out in the proposal before consultation with the community. In that event, the recommended course of action would instead be to present a revised draft consultation document to a later Council or Committee meeting and begin consultation at a later date.

Option two – do not consult

4.34 If Council is not satisfied that a new regulatory framework is required, then it could decide not to approve the consultation document for public consultation, and work on this project would end. The current approach would continue, with operators able to apply for a mobile trading permit. Permits can be issued as they currently are, with safety conditions set as appropriate.

4.35 The main benefit of this option is that further consultation is not required. The current approach is working relatively well, with operators showing a high degree of compliance and working well with staff to address issues and concerns as they arise.

4.36 The main risk to this option is that the limitations that have been identified would not be addressed. For instance, Council would have no ability to restrict the number of permits issued. While the current operators may remain and no new applications be received, it is also possible that additional operators could apply for a permit. If the current fleet size of 200 per operator is retained, and we received applications from four or five operators, then the total fleet size would be 800-1000 scooters. For comparison, in 2021 Wellington City Council issued permits to two operators for 400 e-scooters each for a total fleet size of 800. The number of operators would create administrative complexities and add complication for the public in having to use a larger number of different apps to access a more fragmented e-scooter fleet. The greatest concern is that it potentially creates an unmanageably large fleet that could lead to more cluttered footpaths and potentially create more safety risks.

4.37 It is possible that market forces would naturally regulate the number of operators and consequently the size of the fleet over time. A large number of operators could lead to an unsustainably large overall fleet, which could in turn lead to some operators seeing lower usage. Lower usage would likely translate to a poor economic return, and some operators may leave the market. In this situation, the remaining operators would likely seek an increase to their individual fleet size, to maintain an appropriately sized fleet for the city.

4.38 However, there is a degree of uncertainty about how such scenarios would play out, with the time it would take for an equilibrium to be established unknown. The impacts on safety over the short or medium term are also potentially volatile, with a risk that significant harm could be experienced as the right number of operators and scooters is established.

4.39 The degree of uncertainty is the key risk with option two. While there is a possibility for a good outcome, there is at least the same or greater possibility for unsafe outcomes to arise in the short to medium term.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The recommendation is to approve the proposal for public consultation. The new regulatory framework set out in the proposal gives Council power to limit the number of operators, and to be more transparent in setting the rules that will govern how e-scooter operators make their devices available to the public. This framework will contribute to public safety by ensuring that the overall fleet size is manageable for a city of our size and limit the number of operators that the Council needs to interact with to ensure good safety outcomes. Setting new fees and charges for operators under the new licensing system will also ensure that Council will be able to recover a greater portion of the costs it incurs in regulating the activity.

5.2 There may be scope to modify the proposal before public consultation. If those changes are minor then they could be incorporated by way of an additional resolution from the Council. If the changes are more substantial, then a revised consultation document could be considered by the Council before a decision is made to go out for public consultation.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Council approves the consultation document for public consultation, then the consultation period will start on 9 April. The written submission period will close on 10 May 2022. Hearings will be scheduled for the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on 8 June. A deliberations report with recommendations for the Committee on the points raised by the written and oral submissions will be presented to the August meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee. If that Committee recommends adopting the amendments to the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw and the Administration Manual, then this will be referred to the Council for adoption on 7 September.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The following stakeholders have been identified as having a specific interest in the regulation of e-scooters. These stakeholders will be directly contacted at the start of the consultation period and provided with a copy of the consultation document and invited to make a submission. We will also offer groups the opportunity to meet and discuss details of the Council’s proposal:

· Disability Reference Group

· Blind Low Vision NZ

· Deaf Aotearoa

· Safety Advisory Board

· Public Health Unit

· NZ Police

· Current e-scooter operators

· Horizons Regional Council

· Rangitāne

· Environment Network Manawatū

· Living Streets Aotearoa

· PN Neighbourhood Support

· Chamber of Commerce

· CEDA

· Palmy BID

7.2 The consultation document will be made available at the Council’s customer service centre, libraries, and on the Council website. A submission form will be included with the printed consultation document, and an online form will also be available on the Council website. The form will seek feedback on specific elements of the proposal such as the proposed fees and charges; the evaluation and selection process, and the minimum licensing conditions contained in the draft Code of Practice. These conditions include specific details such as the zones and speed limits, requirements for parking, and hours of operation.

7.3 The consultation process will be promoted through a range of channels. This includes radio and print advertising, interview opportunities, social media posts, and the strategic distribution of posters and flyers. Drop-in sessions where the public can ask questions about the proposal are being considered, either in person on through digital means.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		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?		Yes
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 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Transport The action is: No specific action, but contributes to the Transport Plan’s objective of encouraging “more people to choose modes of transport other than motor vehicles.” The recommendations also contribute to the identified priority in the Safe Communities Plan, “a city where people feel safe and are safe.”
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The proposed new regulatory framework for licensing e-scooters in our city will contribute to both strategic transport and safety goals. The arrival of e-scooters expands transport choices in our city and encourages people to consider alternatives to owning and driving a car. It also contributes to our safe city goals, by ensuring that e-scooters are provided and operated in the safest way possible. The needs of all users of the footpath, especially vulnerable footpath users, have been considered, and conditions are imposed that protect the rights of footpath users to have unobstructed access.

Attachments

Consultation Document - Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Amendment (e-scooters) ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Deliverability Planning in Response to Covid - Briefing

Presented By: Sarah Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer

APPROVED BY: Heather Shotter, Chief Executive

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council note the update on actions undertaken to date to improve deliverability outcomes due to the impacts of Covid-19 and the resulting increased supply chain risks, particularly focussing on maintaining essential provision of services.

2. That Council note that should rapid approval of contract awards above the Chief Executive’s delegation be needed, then an extraordinary meeting of Finance & Audit Committee or Council (depending on level of financial delegation required) will be called.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Covid has had some significant impacts on the construction industry across New Zealand. There have been global impacts on production and manufacture of materials and equipment, and the cost and predictability of freight logistics particularly around shipping. There have also been significant constraints on human resources in part because of a major reduction in cross-border travel impacting on the number of migrants with construction and infrastructure related skills. The other reason for constraints in available resources is the high global investment in infrastructure (including NZ) as a recognised economic stimulant as part of COVID recovery. This economic stimulus effect is exacerbated in the Manawatū because of high government investment in infrastructure in the region, coupled with relatively low regional migration.

1.2 The various outbreaks of Covid have also led to some unpredictability in the work force and have had impacts on training and on recruitment. In summary, employers are struggling to find and retain skilled staff, there are shortfalls in local material production and there are increasing costs and time delays for materials and equipment from overseas. This makes it very difficult for suppliers to predict commercial outcomes with certainty, especially if there is a supply chain rather than a single supplier.

1.3 At the moment, in our tenders we are seeing:

• an unwillingness to hold prices for some contract elements beyond a few weeks because of the rapid escalation in especially materials and subcontractor rates, e.g. steel reinforcement;

· long lead times for supply and delivery of some materials and equipment, and requests to exclude programme penalties relating to these;

· escalating freight costs and time frames, and requests that the Council takes the cost risk on any escalations, and on any programme risk.

All of these are leading to tender tags seeking to shift pricing and delivery risks onto Council. In addition, we are seeing an unwillingness to bid on competitive tenders, especially those of high complexity or low value.

1.4 This paper identifies actions officers are currently taking to identify and mitigate Covid-related delivery risk, and should be read alongside other Deliverability Review work which reflects the deliverable work programme for 2021-22 and 2022-23

APPROACHES UNDER CONSIDERATION

2. DELIVERABILITY REVIEW

2.1 The Annual Budget process has undertaken a review of project and programme deliverability against planned budget expenditure. Factors considered include staff resourcing, supplier resourcing (from feasibility through to construction), availability of materials and Covid-related lead in times. Whilst the deliverability review is reported elsewhere, it has informed this paper and is referred to within the paper. It is noted that this is based purely on resource availability at this stage, not on any prioritization that may follow through the annual plan process.

3. SECURING SUPPLIERS

3.1 Council already has an in-house delivery team for three waters maintenance and capital renewals. Although wage pressures are consistent with the rest of the market, and wages will need to be raised through the wage review to continue to retain staff, it is noted that maintaining an in-house work force and delivering services in-house provides value and certainty in a highly constrained market.

3.2 Council also employs in-house designers and draughters, project managers and contract managers to help deliver predominantly our capital programme. Whilst the in-house resources are supplemented by external supply chain, and staff salary pressures are also consistent with the rest of the market, this in-house capability provides value and de-risks delivery, at a time when there is a nationwide shortage of these skills.

3.3 In order to make working with PNCC more attractive to our suppliers, work commenced some time ago on bundling of projects or contracts. Following the examples of the Arena and the Road Maintenance Contract, the following bundled contracts have been developed:

· Design of 3 waters and transport projects – this bundles all external design work to be delivered by a supplier panel of 2-3 suppliers with a local office but national size to secure appropriate skills. This is currently out to tender, for a 3 year contract.

· Street trees – all street tree work has been bundled into 2 contracts covering North and South of the city, and is in the process of being awarded. This work covers a 2 year contract period.

· Mechanical and Electrical – work has been bundled for 3 waters, transport and resource recovery. Tender documents are currently being prepared.

· Pipe supply – at present this contract is annual, and covers supply of all pipes used by our in-house construction teams.

· Pipe lining – a contract has just been let with a bundle of pipe lining works to be delivered via DIA funding.

· Various other material supply contracts have been developed or updated this year.

3.4 Staff are consolidating and bundling programmes for several other types of work including seismic building inspections and various types of asset inspections. These bundles of work will go to the market this financial year and early next financial year.

3.5 Some work has been identified as suitable for design and build contracts; this is likely to be trialled this year as a form of bundled delivery.

3.6 The Road Maintenance Contract has been successful in securing supply of staff and resources from Fulton Hogan, whilst recognizing that their ability to deliver, similar to the rest of the market, is compromised by Covid 19 impacts. Resources are being allocated by Fulton Hogan to deliver the contract, and this contract offers a facility for direct award of other capital works, as well as maintenance and renewals in the roading space.

3.7 Other work in this area relates to more focus in our procurement planning on when an approach to the open market is unlikely to achieve the required outcome. Our procurement strategy requires all decisions to approach ‘closed lists’ of tenders to be approved at manager level, which continues to be a sound approach. Traditionally, work to develop a closed list has tended to follow an approach of:

· enquiries to the open market to identify interest in the contract, (expression of interest);

· require suppliers to undertake some sort of prequalification to establish their suitability to deliver the work;

· then approach those successfully prequalified to invite them to tender for the work, potentially with a minor reduction in documentation to reflect information received through the prequalification process.

3.8 This is time consuming and runs the risk that contractors who are available at time of expression of interest are not available at time of tender. It also adds time and cost to the contractors’ work, which they may choose not to participate in, in a busy market.

3.9 As noted above, much of the work that is delivered by PNCC is delivered regularly - the complexities tend to be site specific. Therefore, staff are generally aware of who the local suppliers in the market are. It is therefore proposed that, working with procurement, officers will develop short lists of local suppliers to be used for various types of work, based on experience with PNCC to date. These can be published on the internet. By publishing, new entrants to the market (in Palmy) could apply to be put on the list by supplying evidence of experience (including references) in that field. Therefore, work is underway to define and agree this variation to our current procurement approach. This would be implemented next financial year to align with design panel outputs.

3.10 Other options currently in use include Direct Award, for example the direct award of Papaeoia Place Stage 3 to the team that had successfully delivered the previous stage.

4. DEALING WITH COST AND DELIVERY RISK UNCERTAINTY

4.1 However, not all work is able to be bundled effectively, to secure supply. In many cases work that cannot be bundled has a higher risk profile due to complexity, unique elements or requirements, or being something that we do infrequently as a Council. These contracts are likely to continue to see cost or risk escalations tagged out by suppliers, or shorter acceptance timeframes.

4.2 While our role is to ensure risk for Council is managed appropriately, accepting additional risk on current rapid cost escalations will result in a lower cost to Council than compensating the tenderer to accept the costs of these unknown risks. To facilitate this approach requires some changes to our procurement processes and approaches.

4.3 The following changes in approach are being considered, in terms of ease of implementation and impact on deliverability.

· Separating out large ‘bespoke’ items at procurement planning stage, to specifically plan how to address their sourcing;

· Separately scheduling ‘supply’ and ‘install’ for major work items in our pricing schedules, to allow us to more easily supply some materials as client, or to bring forward materials ordering easily, for elements with long lead time.

· Accepting offsite materials purchase and storage (with appropriate controls) to allow pre-order and pre-payment. Materials could be stored at Council’s depot, provided there were appropriate storage and tracking systems implemented, (e.g. RFID tags to track in / out, etc.).

· Working with other Government / Local Government supply chains, e.g. whether Kainga Ora have stockpiles / secured supply chain for heat pumps.

· Asking in tenders for ‘open book’ approaches to justifying escalation requests for materials and for subcontractors, where Council is accepting pricing changes from delay risk,

· Identifying suitable alternative materials or equipment (and leaving tenders open to tenderer suggestions for replacements for difficult to source materials or equipment). Work has commenced on this, in terms of investigating local manufacturing options and reviewing ‘local’ importing options

· Providing more flexibility on programme duration (and associated programme overrun cost recovery), including using more separable portions (which allow for stages to be completed separately), and bundled contracts.

4.4 Splitting contracts to separate out major material supply items to be ordered ahead of construction and installation, similar to our pipe supply contract, is being considered more across the sector. However, there are some complexities to resolve, and lessons learnt from others’ experience, including:

· If materials are sourced from off-shore some arrangements for quality assurance to be undertaken prior to shipping.

· Consideration of whether PNCC buy and store materials or require the Contractor to do so, and where materials could be stored securely.

· For install-only contracts, how we manage risk of material damage and guarantee / warranty impacts on final constructed item.

· Contractor expectations of mark-up margins for supplying materials which can be a substantial part of the overall project profit, and how this would affect overall pricing risk.

4.5 This work is ongoing, starting with early consideration of bespoke items. All new procurement plans will review bespoke items, overseas materials and other delivery risks, and greater separation of work stages. Work has also commenced on an overall review of storage capacity at Council facilities such as the Depot. Work will commence in April to review our standard contract specifications and schedules.

4.6 The deliverability review of the capital programme has also identified programmes with long lead in times for materials, discussed further in Section 5.

5. Other work underway

5.1 Guidance is being developed for staff and suppliers on developing contract documents and for assessing tenders and tags, to ensure we can meet suitable timeframes and allow flexibility. A work programme is being developed, which will be finalised after the April review of our contract specifications and schedules.

5.2 As noted in Section 2, the Annual Budget process has resulted in an additional review of our work programme and budget, for the remainder of this financial year and the remaining two until the next LTP process. This has considered what should be moved out in terms of delivery timeframe and market capacity, without compromising our ability to provide services and utilities, and without compromising our Waka Kotahi or DIA funding.

5.3 Growth projects (Developer led) have been separated out as timing is affected by developer activity. These projects are seen as good potential candidates for design and build approaches to facilitate timely delivery, and to enable greater cost certainty once triggered, or to design through the design panel to ensure readiness to respond to construction demand early.

5.4 The effects of Covid (Delta and Omicron) delayed some of the construction work planned for this year. However, in the main, the delays are a few months and work is likely to be contracted and secured for delivery by the end of the financial year, resulting in carry forwards. The effect of this on market capacity and staff capacity has been considered and some of the FY22-23 work, in capital new, recommended to be deferred to FY23-24.

5.5 The bundling of work into delivery contracts will bring increasing certainty about delivery over the next two years. For example, the design panel will ensure that projects are ready for construction tendering, ahead of schedule. This will also help our construction suppliers have more certainty of future work. For that reason, delivery of work in later years is not seen as such a significant risk.

5.6 For many renewal budgets, we are likely to see slightly less work delivered for the money spent, because of the cost escalations. Staff have taken a pragmatic view of what can be delivered this year, but moved any delayed delivery budget (approximately 10%) into next year because of the risk of cost escalation, and because renewals are already based on prioritised risk of failure.

5.7 Some materials supply, particularly around fleet being purchased from overseas, has been ordered within this financial year.

6. OTHER EMERGING ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

6.1 At present, our decision making around tenders is long, due in part to the complexity of the work and in part to our processes. At present, tenders are required to remain valid for 3 months, which (as noted above) the industry can be reluctant to do.

6.2 The time frame has potential to create issues, if there are time constraints from the tenderers.

6.3 Generally, for any reasonably complex contract (generally physical works), post-tender there will be 2-3 weeks of project officer analysis, and queries to tenderers for clarification. Then there will be one or more meetings with the tender evaluation team, potentially followed by more clarification queries to tenderers. Once a preferred tenderer is identified, based on meeting required price and non price attributes, there may be negotiation with the preferred tenderer around price, start date, or any remaining ‘tags’ which change the specified contractual requirements. We assume a minimum of a month, and ideally 6 weeks, is allowed to identify a recommended contractor.

6.4 The holding of prices issue is especially problematic if tenders need to go to Council for approval because of the Chief Executive’s level of delegation at $800,000. For Council approval, after identifying the preferred contractor, the time frame for paper preparation and approval and the timeframe of agenda meetings, committee meetings and Council meetings leaves a lot of time between the required decision being identified and the decision being made – approximately another 6 weeks.

6.5 Although the tenders have been written with best knowledge of the supplier at the time, the time taken to approve means that resources may have been allocated to other successful tenders before our decision is made and ratified, resulting in an immediate unanticipated delay in starting work, often with attendant additional costs being identified.

6.6 Whilst procuring early to allow time for approvals would also allow the contractor a good lead in time for resourcing, in the current market procuring early will lead to additional cost escalation and hence cost uncertainty.

6.7 Therefore, Officers request that Council consider the establishment of a decision-making mechanism for rapid contract awards above the Chief Executive’s delegation, such as an extraordinary meeting of the Finance & Audit Committee or Council (depending on level of financial delegation required).

7. NEXT STEPS

7.1 Work will continue on deliverability risk mitigations.

7.2 A progress report will be presented to the Infrastructure Committee in 6 months.

8. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		Yes
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
This paper addresses how officers are addressing the changing market conditions by varying our approach to procurement, in line with the procurement policy, which allows Unit Managers to make and document such decisions.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Transport The action is: Develop, maintain, operate and renew the transport network to deliver on the Council goals, the purpose of this plan, and the Government Policy Statement on Transport.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Undertaking a deliverability review has helped Council identify obstacles and consider challenges underpinning economic wellbeing in the current supply and construction environment.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Update on the Main Street West Cycleway

Presented By: Adam Jarvis, Senior Climate Change Advisor and Sarah Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

Sarah Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Chief Executive direct Officers to report back to the Infrastructure Committee on community feedback to a permanent design solution, and the final design detail, before implementation.

1. ISSUE

Following public consultation, the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019 confirmed Main Street West/Pioneer Highway as a priority route for the development of a separated cycleway.

In April 2021, Council successfully gained 90% co-funding from Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Innovating Streets programme to deploy a trial version of a cycleway along this route, between the intersection of Pitt Street and Botanical Road, using coloured planter boxes and other materials as separators.

Prior to the deployment of the trial cycleway, extensive engagement was conducted with the community. Officers conducted two public workshops in late 2020 that were promoted on social media, dropped letters to every business and residence within a 100m radius of the site, and visited every adjacent business in person to gain their feedback on the proposed design.

Officers were aware that, given the range of other demands on people’s time and attention, proposals often don’t ‘become real’ in the minds of people until they can be seen. Consequently, Officers designed the trial with a high level of flexibility within the design, most notably in the way planter boxes were not fixed to the ground, allowing them to be quickly and easily moved in response to feedback.

Immediately after the implementation of the trial, Officers received a large volume of feedback from the community. Many cyclists were satisfied with the increased safety they enjoyed along the physically separated cycleway, while other road users voiced their concerns about a range of issues, both through social media and the contact centre. Officers were responsive to the concerns being raised, meeting with numerous people and businesses on-site to discuss the issues further. In most cases, Officers were able to adequately address the issue within 24 hours after it was raised. A fuller examination of these issues is included in the following section.

While the cycleway was initially highly contentious with motorists, negative feedback received reduced with time as users became accustomed to the new road layout and emergent issues were resolved. Conversely, qualitative and quantitative user feedback from cyclists has been extremely positive. Cycle count monitoring showed that user numbers almost tripled within the first month of operation (from 6/hr in November 2020 to 17/hr in May 2021), a notable result given the seasonal differences. Follow up user surveys found that 90% of intercepted cyclists rated it highly positively (overwise neutral), compared with 0% previously (overwise neutral or negative).

A road safety audit conducted by BECA in June 2021 recommended improvements to some moderate and minor issues. This focussed predominantly on risk to life, and found that while the cycleway generally worked well, several issues required resolving. These issues related to intersection conflicts, planter box stability and visibility, narrow cycle lane and on street parking/loading conflicts, drainage maintenance and refuge collection access. To address the issue of planter box stability, Officers tested the fixing of these boxes to the road surface with steel brackets along the stretch of the cycleway adjacent to Railway Reserve. This has proved successful in resolving the issue of planter boxes being tipped into either the traffic lane or cycleway in this locality. However, the visibility issue has not been resolved – driver familiarity has reduced the number of collisions with the planter boxes but not completely eliminated – Officers do not have overall statistics on collisions as they are not always reported to Council.

Overall, a separated cycle facility along Main Street West connecting Pioneer Highway shared path to the city centre, has proven to be successful and confirms this as a strategic priority cycle route as outlined in the Urban Cycle Masterplan. A more permanent design solution will now be considered taking account of the outcomes from the safety review, feedback from both cycle and motor vehicle users, and Officer expertise.

2. BACKGROUND

Project Genesis

During the 2020 lockdown period (March – April 2020), a large increase in the volume of cyclists was noted, including many families out with small children. It was also observed that due to the significantly reduced traffic volumes, vehicle speeds were often significantly greater during this period than pre-Covid. This prompted Council Officers to investigate options to improve safety along this and other key routes within the city that were seeing increased use by active modes.

While still in lockdown, Waka Kotahi NZTA announced its ‘Innovating Streets for People’ contestable fund, which provided a 90% funding assistance rate for local authorities to trial ‘people-friendly’ spaces, active transport infrastructure, and tactical urbanism. Council Officers were able to build upon the safety work already underway (as discussed above) and put forward an application containing a suite of strategically aligned projects. Ultimately, Council was highly successful in its application, receiving funding for five projects throughout the city, of which the Main Street West Cycleway was the largest in scope dollar value ($300,000).

Design & Consultation

Officers conducted a series of ‘intercept surveys’ to gauge existing user sentiment and feedback about conflict points or safety concerns about the existing facility (or lack thereof). Generally, users were highly pessimistic about the level of service provided, telling Officers that they avoided the route at night, took detours to avoid conflict points, and would not allow their children to cycle. Observational surveys saw cyclists frequently being forced into the live traffic lane in order to avoid parked cars and trucks.

A high-level concept design was developed during lockdown, in collaboration with Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and based on the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan. Main Street West/Pioneer Highway had the significant advantage of wider than average lanes (4m+ compared with the usual 3-3.5m), and enough space (6m+) to accommodate both a separated cycleway and parking on the southern side between Pitt Street and West Street. While parking on the northern side would have to be removed in order to provide a separated cycleway, parking surveys indicated that the service lanes and side streets had plenty of spare capacity.

The high-level concept design was shared with the community through two open invite workshops in late 2020, and through in person discussions with businesses and other key stakeholders. During that time feedback was highly positive. Of note was the desire of the Pioneer Shopping Centre businesses to see safety improvements at the West Street/Pioneer Highway Intersection. Council had already been planning a safety upgrade of this intersection and had allocated funding from the Minor Transport Improvements programme to address safety issues at the intersection. This intersection improvement work was subsequently completed early in the 2021/22 financial year.

Once the high-level concept was confirmed, a letter was sent to all businesses and residents along Main Street/Pioneer Highway, as well as to all residents within a city block of the area. Officers also visited every business in person to discuss the proposed changes. Throughout this process, Officers continued to refine the detailed design layout to accommodate user needs where these were raised.

Deployment

Rollout of the cycleway began in late March 2021 starting with changes to the road markings. Brightly coloured planter boxes as separators were installed shortly thereafter in early April, beginning with the block alongside Railway Reserve, and installing subsequent sections towards the Botanical Road end over several nights. Substantial communications were also undertaken to make people aware of what was happening.

As stated above, it was anticipated that issues would arise following rollout. Officers paid close attention to feedback via the PNCC Facebook page, which reached over 100,000 views in the first week. Numerous phone calls and correspondence were also received from members of the public during this time. The physical implementation of the cycleway and, particularly how the planter boxes were not fixed to the ground, allowed Officers to respond quickly to issues as they were raised. Adjustments that were made include:

· The installation of a loading zone outside the Pioneer Shops.

· The addition of an extra marked line alongside parallel parking to provide a similar level of service as Featherston Street and other arterial roads in the city.

· Minor changes to the positioning of planter boxes to allow for wider left turns merging with traffic onto Main Street/Pioneer Highway.

· The addition of rumble strips to discourage motorists cutting off cyclists while turning left from Pitt Street into Main Street.

· The trimming of the trees along West Street to improve visibility and personal safety for vehicles displaced from parking along Main Street.

· Swapping out of the darker blue planter boxes for a lighter green colour, and addition of some warning strips to some boxes to improve visibility.

Incidents

Prior to installation of the separated cycleway, multiple crashes occurred on the section of Main Street West, between Pitt Street and Botanical Road. Based on information recorded in Waka Kotahi NZTA’s Crash Analysis System (CAS), 94 crashes were recorded between 2016 and 2020, resulting in 2 serious and 23 minor injuries.

Of the 94 crashes, 4 resulted in minor injuries to cyclists and 2 minor injuries to pedestrians. All crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians resulted in an injury.

In the period 1 April 2021 to 16 February 2022, since installation of the separated cycleway there have been 4 crashes recorded in CAS, 2 serious and 2 non-injury crashes. Of these, only 1 non-injury crash is related to the cycleway where a driver was driving too close to the separators. We note that the 2 serious injury crashes that occurred on the road were a result of unusual behaviour which could not have been reasonably prevented by road infrastructure. These crashes involved driving over the central median resulting in a head-on and a passenger jumping out of a moving vehicle.

Since installation of the separated cycleway, four incidents have been reported to Council for insurance claims:

· One involving a cyclist hitting a planter box that had shifted into the cycle lane

· Two involving motor vehicles hitting planter boxes

· One third party claim from a motorist who scratched their car on a planter box

The two incidents of vehicle hitting planter boxes involved speed at night, where the driver has lost control of their vehicle and deviated from the lane. In both cases, the driver was relatively unharmed, which likely would not have been the case prior to the cycleway installation should these vehicles have deviated into what was previously a parking lane.

There is also anecdotal evidence of a number of other minor incidences between vehicles and planter boxes, particularly during the early stages of the trial with side access turning movements. Since planter boxes were not fixed to the ground, these incidents have typically resulted in shunting of the planter box into either the cycle or vehicle lanes. This required either Council Officers or the road maintenance contractor to subsequently rectify. The majority of these incidents occurred in the period immediately following installation, while the turning radiuses were smaller, and the planter boxes were still unfamiliar for motorists.

As noted, the movability of the planter boxes, previously an asset allowing rapid changes to be made, has become an issue, with occasional theft and vandalism. The fixing bracket test alongside Railway Reserve has shown the system to be effective at resolving this issue.

Road Safety Audit

The project road safety audit took place on 22 June 2021. The audit identified 4 moderate risk issues and 7 minor risk issues. The 4 moderate risks are the main issues to be addressed, outlined as follows:

1) Conflict areas at intersections and access along the route

2) Narrow on-street parking (Botanical to Shamrock, southern side of the road)

3) Planter box visibility and stability as separators between the cycleway and traffic lanes

4) Loading zone conflict with the westbound cycleway outside West Street shops

Issues 1) and 2) above were identified previously in the planning stages of the project. These were not addressed as part of the Innovating Streets project as they required significant permanent changes to improve the conflicts, which were considered outside of the project scope. Improvements to these areas will be investigated as a more permanent cycleway solution is formalised.

Regarding issue 3) above, the main issues with the planter boxes were their night-time visibility (particularly the dark blue planter boxes) and the potential for planter boxes to be dislodged. To address this, the audit recommended that:

· The conspicuousness of the dark coloured planter boxes be improved by replacing with lighter coloured planter boxes

· The planter boxes are fixed into position

· Installation of additional warning signs and markings

The audit indicated that planter boxes that are visible and fixed are appropriate between the cycle lane and car park bays. However, where planter boxes are adjacent to live lanes, the audit recommends alternative separators are investigated.

With respect to issue 4) above, parking was initially removed at this locality as part of this trial project. Despite the conflict with the cycleway, parking was replaced with a loading zone in order to address the following concerns raised by adjacent businesses including:

· The ability for rubbish to be collected from the kerbside

· Customer parking (particularly larger vehicles)

The audit recommends the removal of the loading zone. Kerbside rubbish collection would need to be resolved within the Council organisation to be safe and effective for collections staff and all road users.

The minor issues identified in the road safety audit are not discussed in detail in this report as they are considered low risk. They include cyclists riding in the opposite direction, vegetation removal to improve visibility, infrastructure and utility condition on the cycleway, pedestrian access across the cycleway, width of the eastbound cycleway, advanced signage and cycle box provision. These issues can be addressed in conjunction with design of permanent improvements.

The road safety audit does not identify any significant road safety risks with the project, although Officers acknowledge the significant public feedback relating to the visibility issue associated with the use of planter boxes as cycle lane separators. There are also no recommendations to significantly change the trial layout. The safety issues raised are moderate or minor risks, which can be addressed in conjunction with design of permanent improvements to the cycleway.

Other issues raised

Operational staff also gave feedback on the utility of the planter boxes, in terms of safe manual handling, operational costs of responding to vandalism, and impact on other activities such as waste collection and road sweeping.

3. CONCLUSIONS

The trial separated cycle facility along Main Street West connecting Pioneer Highway shared path to the city centre has proven to be successful and confirms this as a strategic priority cycle route as outlined in the Urban Cycle Masterplan.

A more permanent design solution, including a more sustainable separator treatment, will now be considered taking account of the outcomes from the safety review, feedback from both cycle and motor vehicle users, and technical expertise of Officers. Overall, given both the wider user/community feedback and outcomes from the safety audit with regard to visibility, Officers consider the plastic planter boxes as separators are not an effective separator solution. The trial has proved very useful in informing development of a risk-based approach to determining suitable materials for cycle lane separation.

Whilst a permanent solution is being designed and implemented, Officers recommend that the cycle lane layout is retained so as to consolidate its location for road users. This means that the plastic planter boxes would be retained and fixed in place as a temporary measure recognising that implementation of a permanent solution should progress at pace. Funds are available this financial year.

Implementation of permanent design solution will enable a connection between the city centre to both the Pioneer Highway and Mangaone Stream shared paths. It will also provide connection to cycling infrastructure improvements along Botanical Road and Cook Street, and other cycleway links, including on Park Road and Featherston Street, scheduled for implementation over the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years.

Following preliminary design of a permanent cycle lane solution in this location, feedback will be sought from the community to ensure all issues have been taken account of. Officers will report back to this committee on the community feedback received and final design details.

Improvements for cyclists to the remaining section of Main Street West, from Pitt Street to Te Marae o Hine The Square, will be further investigated, including concepts for lowering vehicle speeds. This will integrate the Main Street West cycleway with other city-centre programmes, including Streets for People.

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 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Transport The actions are: · Deliver the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan · Develop, maintain, operate and renew the active and public transport network to deliver on Council goals, the purpose of this plan, and the Government Policy Statement on Transport · Prioritise active transport programmes that deliver on Council goals, the purpose of this plan, and the Government Policy Statement on Transport
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Main St Separated Cycleway was identified in the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan as a high-priority route for a separated facility. This facility delivers not only on that outcome and the general direction of the Transport Plan, but also given the partnership with Waka Kotahi, directly to the GPS Transport as well.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Shareholding in FoodHQ Innovation Limited

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, Acting Chief Financial Officer

David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council make application to be a shareholder of FoodHQ Innovation Limited as contemplated in the Memorandum of Understanding attached to the report “Shareholding in FoodHQ Innovation Limited” considered at the meeting of the Council on 6 April 2022.

2. That the Chief Executive be authorised to take all steps necessary to facilitate this including signing appropriate documentation.

3. That the Chief Executive be appointed on an interim basis for a period of twelve months as the Council’s nominated director for FoodHQ Innovation Limited with the position to be reviewed prior to the expiration of that period.

1. ISSUE

The Council contributes to the operation of FoodHQ financially and through Board representation. To enable it to continue to operate FoodHQ’s organisational structure needs to be changed and the parties involved have determined a limited liability company would be most appropriate.

The report seeks approval for the Council to become a shareholder in the new entity - FoodHQ Innovation Limited and to appoint a director to represent the Council.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction

Palmerston North City Council’s research into the city’s strategic position has shown us that to stand out from the crowd a “centre of industry” approach is the best fit for Palmy, through growing a food innovation capital in New Zealand. This positioning sits alongside and complements our Small City Benefits, Big City Ambition vision.

Palmy has an extensive and well-established food innovation ecosystem – from farming and agriculture to transport, distribution and logistics; food resilience to food rescue; education and training to waste management and sustainability; and much more. This, paired with our unique geographic location, enables our city to lead and enable the future growth of a range of industries that follow the food innovation spearhead.

The Council, in conjunction with other stakeholders (NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd, Agresearch Ltd, Fonterra Ltd and Massey University), has contributed to the establishment and on-going operation of the unincorporated joint venture known as FoodHQ.

The key objectives are to:

· Maintain and further develop, a collaborative partnership with New Zealand’s public and private sector capability in food science and innovation for the benefit of New Zealand

· Work nationally and internationally to support both its partner organisations and the broader New Zealand food sector.

The entity has been operated under the umbrella of The Factory but this arrangement has no longer become acceptable to the Board of The Factory, as they have no control over FoodHQ’s operations. FoodHQ have therefore needed to implement a new operating structure before 31 March 2022.

The Board of FoodHQ representing the parties have agreed that FoodHQ should transition from an unincorporated joint venture to a limited liability company.

The parties have entered a Memorandum of Understanding (copy attached) which outlines this good faith understanding.

Recognising that some of the parties would not be in a position to formalise the commitment to becoming a shareholder within the timeframe required, one of the parties (NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd), agreed to become the sole shareholder in the interim to enable the Company to be incorporated and assume the business of FoodHQ.

These preliminary arrangements will mean that once formal arrangements are completed by each of the parties they will apply to be allocated 24 shares of the total of 120 shares in the Company.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the parties indicates it is the intention the Shareholders’ Agreement (copy attached) will regulate the Company and that the Constitution (attached) will initially be the current Auckland District Law Society form amended as necessary to be consistent with the Shareholders’ Agreement.

FoodHQ Innovation Ltd has now been incorporated.

2.2 Rationale for shareholding

Council’s economic development actions include support for initiatives that promote the region’s strengths (in particular research/agri-food/business/land/horticulture). The Council has determined it wishes to support FoodHQ as it represents a key strength of the City in the food science and innovation sector. The Council currently exercises this support through annual operational funding and Board representation.

For practical reasons it has become necessary for FoodHQ to be structured more formally as a separate legal entity and to enable the Council to maintain its past level of involvement it is appropriate for the Council to become a shareholder in the newly incorporated company.

Council’s Board representative and Council staff have been involved in the development of the corporatisation proposals including the Shareholders’ Agreement. To demonstrate good faith with the other partners in the present arrangement Council representatives have signed the Memorandum of Understanding which signals it is intended the Council will most likely wish to become a shareholder, although it is not a binding commitment for the Council to do so.

2.3 Investment Policy considerations

Council’s Investment Policy (as required under s 105 of the Local Government Act) is incorporated within its Treasury Policy. The policy contemplates the possibility of investing in equity shareholdings to enable the Council to participate in central government or regional initiatives associated with the provision of a key infrastructural activity. This investment in FoodHQ is not quite the same nevertheless the same principles apply. The Policy indicates the Council will assess risks associated with each investment and monitor these. The management of the shareholding will be dependent on the size and nature of the shareholding and where it is not the 100% shareholding will seek to do so in conjunction with other shareholders. It will do this by:

· Participating in the appointment of directors

· Monitoring the developments in the particular industry

· Monitoring company performance

· Acting to preserve the value of the Council’s investment

· Monitoring the impact of the Company’s operation on the people of Palmerston North

The new company will have no significantly different risk to the Council than the present unincorporated joint venture. It is not intended the Company will have any material assets. The level of the Council’s operating financial contribution will not be impacted to any material degree by the new structure although as a separate entity there will be some compliance and accountability costs.

2.4 Appointment of a Director

Council’s Chief Executive has represented the Council on the Board of the unincorporated entity FoodHQ alongside the Chief Executives of the other stakeholders. Once the Council becomes a shareholder of the new company it needs to exercise its rights to appoint a director to represent the City’s interests.

As there are a series of meetings during April to plan the way forward for the Company it is desirable for the Council’s appointment to be confirmed at this meeting.

At this stage there has been no detailed assessment of the skills and experience required of any Council appointed director. However as the science interests will be represented well by the directors representing other shareholders it is believed the key role to be played by the Council’s representative is to ensure the Company’s direction is consistent with the City’s strategic positioning building its reputation as a food innovation hub.

Appointments to positions representing the Council are normally governed by the Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy. An updated version of this policy is being considered at the 6 April meeting. The new Company is a Council Organisation but not a Council Controlled Organisation or Council Controlled Trading Organisation. As a company director it is appropriate to consider the principles outlined in the Policy that relate to CCOs and CCTOs.

The appointee therefore:

• Should have appropriate skills, knowledge or experience

• Normally not be an elected member (due to potential conflict in monitoring performance)

• Normally not be a Council officer unless the nature of the appointment requires this.

In this instance given the nature of the representative role being expected the appointee should desirably be locally based and familiar with the thrust of the Council’s marketing efforts and strategic direction.

With the above in mind it is considered the most appropriate approach in the interim would be to appoint the Council’s Chief Executive while the Board is in its early stages of establishment and once established the skill sets will be more clearly defined.

3. NEXT STEPS

Council’s application to become a shareholder will be lodged and any consequential actions will be undertaken.

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 the achievement of action/actions in Economic Development The action is: Support initiatives that promote the region’s strengths (in particular research/agri-food/business/land/horticulture).
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Becoming a shareholder in FoodHQ demonstrates Council’s commitment to its strategic positioning of the city as a food innovation capital of New Zealand and enables it to take a leadership role in realising the city’s strength in food innovation

Attachments

1.	Memorandum of Understanding ⇩
2.	Food HQ Shareholders' Agreement ⇩
3.	Food HQ Innovation Ltd - Constitution ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Review of Appointment of Directors & Trustees Policy

Presented By: Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Assistant Chief Executive

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council adopt the Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022 (Attachment 1) to replace the Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2018.

2. That Council delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive to make any minor amendments to the Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2018 (Policy) is due for review. The purpose of this policy is to outline the process Council will follow to appoint directors to council organisations (COs), the expected skills or knowledge required and the remuneration of the various positions; in accordance with s57 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

1.2 The current Policy outlines the appointments process to Boards of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and council-controlled trading organisations (CCTOs).

1.3 To meet the expectations of the LGA, the proposed new Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022 (draft policy) (Attachment 1) covers appointments to all of Council’s COs, it includes:

· Council-controlled organisations and trading organisations

· Community organisations

· Steering groups and advisory panels, and

· Selection panels to distribute funds on behalf of the Jaycee Trust and Creative New Zealand.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Council adopted the current Policy in April 2018. The policy outlines the process for how Council will appoint board members to Council’s CCOs - Te Manawa Museums Trust, the Regent Theatre Trust and the Globe Theatre Trust, and for the council-controlled trading company, Palmerston North Airport Ltd. It explains the expected skills or knowledge required and the remuneration for the different Boards.

2.2 Appointments of directors to the Central Economic Development Agency are set out in the Appointment of Directors Policy of Central Economic Development Agency Ltd as agreed together with Manawatū District Council. Thus, although another CCO, this policy does not apply to the Agency.

2.3 Section 57(1) of the LGA is broader than CCOs and requires a policy that sets out the appointment process to all ‘council organisations’ (see Attachment 2). The LGA defines council organisations in Section 6 as any entity or company which Council either controls, directly or indirectly, one or more of the votes at any meeting of the controlling body or has the right to appoint one or more of the trustees, directors or managers (however described).

2.4 To fully comply with the LGA, the draft policy includes a new section which explains the process for making council appointments to the following bodies (council organisations):

· Community organisations

· Steering groups and advisory panels, and

· Selection panels to distribute funds on behalf of the Jaycee Trust and Creative New Zealand.

2.5 Council appoints to several other bodies which have not been included in the draft policy, most notably the District Licensing Committee, assigning Appointed Members to Council committees and appointing Resource Management Act commissioners. Appointments to standing committees are specifically excluded in the definition of council organisation in the LGA. Whereas approving a list of commissioners to hear resource consent hearing is governed by the Resource Management Act 1991 and licensing committee appointments by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

3. Changes made in the draft Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022

3.1 Following a desktop review, officers have made the following changes to the draft Policy.

3.2 Officers conducted a desktop review which involved:

· Reviewing the policy against legislative requirements and

· Collating the different types of council organisations Council appoints to, and the current practice of appointment to each.

· Reviewing the Policy against the current procedure for appointing board members to CCO Boards.

· Comparing the Policy to policies of other similar-sized councils

3.3 The draft policy contains the following changes:

Re-formatting to improve structure and readability.

3.4 The draft policy has been re-formatted into two parts, Part One outlines the process for appointing board members to CCOs and CCTOs, which are done annually; and Part Two explains the process for appointments to other COs (which tend to occur on a triennium or ad hoc basis).

3.5 Both parts explain the skills and experience required, term of appointment, eligibility requirement, appointment process and remuneration for the different appointments.

Revised wording and re-formatting of Part One – Appointments to CCOs & CCTO.

3.6 Part One has been re-formatted to set out the appointment process of CCO Boards in a systematic order, and to update the process to incorporate good practice.

3.7 Changes include:

· Explanation of the legal definition of a CCO/CCTO and which CCOs/CCTOs the policy applies to. It should be noted that the Central Economic Development Agency has its own appointment process.

· Inclusion of additional requirement for applicant to have a clean police record and references– this is good practice.

· Re-ordered the appointment process to clarify logic.

· Emphasised that Council expects vacancies to be advertised, and that a report will only be presented to Council if the Board or officers can provide a compelling reason for a post to be renewed.

· Strengthened the right of Trust Boards to seek specific skills or experience before vacancies are advertised.

· Inclusion of knowledge of tikanga Māori, as a factor the Appointment Panel could consider when interviewing applicants. This is suggested by s 57 (3) of the LGA.

· Outlined the current remuneration rates for Council’s cultural CCOs and added detail around setting remuneration for directors of the Palmerston North Airport Board as per their constitution.

Added Part Two – Appointments to Council Organisations.

3.8 Part Two outlines the current practice for appointments to community organisations, steering groups, advisory panels and selection panels during the council term. The majority of these appointments are made at the beginning of the triennium, or on an ad hoc basis depending on the creation of a new group, or resignation of the council appointee.

3.9 It sets out the eligibility requirements, and the appointment process for the Jaycee Trust Assessment Committee and the Creative NZ Assessment Committee.

3.10 Officers recommend changing the name of the Jaycee Trust Selection Panel to Jaycee Trust Assessment Committee to avoid confusion with the Appointments Panel of previously similar name.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 If adopted the Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022 will be published on the Council’s website and the name of the Jaycee Trust committee will be updated in the Delegations Manual.

4.2 Officers to contact external organisations to confirm the status of current council appointments prior to the new triennium.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		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 & Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Governance and Active Citizenship The action is: Ongoing review of governance systems and structures to support Council’s effectiveness and reputation.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy sets out the process for council appointments to council organisations, as required by the Local Government Act. The proposed policy governs Council’s formal interactions with community groups and ensures effective decision-makers are recruited to govern council-controlled organisations.

Attachments

1.	Draft Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2022 ⇩
2.	Current Appointment of Directors and Trustees Policy 2018 ⇩
3.	Extract from Local Government Act - definition of Council Organisation/ Council- controlled organisation ⇩
4.	List of Council appointments ⇩

Recommendations from Committee

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 6 April 2022

TITLE: Presentation of the Part I Public Finance & Audit Committee Recommendations from its 23 March 2022 Meeting

Set out below are the recommendations only from the Finance & Audit Committee meeting Part I Public held on 23 March 2022. The Council may resolve to adopt, amend, receive, note or not adopt any such recommendations. (SO 3.18.1)

19-22

Palmerston North Airport Ltd - Interim Report for 6 months to 31 December 2021

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance, Murray Georgel (Palmerston North Airport Ltd (PNAL) Chair) and David Lanham (PNAL Chief Executive).

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council receive the Interim Report and Financial Statements of Palmerston North Airport Ltd for the period ended 31 December 2021, presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 23 March 2022.

20-22

Palmerston North Airport Ltd - Draft Statement of Intent for 2022/23

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance, Murray Georgel (PNAL Chair) and David Lanham (PNAL Chief Executive).

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council receive the Palmerston North Airport Ltd (PNAL) draft Statement of Intent for 2022/23, presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 23 March 2022, and PNAL be advised that Council supports the proposed direction and implementation strategy.

21-22

Debt funding arrangements for Palmerston North Airport Ltd - Loan Facility Agreement

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the loan facility agreement (attached) that would enable the Council to borrow sums from the Local Government Funding Agency and on-lend to Palmerston North Airport Limited in the form of fixed rate unsecured debt be approved.

2. That the Chief Executive be authorised to approve amendments to the agreement (if required) to address the way in which Local Government Funding Agency Borrower Notes are treated between the parties, or as a consequence of annual reviews.

3. That the Chief Executive be authorised to enter transactions contemplated by the loan agreement of amounts not exceeding $10 million in advance of the approval of the final Statement of Intent each year, and subsequently transactions not exceeding the maximum term debt for each year as outlined in the adopted Statement of Intent.

22-22

Fees and Charges Review

Report, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

Planning & Miscellaneous

1. That the Statement of Proposal (and the associated summary) to adopt updated fees and charges for Planning Services and Miscellaneous Services effective from 1 July 2022 as attached in Appendix 3, be approved for public consultation and the Chief Executive be authorised to undertake the necessary consultative process under sections 83 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Building

2. That the fees and charges for Building Services, as proposed in Appendix 4 be adopted and following public notification take effect from 1 July 2022.

3. That Council receive the report titled ‘Fees and Charges Review’, presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 23 March 2022, and that the current status of fees and charges be noted.

Trade Waste

4. That the proposal to adopt updated fees and charges for Trade Waste services effective from 1 July 2022 as attached in Appendix 2, be approved for public consultation and the Chief Executive be authorised to undertake the necessary consultative process under sections 82 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Environmental Health

5. That the fees and charges for Environmental Health Services (in terms of regulation 7 of the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966) as proposed in Appendix 5, be adopted and following public notification, take effect from 1 July 2022.

Animal Control

6. That the fees and charges for the Impounding of Animals (in terms of section 14 of the Impounding Act 1955) and for Dog Registration and Dog Impounding (in terms of sections 37 and 68 of the Dog Control Act 1996) as proposed in Appendix 6 be adopted, and following public notification, take effect from 1 July 2022.

Burial & Cremation

7. That the fees and charges for Burial and Cremation, as proposed in Appendix 7 be adopted and following public notification, take effect from 1 July 2022.

Service Connections

8. That the fees and charges for Service Connections, as proposed in Appendix 8 be adopted and take effect from 1 July 2022.

Resource Recovery/Waste Management

9. That the changes to fees and charges for Resource Recovery/Waste Management relating to the recycling of tyres as proposed in Appendix 9 be adopted and take effect from 1 July 2022.

Sportsfields

10. That the fees and charges for Sportsfields as proposed in Appendix 10 be adopted and take effect from 1 July 2022.

Backflow Prevention

11. That the fees and charges for Backflow Prevention testing and maintenance as proposed in Appendix 11 be adopted and take effect from 1 July 2022.

Corridor Access Request

12. That the fees and charges for Corridor Access Requests as proposed in Appendix 12 be adopted and take effect from 1 July 2022.

23-22

Variations to Operating Budget

Memorandum, presented by Cameron McKay, Acting Chief Financial Officer.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Variations to Operating Budget’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 23 March 2022.

2. That Council note and approve bringing forward capital expenditure of $1m from 2022/23 into 2021/22 for Programme 1879 - Council's Plant and Vehicle Replacements.

24-22

Allocation of funding from the Low Carbon Fund to Capital Renewal Programmes

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Senior Climate Change Advisor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That ‘Programme 1791 – Parks Depot – Building Reserves’ be increased by $90,000 in the 2021/2022 Financial Year for the upgrade of the Ferguson Street Depot boiler to modern energy efficiency standards.

2. That ‘Programme 1837 - Swimming Pools – Pool Renewals’ be increased by $39,558 in the 2021/2022 Financial Year for the upgrade of the modern energy efficient variable speed drives at the Lido Aquatic Centre

3. That ‘Programme 1888 – Low Carbon Fund’ be reduced by $129,558 in the 2021/2022 Financial year.

25-22

Ashhurst Domain - Vacant Ex-Cafe Building Options

Report, presented by Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property, and Kathy Dever-Tod, Group Manager - Parks and Logistics.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council retain the ex-café building within Ashhurst Domain and seek to lease the building once the review of Ashhurst Domain Reserve Management Plan is completed.

26-22

Colquhoun Park - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Manawatu Softball Association Incorporated and Freyberg Old Boys' Rugby Football Club Incorporated

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property and Kathy Dever-Tod, Group Manager - Parks and Reserves.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council approve entering a new lease with Manawatu Softball Association and Freyberg Old Boys’ Rugby Club Incorporated for part of the Colquhoun Park Pavilion, 134-136 Fairs Road, Palmerston North, in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

[1] One operator was unable to separate reported numbers of scooters parked causing a hazard or parked incorrectly and treated all parking complaints as if they were parked hazardously and responded accordingly.

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Patrick Handcock ONZM
Susan Baty	Leonie Hapeta
Rachel Bowen	Lorna Johnson
Zulfiqar Butt	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Orphée Mickalad
Renee Dingwall	Karen Naylor
Lew Findlay QSM	Bruno Petrenas

1-22	Annual Budget (Plan) 2022/23 - Adopting Supporting Information and the Consultation Document Memorandum, presented by Cameron McKay, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.
	1. That the Chief Executive incorporate the assumptions regarding carry forwards of capital programmes from the 2021/22 year as detailed in Schedule A in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget. 2. That the Chief Executive incorporate the deferrals of capital programmes from 2022/23 to later years as detailed in Schedule B.
	3. That a budget of $65,000 be allocated to programme 2129 to undertake a trial of a free rubbish bag a month to low income households. 4. That the following proposed new Operational programme is removed from the draft 22/23 Annual Budget, and is included in a list titled: “Considered but not included”: · Programme 2136 – City Marketing Campaigns - $150,000 5. That the following proposed Operational programme is removed: · Programme 2135 - $21,000 – LGNZ Conference 6. That an additional budget of $100,000 is allocated to continue that COVID-19 Relief Fund for 2022/23. 7. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to operating programmes as detailed in Schedule C in the draft 2022/23 Annual Budget, subject to the resolutions 3 to 6 above.
	8. That the Chief Executive incorporate the changes to assumptions and operating income and expenses as summarised in Schedule G in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget.
	9. That the following proposed Capital New programme is added to the draft 22/23 Annual Budget: · $300,000 for on-demand crossing Ferguson/Linton Street. 10. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to capital renewal programmes as detailed in Schedule D in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget. 11. That the Chief Executive incorporate the variations to capital new programmes as detailed in Schedule E in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget, including resolution 9 above.
	12. That the following programme’s funding is reduced: · Programme 86 - $103,000 – (capital renewal) Furniture replacements – reduce to $50,000. 13. That the following programme’s funding is reduced: · Programme 2047 - $154,000 – (capital new) Furniture transformation – reduce to $75,000. 14. That the Chief Executive incorporate the programmes with no proposed change to the budget shown in year 2 of the 10 year Plan as detailed in Schedule F in the draft of the 2022/23 Annual Budget, incorporating resolutions 12 and 13 above.