Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 28 June 2023

Council MEETING

28 June 2023

Order of Business

1. Karakia Timatanga

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.

4. 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.

5. Public Comment

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

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

6. Petition: Stop PNCC from removing car parks Page 7

7. Presentation - King's Birthday Honours List 2023 Page 9

8. Confirmation of Minutes Page 15

“That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 14 June 2023 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Reports

9. Summerhill Drive Cycleway Update Page 21

Report, presented by Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport and Development.

10. Featherston Street Cycleway Update Page 53

Report, presented by Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport and Development.

11. Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Steering Group: Terms of Reference Page 161

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer.

12. Bad debt write offs Page 165

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Finance Manager.

13. Priority Order for Council-owned Earthquake Prone Buildings Page 169

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property and Resource Recovery.

14. Future Development Strategy: Horizons Regional Council and Palmerston North City Council Joint Steering Group Page 197

Memorandum, presented by Michael Duindam, Acting City Planning Manager.

15. Review of Remuneration for Directors of the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA) Page 203

Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor and David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer.

16. Support of Remits to Local Government New Zealand 2023 Annual General Meeting Page 211

Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor.

17. Invitation for the Mayor to attend Eco Forum Global, Guiyang, China Page 249

Memorandum, presented by Gabrielle Loga, International Relations Manager.

18. Scheduling of additional Council Meeting Page 253

Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor.

19. Work Schedule 28 June 2023 Page 255

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

20. Presentation of the Part I Public Strategy & Finance Committee Recommendations from its 7 June 2023 Meeting Page 259

21. Presentation of the Part I Public Economic Growth Committee Recommendations from its 21 June 2023 Meeting Page 261

22. 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
23.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 14 June 2023	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 14 June 2023, held in public.
24.	Appointments to the Palmerston North Jaycee Trust Assessment Committee	Privacy	s7(2)(a)
25.	Candidates for President and Vice-President of Local Government New Zealand	Prevent Improper Gain or Advantage	s7(2)(j)
26.	Presentation of the Part II Confidential Economic Growth Committee Recommendations from its 21 June 2023 Meeting	For the reasons set out in the ordinary Economic Growth Committee minutes of 21 June 2023, held in public.

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 14 June 2023, commencing at 9.04am

Members

Present:

Grant Smith (The Mayor) (in the Chair) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

Apologies:

Councillors Roly Fitzgerald and Kaydee Zabelin (lateness).

Karakia Timatanga

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb opened the meeting with karakia.

89-23

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 89-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

	Declaration of Interest
	Councillor Leonie Hapeta declared an interest in Item 7 ‘Fees and Charges - Confirmation Following Public Consultation’ (clause 91) and took no further part in discussion or debate on that Item.

90-23

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 31 May 2023 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 90-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Reports

91-23

Fees and Charges - Confirmation Following Public Consultation

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

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the fees and charges for Planning & Miscellaneous Services, as scheduled in Attachments A and B, effective from 1 July 2023.

2. That Council approve the fees and charges for Trade Waste Services, as scheduled in Attachment C, effective from 1 July 2023.

Clause 91-23 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

Note:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta declared an interest, withdrew from the discussion and sat in the gallery.

92-23	2023/24 Annual Budget - Adoption Memorandum, presented by Cameron McKay, Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council adopt the Annual Budget (Plan) for 2023/24 as attached.
	Clause 92.1-23 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and William Wood. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. 2. That Council delegate authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve minor amendments to the final Annual Budget (Plan) 2023/24 for publication. 3. That Council confirm the adoption of the Annual Budget (Plan) 2023/24 is a significant decision within the parameters of the Local Government Act 2002 and that Council is satisfied that all submissions have been considered and that there has been compliance with the decision-making and consultation requirements of the Act. 4. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to authorise payments to Council Controlled Organisations and other external organisations in accordance with their respective service level agreements.
	Clause 92.2-23 to 92.4-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

93-23

Setting Rates for 2023/24

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

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council adopt the resolution to set the rates for the 2023/24 year (Appendix One).

2. That Council note that the setting of rates is a significant decision within the parameters of the Local Government Act 2002 and that it is satisfied there has been compliance with the decision-making and consultation requirements of the Act.

Clause 93-23 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

Against:

Councillor Brent Barrett.

The meeting adjourned at 10.20am.

The meeting resumed at 10.42am.

94-23

Resolutions to Authorise Borrowing

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

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council authorise the Chief Executive to borrow, in accordance with delegated authority, up to $37 million (“the Borrowing”) of additional term debt by way of bank loan or loans or credit facilities or other facilities or the issue of stock for the Borrowing secured by the Debenture Trust Deed.

2. That Council note that the purpose of the Borrowing is the carrying out or continuing of programmes identified in the Annual Budget 2023/24 year.

3. That Council note that any sums raised and subsequently on-lent to Palmerston North Airport Limited pursuant to the loan agreement between the Council and the Company will be in addition to the sums to be raised for the Council’s own funding purposes as authorised above.

4. That Council note that the security for the Borrowing may be the charge over rates under the Debenture Trust Deed if the Chief Executive considers appropriate.

5. That Council note that the benefits of the Borrowing are that it will enable the Council to carry out the programmes identified in the Annual Budget while spreading the costs for those programmes over time to recognise future benefits. The risk is that interest rates may vary in the future resulting in higher debt servicing costs to the Council.

6. That Council approve that having regard to the Council’s financial strategy, it is prudent and reasonable to enter into the proposed borrowing for the reasons set out in this report.

7. That Council note that the raising of the Borrowing will comply with the Council's Liability Management Policy.

8. That Council note that the decision to borrow up to $37 million is a significant decision within the parameters of the Local Government Act 2002 and is satisfied that there has been compliance with the decision-making and consultation requirements of the Act.

Clause 94-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

95-23

Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive its Work Schedule dated 14 June 2023.

Clause 95-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

96-23

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

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.	Tender Award - Custom Street Upgrade	Third Party Commercial	s7(2)(b)(ii)
14.	Proposed District Plan Change G: Aokautere Urban Growth - Appointment of Commissioner	Privacy	s7(2)(a)

Clause 96-23 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 10.53am

Confirmed 28 June 2023

Mayor

REPORT

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Summerhill Drive Cycleway Update

PRESENTED BY: Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport and Development

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council endorse Option 1A for Summerhill Drive: a unidirectional separated cycleway, on each side of the road for sections 1 and 3 and for section 2 the cycleway moved to the berm behind parked cars.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 As part of the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, the ‘Transport Choices’ programme has provided an opportunity to Local Government to apply for funding to create a change in the way people move around our towns, cities, and regions. This fund is designed to fast-track projects that support a rapid shift to more sustainable and active ways of getting around.

1.2 Palmerston North City Council applied for and had funding approved to contribute toward upgrading and connecting cycleways in Palmerston North. The funding will be utilised to progress strategic cycle networks that sit under the Council’s 2019 Urban Cycle Network Masterplan.

1.3 ‘Transport Choices’ funding expires at the end of June 2024, meaning that projects must be designed, agreed, procured, and implemented within the next sixteen months. Waka Kotahi has several significant stage gates that must be met to remain eligible for the funding.

1.4 The proposed cycleway layout needs to be confirmed at the 28 June 2023 Council meeting in order to have enough design time to be able to meet the funding deadlines.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The sections of cycleway chosen for the funding application were derived from a combination of cycling transport corridors identified in the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan which prioritises the top 25 corridors such as Featherston Street and Main Street, and also where a significant need has been identified to complete cycling connections for a growing suburb with the rest of the city via a busy and currently unsafe corridor, for example Summerhill Drive through to Aokautere Drive.

2.2 In February 2023 Council approved the addition of a programme Transport Choices - Cycleways to reflect both the additional capital new expenditure and additional subsidy revenue which breaks down as follows:

· An increase of $300k in the 2022/23 Capital New Budget for design engineering and engagement and consultation costs.

· An increase to Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue of $300k being 100% of the new budget for 2022/23.

Council also noted commitment to the addition of the Transport Choices – Cycleways of $4.834M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget for capital new for construction and an associated increase to Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue of $4.834M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget (updated figures to align with 31 May Council deliberations).

2.3 One of the sections identified and approved as a component of the Transport Choices Programme was a cycleway for Summerhill Drive from the intersection with Pacific Drive to Tennent Drive.

2.4 Throughout this area, there are already on-road unidirectional cycle lanes delineated by paint only. Parking is also very restricted along the proposed length with no parking lines in place and only a handful of indented carparks or standard spaces without no parking lines. There is a footpath along the length of this area with limited provisions for crossing the road; five pedestrian refuges over the two kilometres.

2.5 The level of service to pedestrians and cyclists is considered as not high enough to make it safe for more vulnerable road users, particularly with the 60-70kmph speed limits in the area

2.6 The Summerhill Drive cycleway project includes a busy section of State Highway 57 between Turitea Road and Pacific Drive – the statistics being:

· Summerhill Drive carries approximately 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles/day.

· Plan Change G provides for the construction of approximately 1,000 additional dwelling in the residential area being developed along Pacific Drive, at the far end of the scope area.

· Council has an active mode target for Summerhill/Aokautere of 7.5% walking and 7.5% for cycling by 2033.

· Currently, about 4.4% of people walk to work and 3.7% cycle to work from the Summerhill area.

2.7 On 2 December 2020 the Infrastructure Committee received a report Outcome of Consultation on Summerhill Cycleway Upgrade Options for Segment 5. The resolutions below were passed:

1. That the Council approves the implementation of Modified Option A of the report titled ‘Outcome of Consultation on Summerhill Cycleway Upgrade Options for Segment 5’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020, comprising of 540m of buffered cycle lanes with indented parking and bus bays.

2. That the Council approves an unbudgeted Capital New Programme entitled ‘Summerhill Drive - On-Street Parking Infrastructure’ with a budget of $234k to fund the parking mitigation works required to implement the Summerhill Drive Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements Project.

2.8 This report also details the consultation undertaken at the time.

2.9 In 2021 unidirectional cycleways were installed between Turitea Road and Springdale Grove. To mitigate the loss of parking as a result of introducing the cycleways, indented carparks were installed in the grass berms with the intent of allowing for short term parking for local businesses and visitors to residential properties.

3. Outline of Community Engagement Process

3.1 Following the Council decision in February 2023 (between late February and April) engagement with the schools, business, and organisations on or near Summerhill Drive/ Aokautere was undertaken. This included:

· A media release

· Social media posts

· Webpage

· Letters to around 2500 residents

· A drop-in session at the New World Aokautere attended by 29 people

3.2 In total Officers connected with around 51 people. This comprised: 14 businesses, 8 other stakeholders (local/government departments, general public who registered an interest, cycling groups, disability groups, and sports users/sporting organisations) and 29 people at a drop-in centre. These were a combination of face-to-face meetings, emails, phone calls and a drop-in centre.

3.3 Key themes that were raised included:

· Cyclists felt unsafe on the narrow cycleway for reasons including, vehicles cutting into the cycleways, size of the trucks and speed.

· The need for lower speed especially around the shopping area – this has been passed on to Waka Kotahi.

· The need for a signalised crossing (over State Highway 57) by the shops and safe crossing points by the reserve access was also highlighted. The crossings need to provide for students at IPU, as well as shoppers and other pedestrians. The current crossing doesn’t feel to be well located or clearly identified, resulting in pedestrians feeling vulnerable.

3.4 From the local businesses the following is noted:

· Several businesses favoured a shared walkway/cycleway on one side of the road.

· There was a range of local business views around the indented parking. Some local businesses noted that it increased the feeling of busyness around the Coffee in A Box and Landscape Yard locations and that as result it was harder for all road users to navigate the area safely.

· The intersection on this stretch of road is hard to navigate because of vehicle speed and volume.

4. Description of options

4.1 The scope area for this report is Summerhill Drive, from the intersection of Pacific Drive to Tennent Drive. For the purpose of this report, the approximately 2-kilometre length of Summerhill Drive from Pacific Drive to Tennent Drive, has been separated in three segments. This is due to the changing nature of the road and surrounding environment.

Figure 1-1: Project scope area of Summerhill Drive, divided into three sections

4.2 Figure 1-1 above identifies the sections.

· Section 1 - Pacific Drive to Turitea Road (largely commercial)

· Section 2 - Turitea Road to Springdale Grove (largely residential)

· Section 3 - Springdale Grove to Tennant Drive (bordered by reserve land) and transitions to other active mode connections

4.3 Engineering analysis of the macro-options for Summerhill Drive has meant a focus on a unidirectional cycleway over a bidirectional. There is currently a unidirectional cycleway working at that location that just needs making safer, it requires little engineering change and needs little to no change in motorist and cyclist behaviour. The bidirectional option has been included in the report for completeness’, however this is not recommended by Officers. Following investigation of the problems and understanding of the required solutions the following design options have been proposed and evaluated. A particular focus has been on Section 2 as the other two sections are more straight forward and have had less safety concerns raised about them.

4.3 OPTION 1: Uni-directional separated cycle ways extending the entire way.

Option 1A - unidirectional separated cycleway for sections 1 and 3.

For section 2 the cycleway is moved to the berm behind the parked cars illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2

Option 1B:

The unidirectional cycleway continued with additional inset car parks created.

See Figure 3 below.

Provides additional parking but means separators for the cycleway will be sporadic due to cars needing to cross the cycleway.

Figure 3

Option 1C:

Bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of Summerhill Drive for section 2 (transitioning from a unidirectional facility).

See Figure 4 below.

This will require cyclists crossing the road twice if they are heading towards town so compliance could be an issue.

Figure 4

Option 2: Bidirectional separated cycle path

Option 2 proposes an on-road bidirectional separated cycleway along the length of Summerhill Drive, likely along the northern side of the road as this provides the most direct connection from:

· The proposed shared path on the northern side of Aokautere Drive after Pacific Drive,

· The Summerhill Village Hub, and

· The potential link through reserve land to Cliff Road and the Manawatu River Pathway.

5. Analysis of optionS

OPTION 1: Uni-directional separated cycle ways extending the entire way

5.1 Unidirectional separated cycle ways extending the length of the scope area provide an opportunity to make use of existing infrastructure and provide fit for purpose facilities for commuter and recreational cyclists. This option has already been discussed with the community in 2020 for the section of the scope area near the Landscape Yard and Coffee in A Box.

Pros:

• This option takes cyclists off the road and away from high speed-high volume traffic on a busy arterial route.

• With the cycleway already in place and parking prohibited along most of the length already there is very limited change for the residents and road users.

• It makes use of existing road space. In much of the scope area, the cycle lane is already buffered, providing the needed width to place pre-cast separators.

• This option is the most intuitive type of cycle facility for commuters to work and school coming and going from central Palmerston North as they continue to travel on the same side of the road in the same direction as the current cycle lanes.

• Pedestrians and cyclists are kept separate with this option.

• This option most easily transitions into and past the Summerhill Village hub.

• Uni-directional cycleways pose less risk of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at bus stops, as boarding/disembarking passengers do not have to cross two lanes of cycleway. Thus, provides greatest safety benefits for cyclists and public transport users compared to the bi-directional cycleway options.

Cons:

· This option is less appealing than a fully off-road path for less confident cyclists if the speed remains at 60-70 kmph.

· This option would require realignment of traffic lanes around the bus stops to ensure the integrity of the cycle lane but would be covered in the detail design phase with a likely outcome the being the cycle lane diverting behind the bus stop

· Will require smaller road sweepers to clean the separated cycle ways as per the CBD cleaning.

Short term parking has been identified as important for Section 2 - Turitea Road to Springdale Grove for both visitors of local residents and the small businesses in the area. As a result, further design options have been considered to improve the currently unsafe section for cyclists while also mitigating the loss of parking.

Option 1A

5.2 For section 2 the cycleway is moved to the berm on the footpath side of the parked cars (on the South side of the road heading into Palmerston North near Coffee in A Box). The unidirectional cycleway for sections 1 and 3 remains as per option 1.

Pros:

· Moving the cycleway behind parked cars in section 2 creates a physical buffer between cyclists and moving traffic, enhancing safety and separation.

· Provides 9 on-street car parking spaces around the businesses as well as 6 indented carparks nearby.

· Maintains a flush median, allowing for the passage of emergency services.

· The barrier can be designed and placed in a way that allows rubbish trucks to straddle the barrier between the live lane and cycleway. This means that bins and recycling can be placed on the berm as usual. This will allow other motorists to pass rubbish trucks, which will help maintain traffic flow. It reduces the risk to personal collecting recycling of working close to a live traffic lane, particularly in this higher speed area.

· The current indented parking spaces on the south side of the road near the businesses will be repurposed to accommodate the cycleway.

· Relatively intuitive for cyclists to follow as there is no “break” in the cycleway it just moves to the left.

Cons:

· Potential conflicts between cyclists and rubbish trucks if proper timing and coordination are not in place.

· Loss of three pohutukawa trees due to the cycleway placement. These trees were gifted by the Manawatu Tree Trust and so it is proposed that this is offset by planting more pohutukawa trees in conjunction with that group.

Option 1B

5.3 The unidirectional cycleway continues with additional indented car parks created in section 2.

Pros:

· Provides consistency throughout the cycleway.

· Maintains a flushed median for emergency services.

· Increased visibility of cyclists to motorists.

· More car parking spaces available than current but less than option 1a

Cons:

· Considered the least safe option, with a higher frequency of cars and bikes crossing paths, in an area where there is a high turnover of motorists using the indented parks as short-term parking.

· Potential risk of "dooring" incidents if parked car occupants open doors without checking for approaching cyclists.

· Removal of trees due to the creation of inset car parks as per Option 1A.

Option 1C

5.4 Bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of section 2 (transitioning from a unidirectional facility)

Pros:

· Retains car parks around businesses.

· Retains the pohutukawa trees

Cons:

· The inconsistency along the full length of the cycleway is likely to create confusion among cyclists.

· Requires cyclists heading South to cross a busy road

· It would pose challenges in ensuring compliance with the designated cycling paths and expected behaviour is that the path is ignored for that section by some cyclists.

· Removal of flush median may impact the operation of emergency services, particularly in times of high traffic volumes.

· Removal of two indented car parks on the east side.

· The bidirectional cycleways on the northern side of the road presents significant challenges for rubbish trucks to reach the designated area for collection due to the increased distance.

Option 2: Bidirectional separated cycle path extending the entire way

Pros:

· An on-road bidirectional cycleways has the benefit of separating pedestrians from cyclists while requiring somewhat less road width than unidirectional cycleways.

· Cyclists have protection from the high-volume, high-speed traffic.

· Car parking could likely be retained on one side of the road.

· This option could link both directions of cyclists to the Manawatu River Path via a connection to Cliff Road.

Cons:

· As Section 3 of this cycleway is on a steep hill the cycleway would need to cater for cyclists moving at quite different speeds. It is also possible that some cyclists going uphill will dismount and walk. Both the different speeds and the potential pedestrians add the potential for accidents on the cycleway. Officers have considered this conflict between fast downhill, slow uphill plus the motorist speed environment to be a less safe option than the current situation.

· Bidirectional cycleways limits cyclist mobility and requires cyclists to have to cross the road to reach their destinations, and to access the cycle facility if coming from the other side of the road. Therefore, this option would require additional lateral raised crossing points across Summerhill Drive to increase the level of service and safety for cyclists.

· This option, while requiring fewer separators, would necessitate repainting the road to shift traffic lanes, and moving the existing pedestrian refuges, which would incur additional expense.

· A bidirectional cycleway link from Summerhill Drive to Cliff Road and beyond to the underpass before Fitzherbert Bridge may incur additional geotechnical and structural costs due to the landform in that area.

· Boarding/disembarking bus passengers would be required to cross two lanes of cycle traffic.

· Rubbish collection methods and timing will need to be reassessed due to the cycle lane separators and potential vertical elements of the design.

· May require specialist road sweepers to clean the separated cycle ways.

· Bidirectional cycleways crossing driveways and commercial properties have a poor safety record, as cyclists' approach from an unexpected direction.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Option 1A: Unidirectional cycleway for the section 1 and 3 with a moved cycleway to the berm behind the parked cars for section 2 is the recommended choice.

6.2 It offers several advantages, including providing a higher level of safety for active modes due to reducing the need to cross the road to reach destinations or access the cycleway, retention of the carparking spaces, and maintaining access to emergency services. though there are some drawbacks, such as potential conflicts with rubbish trucks and tree removal.

6.3 Option 1B, which continues the unidirectional cycleway with additional inset carparks is considered the least safe option due to increased interactions between cars and bikes and potential dooring incidents.

6.4 Option 1C, involving a bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of section 2, presents challenges in terms of inconsistency, emergency services access, removal of car parks and difficulties for rubbish trucks.

6.5 Option 2, which proposes bi-directional cycleways for the full section, while presenting some benefits such as offering protection from traffic, it also poses challenges related to the cyclist mobility and additional infrastructure requirement and potential safety concerns on crossing side roads and driveways.

6.6 Therefore, by acknowledging the pros and cons for each option, option 1A is the recommended option. To address the drawbacks of Option 1, the following solutions will be implemented:

· Conflict with rubbish trucks:

o Installing low separators / barriers to allow trucks to straddle the wheels on either side. This reduces the impact on the flow of the live traffic lane. Barriers can be made of concrete or rubber and contain reflective material. The design will also incorporate flexi posts near key entry and exit points, key intersections and in spaces where there aren’t significant waste collections to make the cycleway as visible as possible.

o Proper signage and training for waste collection drivers, can help mitigate any confusion and ensures smooth operations.

o Implement proper coordination between rubbish collection services and cyclists to minimise conflicts, this can involve establishing a clear timing that minimise interaction for example no collections during rush hour traffic.

· Loss of trees:

o Explore options for compensatory tree planting in nearby areas to offset the loss.

7. Next actions

7.1 Detailed design, safety audits, procurement and construction of this work continues at pace, as required to meet the Waka Kotahi ‘Transport Choices’ tight deadlines necessary in order to receive funding.

8. Outline of community engagement process

8.1 Continuing engagement with affected business and local community will occur to explain the next steps, timeframes and intended outcomes of the project.

Compliance and administration

Does Council 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 action is: Prioritise transport programmes that 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	Waka Kotahi’s Streets for People programme aims to create liveable cities through mode shift and creation of low carbon transport choices. Our project aims to improve environmental and social wellbeing for our community.

Attachments

Engagement summary ⇩

REPORT

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Featherston Street Cycleway Update

PRESENTED BY: Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport and Development

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Infrastructure Officer

Donna Baker, Acting Chief Executive Unit Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council endorse the preferred cycleway option to be implemented on Featherston Street to be either:

· Option 1: a separated uni-directional cycleway on each side of the road.

· Option 2: a separated bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of road only.

2. That Council note that with either option, the design of pedestrian crossings will be worked on alongside the cycleway development. Final locations for pedestrian crossings will be part of detailed design, that will be presented to Council for approval later this year.

3. That Council note that several trials are proposed to be undertaken for various elements of the overall project. Public feedback from these trials will be brought back to Council for consideration alongside the final design and tender award.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Following extensive engagement, co-design, and engineering analysis two clear options have emerged for the cycleway on Featherston Street. Both will deliver a safer environment, however, equally both present trade-offs that need to be considered and explicitly weighed up.

1.2 Additionally, as the project is being funded through Waka Kotahi’s Transport Choices and Streets for People programmes, there is a tight deadline that needs to be met for when the schematic / developed designs need to be submitted to them for a preferred option (30 July 2023).

1.3 To ensure the current concept designs can be completed to schematic design level by the Waka Kotahi deadline, this report seeks Council’s direction on their preferred option so this can be advanced with urgency.

2. Background and previous council decisions

Urban Cycle Network Masterplan & Strategic Networks (Priority Routes)

2.1 Council adopted an Urban Cycle Network Masterplan in 2019. Its purpose is to map out an investment programme for the urban cycle network and to create an environment and culture that encourages more people in Palmerston North to choose cycling more often. The Urban Cycle Network Masterplan commits Council to (but not limited to):

· Expand the network of cycle lanes, including physically separated cycleways

2.2 Featherston Street forms a key route in the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan and is a priority cycling route in the Strategic Networks document.

2.3 As detailed in the Strategic Networks document, the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan and identified priority routes have been prepared in order to give effect to a number of high-order documents approved by Government, Horizons Regional Council and Council, which have been the subject to public consultation. For example, the GPS on Land Transport, Regional Land Transport Plan, Strategic Transport Plan (2021 LTP), Transport Asset Management Plan and Palmerston North Spatial Plan 2021 (2021 LTP).

Waka Kotahi Streets for People Programme

2.4 In late 2022, Council received $1.875M from Waka Kotahi’s ‘Streets for People’ programme to create a cycleway and pedestrian improvements between Aroha Street and North Street (i.e. Central Normal School to Palmerston North Boys High School).

2.5 Stakeholder engagement commenced in September 2022, with public feedback sought in November/December 2022, seeking ideas on the cycleway, pedestrian improvements, and general ideas to make the area safer. This feedback is summarised later in this report and appendices.

Waka Kotahi Transport Choices Programme

2.6 In March 2023, Council confirmed additional funding from Waka Kotahi from its ‘Transport Choices’ programme. Noting that funding was received for both Featherston Street and Summerhill Drive through this programme; however, this report will only focus on Featherston Street.

2.7 This additional funding allows for cycleway and pedestrian infrastructure to be created along Featherston Street in the sections between Botanical Road to Aroha Street and between North Street to Ruahine Street, essentially either side of the section of Featherston Street covered by the Streets for People funding.

2.8 The final section of Featherston Street (between Ruahine to Vogel Streets) will be designed; construction timing and funding constraints mean it will not be constructed as part of this project and instead will be planned through Programme 1559 (City-wide Urban Cycle Infrastructure Network Improvements) in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

2.9 Figure 1 below shows the sections of Featherston Street being addressed by the different budgets; red being Transport Choices; blue Streets for People; and yellow being the portion to be considered by Council in the Long-Term Plan.

Figure 1: Funding components for Featherston St.

3. outline of community engagement process

3.1 A considerable level of engagement has been undertaken for the Featherston Street project.

3.2 Officers have met on multiple occasions with businesses, organisations and stakeholders who are based on and/or own land on Featherston Street, have a special interest in the project, or the impact of the work we do may affect them. This engagement process has included individual conversations, public feedback sessions, and the co-design workshops. The conversations articulated the timelines and objectives for the project and focused on understanding the needs and concerns of the stakeholders and how we could improve safety on the street.

Co-design Workshops

3.3 The three co-design workshops in March, May and June allowed stakeholders including businesses and the public to feed into the design and help shape the outcome.

3.4 There are minimum engineering and legislative requirements that impact on the final design and what we can do in the corridor. Therefore, the scope of co-design was limited in that regard compared to a placemaking or property project.

3.5 Updates have been provided to all stakeholders and the community throughout the process. This includes updates and invites to the upcoming co-design meetings and sending out the copies of summaries from these sessions. The engagement efforts will continue as the project moves forward.

3.6 The co-design workshops have also been a productive way to communicate any compromises and trade-offs that will be required as part of the project and demonstrate the balanced approach being considered.

4. Description of options

4.1 Three design options were considered through the co-design process which were supported by the engineering design work:

1. A separated uni-directional cycleway on each side of the road.

2. A separated bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of road only.

3. A separated bi-directional cycleway on the southern side of road only.

4.2 Through the process, the bi-directional cycleway on the southern side of road only was able to be discounted with the remaining two options preferred.

4.3 Figure 2 below demonstrates Option 1 (separated cycle lane on each side of the road), whereas Figure 3 demonstrates Option 2 (a single cycle lane to cater for both directions of cycling traffic on the northern side of Featherston Street).

Figure 2: A separated uni-directional cycleway on each side of the road.

Figure 3: A separated bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of road only.

5. Analysis of options

5.1 Considering the feedback from co-design workshops, a multi criteria analysis (Engineering analysis) was used to assess the benefits and risks of the two options. Please refer to Appendix 1: Featherston Street Multi Criteria Analysis for the full report.

5.2 The below table provides a summary comparison of the two options:

	Option 1: A separated uni-directional cycleway on each side of the road.	Option 2: A separated bi-directional cycleway on the northern side of road only.
Community Views	· Differing views from differing stakeholders. · Strongly supported by cyclists. · Businesses/organisations concerned about on-street parking loss. Petition to this option with 150 signatures from Chiropractor.	· Differing views from differing stakeholders. · More supported by businesses and organisations due to parking impacts.
Safety	· Improves the safety of cyclists by providing a dedicated separated cycleway space. · The most intuitive option that has the safest transitions on/off and intersection interactions. · Because it is one way, it means no cyclist risk of head on collision and vehicles exiting driveways will only need to look for cyclists in one direction as they would for other traffic flows. · Waka Kotahi guidance indicates a uni-directional cycleway being 3 times safer than a bi-directional.	· Improves the safety of cyclists by providing a dedicated separated cycleway space. · Less intuitive, accessible, and safe for cyclists and creates complicated intersection arrangements especially at roundabouts. · It is not consistent with other cycleways in Palmerston North so would require some education for both cyclists and motorists. · This is not the same as an off-road shared path due to there not being a run-off space with kerb one side and traffic on the other, so has a higher risk of conflict.
Engineering Analysis (Section 4.5 Multi Criteria Analysis in attached Appendix A)	· For the three other sections in the table the scores were 1.22, 1.17 and 1.25, respectively. · Higher scores across the board – clear winner compared to bi-directional.	· For all three other sections in the table the scores were 0.65, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively. · Worth noting this is still a significant improvement over the current state.
Carparks (Out of the current 579 on street carparks on Featherston St)	· Sees the highest loss of carparks. Number of carparks retained: o Botanical to Rangitikei – 26 o Rangitikei to Ruahine – 57 o Ruahine to Vogel – 0	· Sees the lowest loss of carparks. Number of carparks retained: o Botanical to Rangitikei – 50 o Rangitikei to Ruahine – 102 o Ruahine to Vogel – 41
Rubbish and Recycling Collections	· Both sides impacted. Mitigation will be for trucks to mount the cycleway when collecting as per trials highlighted in later sections of this report.	· Only one side of the road impacted. Mitigation will be for trucks to mount the cycleway when collecting as per trial highlighted in later sections of this report.
Bus Stops	· The provision of bus stops will require specific engineering to ensure cyclist safety with an impact on both sides of the road.	· The provision of bus stops will require specific engineering to ensure cyclist safety with an impact on only one side of the road.

6. additional CONSIDERATIONS

Trials

6.1 As part of Waka Kotahi’s ‘Streets for People’ programme, a short-term trial of some, or all, of a concept is required.

6.2 Officers are still confirming which components of the project to trial as the intent is to trial something that will add value to the end outcome. This can include trialling the type of separator. It could also see us look at whether to trial a raised median/right turning bay in the areas between Ngata and Taonui Streets. It could also include trialing lane layouts or gradients of pedestrian crossings. The type of trial and the extend hasn’t been confirmed at this point.

Other changes already incorporated into design

6.3 Some changes consistent across both protected cycleway options have been discussed throughout the co-design process and incorporated into the concept designs. These changes include:

· Removal of sections of the existing flush median.

· Retaining right turn bays at higher volume side streets including Wood, Waldegrave, Bourke, Albert, and Heretaunga Streets.

· A reduction in lanes on the Featherston Street approaches to both the Ruahine and Rangitikei Street intersections. The Rangitikei Street intersection layout will be confirmed in conjunction with the Waka Kotahi project to upgrade the intersection accordingly.

· In-lane bus stops would be required.

· The three existing pedestrian crossings would be upgraded by raising them, like the recent ones completed on Vogel and Ruahine Street, as well as installations of an additional five raised pedestrian crossings near numbers 107, 165, 309, 471 and 641 Featherston Street.

· On Featherston Street right hand bays or a median island could be installed between Taonui and Ngata Streets, in response to strong public feedback and crash history in the area. If approved, right hand bays could be used, or a raised media island which would restrict right turns across traffic in a similar manner to the Palmerston North City Council Depot entry on Ferguson Street. Either option (right hand bays or raised median) could be part of a trial before permanent installation is confirmed. It’s important to note, any decision regarding this can be made separately to any cycleway or pedestrian safety improvements.

· The cycleway barrier would be chosen during detail design but would be low, like what you see at a raised median or intersection and will be consistent across other projects already completed in the city. We will continue to work with emergency services and our resource recovery team on this.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Following extensive engagement, co-design, and engineering analysis the project has landed on two potential options for the cycleway on Featherston Street.

7.2 Both the uni-directional and bi-directional options will create a safer environment for cyclists and the ancillary work that will happen under both options will increase pedestrian and motorist safety as well.

7.3 The option for a uni-directional is a clear winner for safety but at the expense of carparks and the bi-directional vice versa.

7.4 There will be some negative impact on parking regardless of which option is chosen, however there will be every effort in the detailed design to strategically place the remaining carparks in locations to support local businesses and organisations.

7.5 A short-term trial of some of the components of the design will occur prior to completion of the detailed design to ensure there are no unknown unintended consequences, and the results fed back into the design process and reported back to Council as part of the final design and procurement process.

7.6 This project is one of the most significant changes to a street in our city for decades. Regardless of the option selected, this will receive a significant amount of public feedback as people learn to adapt to the change. However, this project plays a fundamental role in the city’s Urban Cycle Network Masterplan and is a core component in achieving the ambitions and funding support by Waka Kotahi as part of the Palmerston North Integrated Transport Initiative (PNITI).

8. Next actions

8.1 Conduct the short-term trials on some of the components of the design to inform the final design.

8.2 Designs will ensure the schematic/developed design for the endorsed option is ready for the Waka Kotahi milestone date of 30July 2023.

8.3 Concurrently with the design process, the procurement process will begin for procurement of materials and of a contractor to ensure the project can be completed during the 2023/24 financial year.

Compliance and administration

Does Council 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 action is: Prioritise transport programmes that 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	Waka Kotahi’s ‘Streets for People’ programme aims to create liveable cities through mode shift and creation of low carbon transport choices. Our project aims to improve environmental and social wellbeing for our community.

Attachments

1.	Appendix 1: Featherston Street Multi Criteria Analysis ⇩
2.	Engagement Summary 2022 ⇩
3.	Engagement Summary March-April 2023 ⇩
4.	Co-design Session 1 Report ⇩
5.	Co-design Session 2 Report ⇩
6.	Co-design Session 3 Report ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Bad debt write offs

Presented By: Scott Mancer, Finance Manager

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, Chief Financial Officer

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council write off the bad debt of $162,527.77 (excl. GST) owed by Fortress Information Systems Limited.

2. That Council write off the bad debt of $20,009.30 (excl. GST) owed by Palmerston North Jets Basketball Incorporated.

3. That Council write off the bad debt of $58,363.91 (excl. GST) owed by Pioneer City West Limited.

1. ISSUE

Clause 221(c) of the Delegations Manual limits the Chief Executive to write off bad debts up to a maximum of $8,000, being 0.5% of the Specified Sum and provided such debtor accounts have been outstanding in excess of six months.

Authorisation is therefore required to enable Council to write off the following bad debt (all exclusive of GST) owed to Council by;

· Fortress Information Systems Limited - $162,527.77

· Palmerston North Jets Basketball Incorporate - $20,009.30

· Pioneer City West Limited - $58,393.91

These debtors have had bad debt provisions expensed in previous financial years.

2. BACKGROUND

Council officers have taken all steps to attempt to recover these amounts and believe that these are highly unlikely to be recovered. It is requested that Council approve writing off these bad debts, noting that this does not impact the operational surplus/(deficit) for the 2022/23 financial year as provisions have already been put in place for these debtors, in prior years.

Fortress Information Systems Limited:

Fortress Information Systems Ltd., trading as TicketDirect, were Council’s ticketing merchants prior to 2020. The company was placed into receivership 31 August 2020 and into liquidation on 22 October 2020.

At the time they were placed into liquidation, Fortress Information Systems Ltd. owed Palmerston North City Council $162,527.77 excluding GST. The invoices were raised during the 2019/20 financial year and relate to two events;

· Superstock Teams Champs 2020

· Under 18 Men’s Softball Champs 2020

Palmerston North City Council is an unsecured creditor of Fortress Information Systems Ltd.

The most recent liquidators report, publicly available on the companies register, is the Six Monthly Liquidators Report for the period 22 October 2020 to 22 April 2023. In this report the liquidators have noted that a dividend to unsecured creditors is stated as being unlikely.

Council has an insurance claim for the loss suffered by the liquidation of Fortress Information Systems Ltd., and this is a separate matter. The insurance claim is not affected by this bad debt being written off.

Palmerston North Jets Basketball Incorporated:

For clarity, this is not the current Manawatu Jets basketball organisation that is operating today. There is no responsibility and/or direct links operationally between the previous organisation and the current one.

On 18 October 2021, Palmerston North City Council received a letter from Palmerston North Jets Basketball Incorporated advising that they have ceased all operations, relinquished its Nation Basketball League License, and had no cash or assets to pay any outstanding amounts owing.

At the time of receiving this letter, Palmerston North Jets Basketball Inc. owed Council overdue invoices of $20,009.30 excluding GST. These invoices were dated between May and June 2021.

At the Council meeting on 15 September 2021, Council was presented with a paper seeking funding for the new organisation. It was noted at this time that this was a new organisation and these debts mentioned above were still owed to PNCC.

Pioneer City West Limited:

Council, at its meeting on 17 June 2019, previously provided for the negotiation of the debt to be written off, subject to one of two conditions being met. The two conditions to be met were either;

· 1(a) - Pioneer City West Limited agrees to formally withdraw Private Plan Change B and work collaboratively with Council on a Council-led District Plan Change at Kakatangiata.

· 1(b) - Pioneer City West Limited agrees not to progress Private Plan Change B for a period of 18 months to work collaboratively with Council on a Council-led District Plan Change at Kakatangiata

Council officers have met with John Farquhar, the director of Pioneer City West Ltd. and have agreed that condition 1(b), above, has been met subject to the release of the recommendation from Part II. These recommendations have subsequently been released from Part II, and approval is now sought to write this debt off.

The debt relates to an invoice for work relating to Private Plan Change B, raised in June 2014 of the 2013/14 financial year.

3. NEXT STEPS

Following Council approval, Officers will write these debts off the respective debtor accounts on the balance sheet which in turn will reduce the provisions previously made for these doubtful debts.

4. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual – Clause 221(c)		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 (Not Applicable)
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Priority Order for Council-owned Earthquake Prone Buildings

Presented By: Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property and Resource Recovery

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council approve the proposed strengthening order of the council-owned earthquake prone buildings as set out in Appendix 5 of this memorandum.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council owns 21 facilities (some made up of multiple buildings) that have been confirmed as being earthquake prone buildings (EPBs). Council has 15 years or less from the date at which each building was identified as an EPB to complete remediation. Seismic remediation can include full or partial demolition, retrofit strengthening, or rebuilding.

1.2 The final strengthening solutions will be considered on a building-by-building basis as part of the respective design phases for each project. These will be brought to Council individually in the future.

1.3 A proposed order of strengthening has been determined through scoring each of the buildings against a set of criteria. Once the order of strengthening is finalised it will be used to inform a work programme within the 2024-34 Long Term Plan and beyond.

1.4 This memorandum seeks Council’s approval of the proposed order of strengthening to remedy each of Council’s EPBs.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In July 2017, the Earthquake-Prone Buildings Amendment Act came into force. It determines a nationally consistent way of identifying and managing the most vulnerable buildings in terms of people's safety. A glossary of key terms is attached as Appendix 1.

2.2 The Act identifies Palmerston North as a "High Seismic Risk Area", which requires building owners to address EPBs within 15 years of receiving an Earthquake Prone Building Notice.

2.3 Several risk factors help predict what may happen to a building in an earthquake. These include its age, size, shape, and construction materials. The Initial Evaluation Procedure (IEP) and Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) process assesses a building to indicate performance in an earthquake. This is represented as a percentage of the New Building Standard (NBS). EPBs are those classified as less than 34% of the new building standard.

2.4 Council adopted an Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy in 2019 which provides a framework for decision making around the strengthening of all EPBs within Council’s building portfolio. This is attached as Appendix 2.

2.5 The seismic strengthening of Council’s earthquake prone buildings, including the crematorium, is provided through Programme 902 – Seismic Strengthening of Council Owned Buildings.

3. OVERVIEW OF THE PORTFOLIO – COUNCIL OWNED BUILDINGS

3.1 The list of 21 council-owned facilities that have been confirmed as being earthquake prone, along with their respective percentage of the NBS, is attached as Appendix 3.

4. Assessment criteria

4.1 To develop a draft order of strengthening Officers recommend all Council- owned EPBs are considered against key criteria which have been informed by Council’s policy along with other key considerations such as potential cost and other significant renewal works that may need to be considered.

4.2 Each building has been allocated a score against each of the criteria from 1-5. The recommended order of strengthening is then be driven from those with the highest score through to the lowest.

4.3 A summary of the assessment criteria and scoring definitions is attached as Appendix 4.

4.4 All Council-owned EPBs have been be assessed and provided a score based on the criteria to provide an initial strengthening order against Council’s policy. The additional considerations of estimated total project cost and level of other significant renewal work needed have then been applied to produce a final proposed order of strengthening.

4.5 It should be noted that where a building is deemed to be a critical asset (scoring a 5 in this criteria) it has been prioritised over other buildings regardless of score.

4.6 The assessment and scoring are attached as Appendix 5.

4.7 The proposed order of strengthening is attached as Appendix 6.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Once the order of strengthening is finalised it will be used to inform a work programme within Programme 902 to be considered as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Arts and Heritage The action is: Carry out seismic strengthening of the Council-owned facilities.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being	Ensuring the Council-owned earthquake prone buildings are seismically strengthened will ensure the occupants, neighbours, and the public can vacate the respective buildings safely in an earthquake event. In addition, Council will be seen to be leading by example in strengthening its owned buildings in a timely manner.

Attachments

1.	Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms ⇩
2.	Appendix 2: Council Owned EPB Policy 2019 ⇩
3.	Appendix 3: Council-owned EPBs ⇩
4.	Appendix 4: Criteria and Scoring Definitions ⇩
5.	Appendix 5: Assessment and Scoring ⇩
6.	Appendix 6: Proposed Order of Strengthening ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Future Development Strategy: Horizons Regional Council and Palmerston North City Council Joint Steering Group

Presented By: Michael Duindam, Acting City Planning Manager

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council establish a Joint Steering Group to guide the preparation of the Future Development Strategy

2. That the following three elected members are appointed as representatives of Palmerston North City Council to the Future Development Strategy Steering Group:

a. Mayor Grant Smith

b. To be determined

c. To be determined

1. ISSUE

1.1 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) requires Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council to jointly prepare a Future Development Strategy (FDS).

1.2 There is currently no suitable joint governance body that could appropriately oversee the development, consultation, and adoption of the Strategy.

1.3 This report recommends a joint steering group be established so both councils have sufficient oversight to ensure the FDS is jointly prepared.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The NPS-UD requires all Tier 1 and 2 councils to prepare and update an FDS every 6 years. Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council are Tier 2 councils.

2.2 The key output for the FDS is a spatial plan which sets out areas for household, commercial and industrial growth in the city over the next 30 years, giving consideration to a range of influencing factors, including iwi aspirations and constraints on development.

2.3 The purpose of an FDS is to set the high-level vision for accommodating urban growth over the long term, and identifies strategic priorities to inform other development-related decisions, such as:

· District Plan zoning and related plan changes.

· Priority outcomes in long-term plans and infrastructure strategies, including decisions on funding and financing.

· Priorities and decisions in regional land transport plans.

2.4 Because the FDS ensures clear alignment between land-use planning and infrastructure delivery, budgets will therefore be matched with anticipated demand, which will allow much more responsiveness to growth.

2.5 An ancillary benefit is that Waka Kotahi and Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have advised that their investment decisions will be reliant on the content of an FDS. Funding to support planned growth from third parties will be much easier to secure as a result of developing an FDS. For example, it will be a criterion for consideration in the allocation of funds through the Regional Land Transport Plan process.

2.6 The FDS will build on existing strategic land-use planning, including Palmerston North City Council’s strategic direction, spatial plan and the evidence contained within the Housing and Business Needs Assessment 2023. It will also draw on data provided by Horizons Regional Council and other stakeholders relevant to urban growth such as Waka Kotahi, Kāinga Ora, and network utility providers.

2.7 Where councils share jurisdiction over an urban environment, the NPS-UD requires joint responsibility. This means that Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council are jointly responsible for the preparation of the FDS.

2.8 The NPS-UD also requires that the first FDS must be prepared in time to inform the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP), and that the draft FDS must undergo public consultation using the special consultative procedure (section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002). It is expected that this consultation process will run concurrently with the LTP consultation, and that hearings, deliberations, and adoption of the FDS will take place at the same time as the hearings, deliberations and adoption of the LTP.

2.9 A project team made up of officers from both councils has been set up to coordinate the development of the FDS. There is also a wide range of subject matter experts, both internal and external, who are providing input.

2.10 A high-level project timeline has been developed. The key milestones are:

· Early November 2023 – draft FDS prepared to inform the LTP process.

· Early 2024 – draft FDS adopted for consultation along with the LTP consultation document.

· March/April 2024 – Concurrent FDS and LTP consultation.

· May 2024 – Hearings and deliberations of FDS and LTP.

· June 2024 – Adoption of FDS and LTP.

3. Joint STEERING GROUP

3.1 A joint steering group would ensure both councils are represented at a governance level in the preparation of the FDS. It would be a conduit between the project team and the two councils in the development phase of the FDS.

3.2 It is recommended that the make-up of the steering group be three elected members from each council, with administrative support provided by Palmerston North City Council, and relevant expertise provided by the project team and other subject matter experts from both councils and other external agencies.

3.3 The anticipated workload for the steering group is input into 3-4 steering group hui in 2023, including providing an update at the joint annual hui between Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council on 20 September 2023.

3.4 Members of the joint steering group would be appointed by the elected members of their respective councils.

3.5 Further work is required to determine if a formal joint committee is required to hear submissions and make a decision on the FDS, or whether PNCC can do this on behalf of both councils.

3.6 The terms of reference for the Joint Steering Group are included as attachment one.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 The project team is currently undertaking a series of hui with key external and internal stakeholders to understand their priorities and concerns in relation to growth opportunities and constraints in the city over the next 30 years.

4.2 By early August, an initial draft FDS will have been prepared for consideration by the joint steering group and then the presented to the joint annual hui between Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council on 20 September 2023.

4.3 A final draft FDS will be prepared by late October, in time for LTP workshops for both councils, and then adopted for consultation at the same time as the LTP consultation document.

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?
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 City Growth The action is: Develop a Future Development Strategy (page 11)
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Future Development Strategy will ensure an integrated and coherent approach to long-term growth in the city, balancing the social, and economic needs of the community with principles of cultural and environmental stewardship. The process of developing the FDS involves a Housing and Business Needs Assessment, a rigorous and wide-ranging constraints mapping exercise, and engagement with Rangitāne over their aspirations.

Attachments

Future Development Strategy: Joint Steering Group Terms of Reference ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Review of Remuneration for Directors of the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA)

Presented By: Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor and David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

APPROVED BY: Donna Baker, Acting Chief Executive Unit Manager

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the report titled ‘Review of Remuneration for Directors of the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA)’ dated 28 June 2023.

1. ISSUE

1.1 To review the remuneration for directors of the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA), as required each triennium by the Council’s Appointment of Directors Policy for CEDA 2023 (Appointments Policy).

1.2 This is the first review of the CEDA directors’ remuneration, which has not changed since it was agreed in 2015.

1.3 Officers have completed a desktop review comparing CEDA’s remuneration with other entities in New Zealand. This satisfies the requirements of the Appointment’s Policy.

1.4 As CEDA is jointly owned by Palmerston North City Council and Manawatū District Council, any decision(s) require the agreement of both councils. Manawatū District Council considered this report on 15 June 2023.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 CEDA was established in 2015 by Palmerston North City Council and Manawatū District Council (the Councils) to deliver economic and tourism services for the region.

2.2 CEDA is a joint Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) of the Councils, it has six Board members and 11 employees.

2.3 In October 2015 Council resolved to:

Approve a total of $155,000 pa in directors’ remuneration for the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA) being $55,000 for the Chairperson and $25,000 for each of the remaining four directors.

2.4 Table 1 shows the remuneration rates of some of the entities, used to determine the original pay for CEDA Board in 2015.

Table 1: Remuneration rates for Boards of Economic Development Agencies and the Palmerston North Airport in 2015

Entity	Type	Total expenses excluding depreciation ‘000 (2015)	No of Directors	Rem Pool	Chair	Director
Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED)^{^[1]}	CCO	(56,897)	7	$332,000	$81,000	$34-$51,000
Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency (WREDA)	Joint CCO^{^[2]}	16,309	9	$245,000	$45,000	$25,000
Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd	Incorporated Company^{^[3]}	Not available	8	$247,100	$58,500	$8,444 -$34,980
Venture Taranaki	CCO	3,596	5	$73,000	-	-
CEDA		170 (2016)	5	$155,000	$55,000	$25,000
Entity	Type	Total Revenue (2015)	No of Directors	Rem Pool	Chair	Director
PN Airport Ltd	CCTO	$4,943	5	$76,500	$22,948	$13,388

2.5 When CEDA was set up, the Councils wanted to attract nationally recognised talent to the Board. The director role was therefore benchmarked at the higher end of the market so that the agreed remuneration more closely aligned with the development agencies of Wellington and Christchurch rather than New Plymouth (see Table 1).

2.6 The workload of the Board was expected to be approximately two days a month for directors; and three – four days for the chair. CEDA has confirmed that current board members work on average 2 days per month and the Chair has additional duties.

2.7 Over the years, the driver to appoint nationally recognised talent to the CEDA Board has been balanced by the appointment of directors with more local knowledge and experience.

2.8 Since 2018 CEDA has had six directors, so the total remuneration pool has become $180,000. This figure remains unchanged in CEDA’s draft Statement of Intent 2023-26.

2.9 The Councils revised the number of directors being from 4-6, when it adopted the Central Economic Development Agency Limited Appointment of Directors Policy in March 2023. Previously it was a minimum of 5 and maximum of 7 directors.

2.10 In April 2023, the Councils appointed two new directors; in doing so, retaining the maximum membership.

2.11 The newest two directors’ terms expire in December 2025, one expires in March 2024, and three (including the chair) in December 2024.

2.12 Should the Council wish to look for savings alongside the review of remuneration, reducing the number of directors remains an option.

3. CEDA’s Governing Documents in regard to setting Remuneration

3.1 CEDA’s Appointment of Directors Policy 2023 requires Board Members remuneration to be reviewed once per triennium. The Policy states that:

“A full review will be conducted and will include benchmarking against comparative entities. The review will consider market movement and the final decision on board members’ remuneration will be made by a resolution of the councils.”

Officers consider this report to satisfy this review requirement.

3.2 Clause 5.3 of the CEDA Shareholding Agreement signed by both Councils in 2015 states that:

The Parties shall, in accordance with clause 1.2 (co-operation between councils) work together to determine an appropriate process for determining the remuneration to be paid to Directors.

As this is the first review of the directors’ remuneration, no ‘process for determining the remuneration’ exists. Hence, if the Councils wish to revise the directors’ remuneration, officers will need to develop and report back a process for determining director’s remuneration.

3.3 CEDA’s Constitution prescribes that any remuneration to be paid to directors must have prior approval of shareholders (the Councils).

4. Remuneration Review 2023

4.1 Officers have considered CEDA directors’ remuneration against other economic development agencies around New Zealand and the Palmerston North Airport (which is a CCTO of PNCC).

4.2 Results of the desktop review are set out below. Entities have been ordered by size of the organisation (determined as: total expenses less depreciation). The Palmerston North Airport has been shown separately. As it is profit driven, size is shown by total revenue.

Table 2 – Remuneration of Economic Development Agencies in New Zealand and the Palmerston North Airport 2023

Entity	Type	Total expenses excluding depreciation ‘000 (2022)	No of Directors	Pool	Chair	Director
Tātaki Auckland Ltd – Auckland’s economic and cultural agency	CCO	$129,538	8	$402,000	$82,000	$34-$51,000
WellingtonNZ (WREDA)	Joint CCO	Not available	7	$218,000	$50,000	$28,000
ChristchurchNZ	CCO	$22,142	5 (4 in 2022)	$180,000	$72,000	$36,000
Great South – Southland Regional Development Agency	Joint CCO^{^[4]}	$ 7,673	7	$146,000	$48,000	$16-$18,000
Venture Taranaki	CCO^{^[5]}	$6,197	7	$123,846
Nelson Regional Development Agency	CCO	$3,144	7	$37,500	$7,500	$5,000
Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA)	Joint CCO	$1,930	6	$180,000	$55,000	$25,000
Whanganui & Partners Economic Development Agency	CCO	Became a CCO in March 2022. Financial records not available.	7		$750 – 937.50 per meeting	$500 – 750 per meeting
Entity	Type	Total Revenue ‘000 (2022)	No of Directors	Pool	Chair	Director
PN Airport Ltd	CCTO	$9,485	5	135,000	$37,240	$18,620

4.3 Comparatively, CEDA’s total remuneration pool and number of directors are generous relative to its size.

4.4 Officers have also obtained the Director’s Fees Report 2022 from the Institute of Directors. This report provides the following industry average for remuneration, as detailed in tables 3 and 4.

4.5 Table 3 shows the average remuneration for CCOs, regardless of size. It includes some of the larger Port entities, Auckland’s Watercare, and the Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Limited, which skew the results upwards.

Table 3 Annual Remuneration for Non-Executives of a CCO 2022

	Sample size	Lower quartile	Medium	Upper quartile	Average
Non-Executive Chair – CCO	19	$30,000	$47,500	$86,500	$57,398
Non-Executive Director -CCO	47	$28,120	$39,111	$53,100	$40,083

4.6 When compared to all other CCOs, the Chair’s pay ($55,000) is close to the average, while the directors pay ($25,000) is in the lower quartile.

4.7 Table 4 shows the average remuneration for boards of small organisations (based on headcount of fewer than 20 employees). This table provides a better benchmark than Table 3 as CEDA can be compared against companies of similar size.

Table 4 Annual Remuneration for Non-Executives of small organisations 2022

	Sample size	Lower quartile	Medium	Upper quartile	Average
Non-Executive Chair	54	$25,000	$36,500	$54,250	$42,157
Non-Executive Director	75	$25,000	$30,311	$40,000	$34,788

Compared to Table 3, the Chair’s pay fits in the upper quartile bracket and the current directors’ pay sits in the lower quartile.

5. conclusion

5.1 Comparatively, CEDA’s total remuneration pool and number of directors are generous relative to its size.

5.2 Compared to companies of a similar size, the Chair’s pay ($55,000) is in the upper quartile pay bracket and the directors’ pay ($25,000) is in the lower quartile.

5.3 Should the Council wish to look for savings alongside the review of remuneration, reducing the number of directors remains an option.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 CEDA’s Board of Directors will be informed of the decision(s) of the Councils.

6.2 Should the Councils wish to alter the CEDA Board’s remuneration, a process for determining new fees would need to be developed and agreed by both councils and communicated to CEDA.

7. 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 1: An Innovative and Growing City
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	Review of Directors remuneration enables public transparency.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Support of Remits to Local Government New Zealand 2023 Annual General Meeting

Presented By: Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor

APPROVED BY: Donna Baker, Acting Chief Executive Unit Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council support/ does not support remit 1 on Allocation of Risk and Liability in the Building Sector from Queenstown-Lakes District Council.

2. That Council support/ does not support remit 2 on Rates Rebate from Horowhenua District Council.

3. That Council support/ does not support remit 3 on Roading/Transport Maintenance Funding from New Plymouth District Council.

4. That Council support/ does not support remit 4 on Local Election Accessibility from Whangārei District Council.

5. That Council support/ does not support remit 5 on Ability for Co-chairs at Formal Meetings from Northland Regional Council.

6. That Council support/ does not support remit 6 on Parking infringement Penalties from Whangārei District Council.

7. That Council support/ does not support remit 7 on Rural and Regional Public Transport from Waikato Regional Council.

8. That Council support/ does not support remit 8 on Establishing Resolution Service from Hutt City Council and Young Elected Members (YEM).

9. That Council support/ does not support remit 9 on Earthquake Prone Buildings from Manawatū District Council.

10. That Council support/ does not support remit 10 on KiwiSaver Contributions for Elected Members from Hamilton City Council.

11. That Council support/ does not support remit 11 on Audit New Zealand Fees for Elected Members from Hamilton City Council.

1. ISSUE

Every year, councils can endorse remits for consideration at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Conference Annual General Meeting (AGM). Remits with sufficient sector support are considered by all member councils at the LGNZ AGM. Successful remits will direct LGNZ’s policy advocacy to central government for the forthcoming year.

This year, the LGNZ AGM will be held on 26 July 2023 in Christchurch.

The submitted remits for the AGM are attached.

Council has four delegates, but one presiding delegate who votes on Council’s behalf. These have been allocated to The Mayor Grant Smith (Presiding Delegate), Deputy Mayor Debi Marshall-Lobb, Councillors Vaughan Dennison and Rachel Bowen. Other Councillors Roly Fitzgerald, Orphee Mickalad, William Wood and Pat Handcock will be in attendance as Observers.

This report is an opportunity for Council to instruct the Mayor, as presiding delegate of its position for each of the 11 remits.

As the remits are from other councils, Council cannot change the wording of the remits, only confirm whether or not it is in support.

2. NEXT STEPS

The Mayor as presiding delegate will represent Council at the AGM on 26 July.

3. 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: N/A
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Consideration of remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting is one way by which Council contributes to the national policy conversation in the local government sector.

Attachments

LGNZ Remits 2023 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Invitation for the Mayor to attend Eco Forum Global, Guiyang, China

Presented By: Gabrielle Loga, International Relations Manager

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council note the Mayor will travel to Guiyang, China from 6 July- 10 July to attend the Eco Forum Global 2023, subject to visa approval.

1. ISSUE

1.1 This memorandum outlines the intention of the Mayor to travel to Guiyang, China from 6 July to 10 July to attend the Eco Forum Global 2023 hosted by our Sister City.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Eco Forum Global 2023 is China's only national-level global forum themed on ecological civilization. The event will focus on seeking modernisation of harmonious coexistence with nature and promoting green and low-carbon development. Themed sub-forums, exhibitions on latest techniques, products and technologies, and business promotion activities will be held during the event. Through both online and offline activities, the forum is estimated to invite about 500 attendees.

2.2 The purpose of the trip is to connect with leaders and decision-makers from government and business sectors from all over the world to exchange ideas and explore opportunities for collaboration and implementation.

2.3 Palmerston North’s participation in this forum demonstrates the city’s commitment to sustainable development, our Sister City of 30 years, and assists with the Council’s understanding of what is required to achieve Council’s current vision and goals, particularly Goal 4 – An Eco-City.

2.4 The Mayor’s expenses, including international and domestic flights in China, accommodation, meals and ground transportation, will be covered by the Guiyang Municipal Government. This was confirmed in writing with Guiyang.

2.5 The complimentary financial support package from Guiyang Municipal Government will need to be recorded in the gifts register and would be subject to the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Act 2022.

2.6 Section 8 of the Council’s Elected Member Expenses and Allowances Policy stipulates that the prior approval of Council is sought for any travel as part of a Sister City Delegation where the cost of such travel is not wholly covered by the host city. As the Mayor’s travel is wholly covered by the Guiyang Municipal Government, this memorandum is for information only.

2.7 The dates of travel will have limited impact on formal Council business. The Mayor’s travel coincides with Council recess in July.

2.8 This trip will be the first time the Mayor has connected in-person with Guiyang since the borders reopened following covid-19.

2.9 The Mayor will be travelling alone for this forum.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Officers will liaise with the Guiyang Municipal Government to accept the complimentary financial support package for the Mayor and proceed with travel bookings.

4. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Economic Development The actions are: - Support initiatives that promote the city’s international reputation and strengths. - Promote Palmerston North’s interests to global partners. Promote the environmental wellbeing of city’s communities and sustainable development.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Mayor’s attendance at Eco Forum Global 2023 helps to promote the city’s international reputation, explore potential partners across the globe, and enhance economic, educational and environmental cooperation.

Attachments

Nil

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 June 2023

TITLE: Work Schedule 28 June 2023

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That the Council receive its Work Schedule dated 28 June 2023.

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE 28 JUNE 2023

#	Estimated report date	Subject	Officer responsible	Current position	Date of instruction & clause number
1.	~~28 June 2023~~ 6 September 2023	Draft Water Supply Bylaw 2023 - Deliberations and adoption	Chief Planning Officer		Council 5 April 2023 Clause 51-23
2.	~~28 June 2023~~	~~Civic and Cultural Master Plan - Agree Terms of Reference and appoint to Steering Groups~~	~~Chief Planning Officer~~		30 November 2022 Clause 168- 22
3.	~~28 June 2023~~	~~17 Summerhays Street Redevelopment - Options on types of development~~	~~Chief Infrastructure Officer~~		~~Council 3 May Clause 66-23~~
4.	6 September 2023	Standing Orders - Managing conflicts of interests at meetings	Assistant Chief Executive		15 February 2023 Clause 7-23
5.	6 September 2023	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	Assistant Chief Executive
6.	6 September 2023	Options to address the key challenges identified in the 2022 Residents' Survey	Chief Planning Officer		14 December 2022 Clause 197-22.3
7.	6 September 2023	Approve list of Code of Conduct Investigators	Assistant Chief Executive		16 November 2022 Clause 153-22
8.	~~6 September 2023~~	~~Review Remuneration of CEDA Directors~~	~~Chief Planning Officer~~		~~CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy~~
9.	4 October 2023	Annual Report 2022/23 - Adopt	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
10.	4 October 2023	Adoption of interim Speed Management Plan	Chief Planning Officer		Council 5 April 2023 Clause 46-23
11.	4 October 2023	City Transport Review - Action Plan	Chief Infrastructure Officer		Council 3 May Clause 65-23
12.	18 December 2023	Wastewater Discharge Consent Project - Quarterly Update	Chief Infrastructure Officer	Referred from Sustainability Committee	11 May 2022 Clause 26-22
13.	1 March 2024	Remits from PNCC for consideration	Assistant Chief Executive
14.	1 April 2024	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	Assistant Chief Executive
15.	1 June 2024	Remits received from other Territorial Authorities	Assistant Chief Executive
16.	TBC	Nature Calls Adaptive Management - Agree Terms of Reference and appoint to Steering Groups	Chief Infrastructure Officer	Postponed pending re-lodgement of Resource Consent application	30 November 2022 Clause 168- 22
17.	Early 2024	College St/Botanical Road Safety Improvements	Chief Infrastructure Officer		31 May 2023 Clause 88.19-23

[1] Merged with Regional Facilities Auckland to become Tātaki Auckland Ltd in December 2020

[2] Wellington City Council (80%) and Greater Wellington Regional Council (20%)

[3] Set up by Christchurch City Council. Merged into ChristchurchNZ in 2012

[4] Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council, Environment Soutland Regional Council, Southland Chamber of Commerce, Invercargill and Mataura licensing trusts and Southern Institute of Technology

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Debi Marshall-Lobb (Deputy Mayor)
Mark Arnott	Leonie Hapeta
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Orphée Mickalad
Lew Findlay (QSM)	Karen Naylor
Roly Fitzgerald	William Wood
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Kaydee Zabelin