Agenda of Sustainability Committee - Wednesday, 16 October 2024

Sustainability Committee MEETING

16 October 2024

Order of Business

2. Apologies

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

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

That the minutes of the Sustainability Committee meeting of 21 August 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

7. Local Water Done Well Update Page 13

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan, Manager - 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager.

8. Summary of Actions by the Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Action Joint Committee Page 59

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability.

9. Proposed Scope for the Co-development of a City-wide Climate Action Plan Page 77

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability.

10. Palmerston North City-wide Emissions Inventory 2023 Page 81

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability.

11. Palmerston North City Council Organisational Emissions Inventory 2023/2024 Page 87

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability.

12. Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 - Progress on Actions Page 95

Memorandum, presented by Natasha Hickmott, Activities Manager - Resource Recovery and Sustainability and Melissa Doyle, Waste Minimisation Officer.

13. Manawatū River Pathway Project Page 105

Memorandum, presented by Glen O'Connor, Manager Transport and Development and Michael Bridge, Service Manager Active Transport.

14. Committee Work Schedule Page 129

15. Karakia Whakamutunga

16. 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

17.

Confirmation of the minutes of the Sustainability Committee meeting of 21 August 2024 Part II Confidential

For the reasons set out in the Sustainability Committee of 21 August 2024, held in public present.

18.

Manawatū River Pathway Project - Progress on Landowner Engagment

PRIVACY: This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive

NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings

s7(2)(a) and s7(2)(i)

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 Sustainability Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 21 August 2024, commencing at 9.00am.

Members

Present:

Councillors Brent Barrett (in the Chair), Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb and Karen Naylor.

Non Members:

Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, and William Wood.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith), Councillors Lorna Johnson (absent on Council business), and Leonie Hapeta.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor William Wood opened the meeting with karakia.

19-24

Apologies

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 19-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

20-24

Public Comment

The following speakers spoke on Item 8: Draft Food Security and Resilience Policy approval for consultation. They both spoke in support of the policy going out for consultation.

· Jose Gutry

· Rachel Blacher

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sustainability Committee receive the public comments.

Clause 20-24 above was carried 10 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay and Billy Meehan.

Abstained:

Councillor William Wood.

Note: Councillor William Wood declared a conflict of interest for public comment by Jose Gutry, he withdrew and sat in the gallery when Jose made comment and then returned to the table.

21-24

Presentation - Just Zilch

Rebecca Culver, Managing Director of Just Zilch outlined the work that Just Zilch undertakes to rescue food in Palmerston North, and to redistribute it to people in the region. She highlighted the positive environmental effects of the work on reducing CO2 emissions, saving water and creating meals.

The full presentation is attached.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sustainability Committee receive the presentation for information.

Clause 21-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

22-24

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Sustainability Committee meeting of 22 May 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 22-24 above was carried 7 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor and Lew Findlay.

Abstained:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

Note:
Councillor Mark Arnott did not vote.

23-24

Draft Food Security and Resilience Policy approval for consultation

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

Moved Kaydee Zabelin, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee approve the Draft Food Security and Resilience Policy for consultation (Attachment 1).

Clause 23-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

24-24

Low Carbon Fund allocations 2023/2024

Memorandum, presented by Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Low Carbon Fund allocations 2023/2024’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 21 August 2024.

Clause 24-24 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

Note:
Councillor Lew Findlay did not vote.

25-24

Wastewater Treatment Plant - Nature Calls: Quarterly Update

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan, Manager Three Waters and Anna Lewis, Project Manager – Wastewater Discharge Consent Programme.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the report titled ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant – Nature Calls: Quarterly Update’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 21 August 2024.

Clause 25-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

26-24

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive its Work Schedule dated August 2024.

Clause 26-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

Exclusion of Public

27-24

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE 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
14.	Comprehensive Resource Recovery Services Review Scope	COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage	s7(2)(h)

Clause 27-24 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

The public part of the meeting finished at 10.25am.

Confirmed 16 October 2024

Chair

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Local Water Done Well Update

Presented By: Mike Monaghan, Manager - 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Local Water Done Well Update’, presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 October 2024, and note the next steps arising from the passing of the legislation and the future work programme.

1. overview

1.1 The Government repealed the Three Waters Legislation and has moved quickly to establish a replacement model under the Local Water Done Well policy. Council water infrastructure assets will no longer be transferred to government-mandated entities, but councils will have choices about how they deliver water services in the future in a way that meets new rules for investment, borrowing and pricing.

1.2 This memorandum provides an update on:

· the workshop held with Elected Members on 19 June and subsequent drop-in sessions on 6 and 27 August and 11 September;

· details on new policy settings;

· the next steps that arise from the passing of the Local Government (Waters Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act (the Act) and the Government’s recent policy announcement about the future settings for Water Services Delivery;

· a new Accountability Framework that effectively ‘ring-fences’ Waters strategy; and

· future planning and reporting requirements from Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP), regardless of the delivery model that is chosen.

1.3 With the passing of the Act, it is now a statutory requirement that all councils submit a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) and Implementation Plan to the Government by 2 September 2025. The WSDP must show how the councils will meet the new rules for financially sustainable water services. It is anticipated that the new rules will increase the costs to the end-users, whether Council continues to go alone or join up with some of its neighbours.

1.4 The new borrowing limits announced by the Government will only be available to councils who establish a Water Services CCO (WS-CCO); they will not be available to councils who continue to deliver services in-house. This will be a key consideration for Council in assessing its options.

2. elected member engagement

2.1 On 19 June 2024, an Elected Member (EM) workshop was held to update EMs on the current programme of work relating to Local Water Done Well, including information that had been presented to the Mayoral Forum on 10 June 2024 (see Attachment 1). Since the change of Government and the repeal of the Three Waters legislation, the region has been considering what any new legislation might mean for the region.

2.2 In 2019/2020, the region’s Territorial Authorities (TAs) had commissioned work to develop initial thinking on Three Waters delivery options on a regional scale. This work was overtaken by the Government’s intentions on what at the time was an opt-in Three Waters reform programme. Because of this direction from Central Government, the regional work was not concluded.

2.3 Following the announcement of the Government’s legislation and proposed ‘Local Water Done Well’ programme, the region’s TAs agreed to reshape and bring back to life this programme of work. The scope of this work considered all seven of the region’s councils and sub-group variations.

2.4 Taking a regional approach to EMs engagement, two separate briefing sessions were held on 18 and 20 September. PN City Council EMs were invited to attend the briefing on 20 September along with EMs from Manawatu District Council, Horowhenua District Council and Tararua District Council to receive an update on the regional work.

2.5 At the time of writing this report an EM workshop has been scheduled for 2 October to consider the approach to 2 vs 3 waters transferring into a new CCO and to update on progress with options appraisal.

3. options appraisal

3.1 Officers are currently considering several water service delivery options in line with the requirements of the new Act. A number of factors will have to be balanced in any future decision making, including financial impacts on ratepayers and costs to Council, the long-term strategic benefits relating to efficiency and resilience and the community’s views.

3.2 The new rules and regulations that the Government is introducing mean that ‘going it alone’ is unlikely to be the same as what is envisaged in the current LTP. Additionally, the new policy announcements regarding higher borrowing limits will need to be considered in the options assessment process.

3.3 The appraisal of the Manawatu-Whanganui project (M-W) has now been completed and findings reported to the Mayoral Forum on 2 September (refer Attachment 2). The Mayoral Forum has received regular progress reports on this project to respond to this matter of strategic regional importance, with a view that they report back to their respective councils.

3.4 This appraisal established that whilst the financial case is marginal, there is a compelling strategic case for a (sub-)regional approach to the future delivery of water services in the region, including reducing the impact of higher overheads and compliance costs under any of the new delivery models.

3.5 There is a continued desire by the region’s Mayors and Chief Executives to take a collaborative approach to planning across the region and developing a Joint WSDP as a first preference, while councils continue to finalise their own individual options appraisals. This approach supports the tight timeline (refer Attachment 3) to develop a WSDP and can continue on a no regrets basis for each council, as this work will inform any WSDP irrespective of the option chosen.

3.6 The next phase of work on the regional options will consider the form of the delivery model, the proposed shareholding and governance arrangements, the implications of each council’s approach to the treatment of stormwater and the development of the implementation plan that arises from this work.

3.7 In December, Council will need to decide if they wish to proceed to consult on the delivery model included in the Joint WSDP or instead proceed with an alternative approach. Consultation will occur in early 2025.

4. policy and legislation update

4.1 The Government has been clear about the principles behind its Local Water Done Well policy since taking office; councils will retain ownership of their water assets but will have to meet new rules and regulations. Councils will have choices, but within the parameters set by the Government.

4.2 The signals continue to be that some form of amalgamation is encouraged, and consideration of this is expected to be the outcome for many councils, although this will not be mandated.

4.3 As the Bill progressed through the final stages of the process, some key changes were made:

a) The WSDP must include an Implementation Plan and a commitment to give effect to that;

b) Clarification of the consultation requirements in relation to the WSDP The Act clarifies that a council must consult on its anticipated or proposed model or arrangement for delivering water services in its Plan and ensure that its consultation and decision-making complies with section 61 to 63 (Part 3 of the Act). These sections relate to the streamlined consultation provisions that allow a council to only identify and assess two options when one of them is joining up in some way; and specify the requirements in relation to any amendments to the LTP that may be required as a consequence of the decision and the information requirements of consultation; and

c) Giving levy-making powers to recover the costs of the Commerce Commission from the providers of Water Services, i.e. Council or whatever delivery arrangement they enter.

4.4 In mid-August the Government announced the policy settings for the enduring arrangements for future water services delivery, which will be included in the third piece of legislation to be introduced in December and anticipated to be passed in June 2025.

4.5 The proposed changes relate to the models for service delivery, financing arrangements, a new accountability framework, and changes to the regulation of water, stormwater and wastewater. The proposals will be subject to the parliamentary process, but when they are passed into law, they will change how we operate over time. This update sets out the key points from that announcement, and highlights where there is uncertainty about the implications of the proposals.

5. water services council controlled organisations and other delivery models

5.1 The Act defines a Water Services CCO (WS-CCO) as one that delivers water services, or provides goods or services that are related to delivering water services. The Government proposes to increase the range of local government water service providers by enabling the establishment of new, financially separate water organisations. WS-CCOs will need to align with the requirements for these water organisations. These new water organisations are intended to enable enhanced access to long-term borrowing for water infrastructure.

5.2 Councils will have a choice of five delivery models: In-house business unit, single council WS-CCO, multi-council WS-CCO, mixed council/ consumer trust, or consumer trust owned. These have varying levels of financial support from the parent council(s) (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Types of Water Service Providers – In-house or Water Organisations (source: Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)

5.3 Whatever model is adopted, there will be legislative restrictions against privatisation, and regardless of delivery arrangements, existing responsibilities, commitments and obligations under the LGA and Treaty settlement legislation will continue to apply.

5.4 Board appointments to a Water Organisation (WS-CCO or trust) must be competency based and have the appropriate mix of skills, knowledge and experience. The guidance is explicit that they cannot include council staff or Elected Members.

5.5 The DIA has also provided further information about the role of shareholding councils in relation to a multi-council owned CCO, and an illustrative example of how this might work is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Illustrative example of shareholding and governance arrangements for multi-council WS-CCOs (source: DIA)

5.6 This has helped to identify where the next phase of work will be focussed when considering a WS-CCO as part of the development of a Joint WSDP. This is expanded on in the ‘Next Steps Section’.

6. higher water related borrowing limits for ws-ccos

6.1 The Minister’s announcement regarding the future policy settings included confirmation that the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) will lend up to 500% of operating revenue to WS-CCOs that are financially supported by their parent council or councils, subject to WS-CCOs meeting prudent credit criteria. This is available to both single and multi-council WS-CCOs, but not available to councils who retain water services in-house.

6.2 A WSDP must demonstrate how the council will ring-fence its water related finances from the rest of council. This potentially has implications for PN City Council, where we currently borrow based on the revenue of the whole of council, rather than just water related revenue. There are likely to be additional reporting requirements in relation to financial statements regarding the water activities. Some early information is included in Section 7 below.

6.3 The impact on individual councils’ credit ratings, or financial covenants in relation to the remainder of their business, will depend on a range of factors. The DIA has indicated that it thinks that borrowing from the LGFA with the support of shareholding councils will provide a transitional step towards water organisations borrowing independently in the future. This is expected to allow time for water organisations to develop an operating and revenue gathering track record.

7. new accountability framework – ring fencing pLanning anD reporting

7.1 The new policy settings include a new Accountability Framework that effectively ‘ring-fences’ Waters strategy, planning and reporting from Council’s LTP, regardless of the delivery model chosen. It will replace and/or modify the requirements for water-related planning and reporting for councils under the LGA 2002 and will mean it is no longer required to include extensive information on water services in their LTP, infrastructure strategy, financial strategy, or annual report.

7.2 The new approach replaces these requirements with three core documents:

a) A statement of expectations for service delivery arrangements that include separate water organisations (prepared by shareholders if delivery is by a WS-CCO);

b) A water services strategy (prepared by water service providers); and

c) A water services annual report (prepared by water service providers).

7.3 In addition, water service providers will be required to develop standalone financial statements for all water services (drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and aggregated water services) that separate these from other council activities, any unspent revenues or cash generated to be retained and tagged for future water services expenditure or activity. Similarly, councils will need to track and disclose borrowing arrangements for water services, including total borrowings and movements in borrowings.

7.4 The standalone financial statements will provide accountability and transparency relating to water charges and expenditure, and evidence that water services revenues are being spent on water services. They will also provide transparency and accountability over the amount of council debt that is allocated to water services.

8. stormwater optionality

8.1 The inclusion of stormwater in any future joint delivery arrangements had been understood to be fully optional in the Local Water Done Well policy – the question of ‘two waters or three’. The legislative requirements for a WSDP in relation to stormwater support this.

8.2 The policy announcement about the future settings has set out the proposed options councils will have, but is explicit that councils will retain legal responsibility and control of stormwater services regardless of which delivery mechanism they choose. However, the implications of the proposed policy are not entirely clear at this stage and may introduce some complexity and risk in the future, which will need to be better understood in the coming months as Officers assess the pros and cons of the approach to stormwater.

8.3 If councils choose to transfer some or all aspects of the delivery of stormwater services, they will still be responsible for determining the levels of service and performance targets for the delivery of stormwater management services (subject to regulatory requirements and community preferences) and for raising the required revenue from rates. The water organisation(s) contracted to provide these services will be responsible for identifying the costs of delivering services that meet the expected levels of service and meet performance targets. Councils will then rate for that cost and pass the revenue to the water service organisation.

8.4 Whilst not explicit in the policy detail released so far, it seems that if councils retain delivery of stormwater in-house, rather than transferring it in some way, then the rates revenue from stormwater and borrowing will need to be ring-fenced as per legislation, and therefore rates income will need to be high enough to cover borrowing for stormwater (i.e. it cannot be spread across other council activities).

8.5 The Government is also proposing regulatory changes to improve the management of overland flow paths and urban watercourses. The changes include specifying statutory roles and responsibilities in relation to the management of overland flow paths and urban watercourses, and enabling new planning and regulatory tools, such as stormwater network risk management plans and stormwater rules. This will enable Territorial Authorities, Regional Councils and transport corridor managers to agree ‘service agreements’ to support the integrated management of stormwater networks.

8.6 The Government believes this approach will manage the pressure that urban intensification and climate change are putting on the stormwater networks, and balance that with the overlaps that stormwater management has with land use planning and other areas of councils’ responsibilities, including roads, parks and reserves, and urban watercourses that impact on the operation of the stormwater network.

9. regulation changes

9.1 The Government has provided more detail on a range of proposed regulation changes alongside the new economic regulation. Regulation by the Commerce Commission is expected to increase costs, while the change to the network and quality regime aim to provide greater certainty and therefore reduce cost. The key changes proposed relate to:

a) Changing the approach Taumata Arowai takes to regulating drinking water suppliers so that they can be more proportionate, cost effective and efficient in its functions and duties;

b) Changing the approach Taumata Arowai takes to regulating drinking water suppliers so that they can be more proportionate, cost effective and efficient in its functions and duties;

c) Reducing the regulatory burden on small suppliers, by excluding ‘shared domestic supplies’ serving 25 consumers or fewer from regulation; and

d) A new approach to the wastewater discharge standards that Taumata Arowai is already developing under the Water Services Act to a single standard rather than a maximum or minimum range. A new set of standards is likely to have some impact on costs in the future.

9.2 These changes are broadly supported but the implications of the detail of this will need to be considered through the consultation process. The Select Committee process on the third piece of legislation and Taumata Arowai’s consultation on the development of the wastewater standards is expected to commence in December. The financial impact of them on currently planned expenditure is not yet understood and will need to be considered through the process of developing the WSDP.

10. next steps

10.1 The recently announced policy settings for Local Water Done Well, and the legislative requirements that arise from the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act, have created a statutory framework and tight timeframe for the next phase of the Council’s work.

10.2 To meet the Government’s timeline for developing a WSDP within 12 months of the first piece of legislation being passed, Council will have to adopt the WSDP in June 2025. Formal consultation on the proposed Delivery Model would have to be carried out in early 2025. A decision on what Delivery Model is proposed as the preferred option would have to be made in December.

10.3 The Mayoral Forum has agreed that councils should continue to work together on a Joint WSDP for the region while councils conclude their own appraisals of their options. Each council will have to decide in December if they wish to consult on the proposed joint arrangement or something else. This joint plan will set out an intention to enter some form of joint arrangement.

10.4 Following the regional Whanganui-Manawatu appraisal work, and the recent policy announcements, we have narrowed the options for the development of a joint WSDP which will include all regional capital programmes, including the Palmerston North Nature Calls Project.

10.5 This next phase of joint work will include:

a) Amalgamation and refinement of Financial and Asset Information to meet legislative requirements;

b) Appraisal of shareholding options;

c) Options for the structure and membership of the ‘Shareholder Committee’ (the body that appoints Board of Directors, sets Statement of Expectations and monitors performance);

d) Appraisal of Service Delivery Models;

e) Consideration of how each council wishes to deal with stormwater affecting the proposed delivery arrangement;

f) Developing an Implementation Plan;

g) Joint Planning for formal consultation on Service Delivery Model in the new year; and

h) Iwi engagement on a regional basis.

10.6 At the same time, Officers will continue with the following work:

a) Finalisation of ‘Go it Alone; modelling under the new rules and regulations;

b) Options appraisal for the approach to stormwater in the event of a joint arrangement;

c) Ongoing information sharing with the community and early engagement with the community to understand their high-level priorities in relation to water service delivery; and

d) Ongoing iwi engagement at a district level.

10.7 These work packages all align with the mandatory information requirement for the consultation process as set out in legislation.

10.8 As set out earlier, the implications of the proposed approach to stormwater are amongst the more challenging aspects to work through (the Regional Options Appraisal Project is based on the costs and revenue for stormwater being managed by the regional/sub-regional CCO.)

11. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 13. Mahere wai 13. Water Plan The objective is: Provide water services to our community
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Water services have undergone significant reform in the past few years. The National-led Government has repealed the previous government’s Three Waters programme and replaced it with ‘Local Water Done Well’. The Government is still working through the details of what this reform involves, but it does include local government keeping ownership of water assets. Councils will be encouraged to form regional groupings (to get the benefits of size) and Council-Controlled Organisations (to be able to borrow funds without affecting Council balance sheets).

Attachments

1.	2024 06 10 Three Waters Reform Update to Mayoral Forum_DISPATCH ⇩
2.	2024 09 02 Local Water Reform Update to Mayoral Forum ⇩
3.	Local Water Done Well Workplan - Indicative High Level Timeline 20092024 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Summary of Actions by the Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Action Joint Committee

Presented By: Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Summary of Actions by the Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Action Joint Committee’, presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 October 2024, for information.

1. Context

1.1 The Palmerston North City Council (Council), through its regional agreements, supports and engages with region-wide climate change actions through several joint groups including the Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Action Joint Committee (Joint Committee). This Joint Committee has produced the Manawatū-Whanganui Joint Climate Action Plan (Action Plan), which includes actions to be led by local councils and further actions to be led by the Joint Committee.

1.2 The Sustainability Committee on 16 August 2023 resolved that financial support for these actions and the Joint Committee be deferred to the 2024-34 Long Term Plan process.

1.3 Members of the Joint Committee agreed to work to ensure that appropriate information is available to local councils to enable them to consider climate change initiatives through their Long-Term Plan processes.

1.4 The National Emissions Reduction Plan (NERP) is due to be updated later in 2024, resulting in changes in priority and potential funding sources from Government. Council has reviewed the consultation document on the proposed changes and submitted a formal response on 25 August 2024 (see Attachment 1).

1.5 The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) recently completed revised national climate and rainfall projections, last released in 2018. These provide information about key climate variables such as temperature, rainfall, wind, and drought and how they might change into the future.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In September 2019, in recognition of the urgency of responding to climate change, eight councils that comprise the Manawatū-Whanganui region, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to collectively address climate change resilience, mitigation and communication. In 2021 the signatories, comprising the sitting Mayors, formed the local government members of the Joint Committee in accordance with the committee’s terms of reference. Seven tangata whenua members were appointed by Horizons Regional Council on the recommendation of Iwi leaders in order to ensure that a Māori perspective is reflected in the work of the Joint Committee.

2.2 The Joint Committee began drafting a joint action plan in 2022. Council responded to the draft action plan in February 2023 broadly supporting its aims and intent. The Joint Committee adopted and published the Action Plan in early 2023. This plan is about understanding how we will collectively respond to climate change in the Manawatū-Whanganui region and working together to reduce potential harm.

3. Ongoing Work

3.1 Minutes of Joint Committee Meetings are provided in Attachment 2.

3.2 The work program for the Joint Committee (see Attachment 3 for details) includes:

a) Regional Flood Vulnerability Assessment - Identifying communities in greatest need of support.

b) Regional Hazard/ Risk Register.

c) Climate Change Wānanga - Supporting action taken by tangata whenua and communities.

d) Community-led adaptive planning progress and learnings.

e) Horizons Region Pre-Spatial Planning Progress Report - Identify and define data and information requirements to enable adaptive planning for communities, tangata whenua and councils.

f) Emission Reduction Tools and Resource for Iwi.

g) Supporting action by tangata whenua and communities.

h) Emissions modelling.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 The work programme agreed at the September 2024 meeting will be actioned over the next 12 months. The next Joint Committee meeting will be scheduled in early 2025 to discuss progress and any issues arising in the intervening period. The Joint Committee could hold funds, but has yet to. Progressing the work programme is therefore reliant on local and regional councils’ existing resources and capacity.

4.2 Officers will continue to meet regularly with their peers in other local councils and exchange information, ideas and any work that can be used to avoid duplication or achieve co-benefits across local authority boundaries.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant, do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objectives in: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Encourage and promote sustainable best-practices in Council activities and the wider community
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	This memorandum details the progress in delivering the identified action.

Attachments

1.	PNCC Consultation Response to the National Emissions Reduction Plan 2024 ⇩
2.	Joint Committee Meeting Minutes 2023-24 ⇩
3.	Joint Committee Work Programme 2024-25 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Proposed Scope for the Co-development of a City-wide Climate Action Plan

Presented By: Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Proposed scope for the co-development of a city-wide climate action plan’, presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 October 2024.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Climate Change and Sustainability Plan 2024 contains a new action to ‘co-develop a community-focused city-wide climate action plan, including the articulation of local co-benefits and the identification of projects that may attract co-funding’. This memorandum proposes a scope for the delivery of this report.

1.2 It is assumed that the goal of the action plan will be to inform the 2027-2037 Long-Term Plan deliberations and decision-making more generally. Resources are inevitability limited, and the plan can provide guidance regarding priorities and return on investment, including both expected carbon reduction and wider strategic benefits per dollar. This would serve a similar function as the Low Carbon Fund, but targeting broader citywide emissions, rather than being limited to organisational.

1.3 Development of the plan would first cast a wide net for ideas and proposals. This would include an open-ended community consultation exercise, and engagement with the business and research communities, before analysing these to ultimately recommend a series of priorities for future Council investment.

2. SCOPE

2.1 The proposed plan development process would cast as broad a net as possible, gathering community aspirations, potential project and investment ideas, and then analysing the costs and benefits of these in a manner similar to the process established by the Low Carbon Fund, i.e. determining cost per unit carbon, after wider co-benefits are properly accounted for.

2.2 The Low Carbon Fund operates by providing capital to enable operational emission reductions. The scope for funding is therefore the same as that in Council’s annual organisational emissions inventory. These are emissions that occur across the lifetime of an asset or activity and sit within our operational control. Conversely, ‘embodied emissions’ of construction materials, or emissions otherwise controlled by another organisation, are out of scope for allocation through the Fund.

2.3 Council officers have identified several eligible and operationally deliverable projects which were assessed by the Senior Climate Change Advisor with assistance from the Finance Unit. Each project is analysed in terms of its ‘Net Present Value’ (specifically, looking at their projected operational savings discounted by the Council’s cost of capital subtracted by the capital cost of the project), the projected carbon savings, and a 30% weighting to wider strategic benefit, if any. Applications are then prioritised by which projects deliver the greatest benefit per dollar. Consequently, leaving aside deliverability concerns, the fund is generally ambivalent to the scale of the project, and a $30,000 application is at no inherent disadvantage compared to a $300,000 application. If the former provides greater value for money, then it will receive priority. The current cut-off benchmark for funding is the spot price of carbon through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – only projects that deliver emission reductions at a lower cost per tonne of carbon equivalent than the cost Council could pay through the ETS are eligible.

2.4 Following this analysis, a series of recommendations are made to the Chief Executive to approve the reallocation of funds from the Low Carbon Fund into the respective programmes associated with each project that meets the above criteria. These are then delivered by the respective activity teams as with any other programme.

2.5 The Low Carbon Fund approach has been highly successful as a method of allocating limited resources towards organisational emission reductions efficiently. Replicating a similar process through the development of the action plan to prioritise Council resources aimed at city-wide climate action would be similarly useful.

2.6 Practically, we would develop the ‘community-focused city-wide climate action plan’ by directly engaging with interested community groups, the business sector and with the broader public, and then running a series of workshops. We also intend to run a micro-conference (or potentially combine this work with another sustainability-oriented conference), soliciting ‘Low Carbon Fund’ type quantified cost/benefit case studies from businesses, and other institutions from across the country that have implemented low-carbon projects. Officers would then utilise all of these information sources in the compilation of the draft action plan.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Develop the community-focused city-wide climate action plan as proposed above.

3.2 Deliver a draft back to this committee in spring 2025 for Elected Member consideration.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Co-develop a community-focused city-wide climate action plan, including the articulation of local co-benefits and the identification of projects that may attract co-funding
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Forward planning for future environmental well-being investment and programmes.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Palmerston North City-wide Emissions Inventory 2023

Presented By: Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee note that total net emissions for Palmerston North City for 2023 were 647,252 tCO2e, which is a 21,880 tCO2e reduction compared to 2022 and an 11,929 tCO2e increase since the 2016 baseline.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Through the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan, Council set a target of a 30% reduction in CO2e emissions in Palmerston North by 2031, compared to the 2016/17 baseline. This 2023 inventory has been prepared to measure progress against this target (2023 sat within the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan period).

1.2 The city-wide target was revised as part of the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan and is currently set at a 44% reduction in per capita emissions by 2034 compared to the 2016 baseline.

1.3 Total net emissions for 2023 were 647,252 tCO2e. This is a 21,880 tCO2e reduction compared to the previous year, and an 11,929 tCO2e increase since the 2016/17 baseline. However, on a per capita basis, city-wide emissions have declined 9% over the same period.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In 2016 Palmerston North City Council conducted its first city-wide inventory to provide context for the Eco City Strategy’s 25% city-wide carbon emission reduction target. This inventory was conducted by AECOM and was presented to Council in 2018.

3. results

3.1 A breakdown of 2023 inventory by emissions source, and a timeseries showing the inventory in the context of previous years, are presented below.

3.2 A summary table of the inventory, broken down by emissions and sequestration source, is included below.

Emissions per activity (tCO2e)
Stationary Energy 19,5117	Electricity Consumption	44731.64
	Electricity T&D Loss	3153.34
	Petrol and Diesel	71729.42
	Natural Gas	43596.17
	Natural Gas T&D Loss	4995.09
	LPG	9581.81
	Landfill Gas	2313.47
	Coal	1003.16
	Biofuels	14013.62
Transportation 222,973	Petrol	115,564
	Diesel	97,790
	Rail Emissions	62
	Jet Kerosene	8,697
	Av Gas	721
	LPG	141
Waste 36,687	Solid Waste Disposal	36,484
Waste 36,687	Waste Water	204
IPPU (Industry) 25,607	IPPU (Industry)	25,607
Agricultural 18,7927	Agricultural	187,927
Total gross emissions (excl. forestry)		668313

Forestry -21,060	Exotic Forest Sequestration	-93198.04
	Native Forest Sequestration	-19040.66
	Total Harvest Emissions	91177.83
Total net emissions (incl. forestry)

3.3 City-wide emissions are reported in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) in order to provide a single comparable number for a variety of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

3.4 Per capita emissions are 6.8 tCO2e, a 5% reduction compared to 2022 and a 9% decrease since 2016. Emissions are likely to vary widely between individuals.

3.5 It is worth noting that some areas of the inventory are based on data that is a pro-rata calculation from regional or national data using nationally published emissions factors. This introduces uncertainty into the data which currently is unable to be resolved further.

4. Discussion

4.1 Forestry emissions decreased by 19%. The number of trees aged 1-5 increased by 54% as a result of the planting season. It is important to note that due to the cyclical nature of the forestry industry, carbon emissions fluctuate by a large number from year-to-year based on plant versus harvest. Therefore, a longer-term view should be taken of the impact of forestry on emissions.

4.2 Rail emissions fell by 22% as part of a moderate mode shift of freight from rail to road, particularly following Cyclone Gabriel and the closure of some rail lines.

4.3 Aviation gas emissions rose by 32%, due to an increase in flight school training, with an observed increase of 1,600 hours of training flights compared to 2022.

4.4 Solid waste disposal emissions fell by 14%; landfill gas emissions fell by 11%. Due to the relatively high level of data, it remains to be seen whether this change is consistent with the expected change to waste policy. Waste levels are dependent on a large number of variables, so we would like to keep an eye on this data and see if it is an anomaly or whether a trend is establishing.

4.5 Natural gas emissions are down by 7%, largely due to declining use of gas heating, due both to a warm year and the probable electrification of heating. 2023 saw a change in eligibility criteria for the Warmer Kiwi Homes grant, meaning more people were able to install heat pumps and insulate their homes for more efficient heating.

4.6 What evidence we have suggests a mild increase in per capita vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT). Despite this, a small decrease in petrol transport emissions was observed, suggesting increased vehicle electrification.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 This latest inventory represents a step forward in the accuracy and richness of the data. Council plans to continue to improve in this regard.

5.2 A city-wide inventory for the 2024 calendar year cannot be compiled until after key datasets are made available in mid-2025. The 2024 city-wide inventory is expected to be delivered around this time next year.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Develop a road map to achieving a low carbon city.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Measuring progress towards the carbon reduction target.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Palmerston North City Council Organisational Emissions Inventory 2023/2024

Presented By: Adam Jarvis, Manager Climate Change and Sustainability

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee note that Palmerston North City Council organisational
emissions have fallen from 18,255 tCO2e in 2022/23, to 17,180 tCO2e in 2023/24:
a 6% reduction.

2. That the Committee note that Palmerston North City Council organisational emissions have fallen from 26,444 tCO2e in 2015/16, to 17,180 tCO2e in 2023/24: a 35% reduction.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Through the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan, Palmerston North City Council (Council) has set itself the target of a city-wide 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2031, compared to the 2015/16 baseline. This 2023/24 inventory has been prepared to measure progress against this target (2023/24 sat within the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan period).

1.2 The organisation emissions target was revised as part of the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan and is currently set at a 60% reduction by 2034 compared to the 2015/16 baseline.

1.3 Provided below are the preliminary findings of Council's corporate emissions
(i.e. emissions resulting from Council activities) during the 2023/24 financial
year. These findings, and the associated source data, are being independently assessed against ISO14064-3 by an external auditor.

1.4 As a result of Council actions, the organisation's emissions have fallen from 26,444 tCO2e in 2015/16, to 17,180 tCO2e in 2023/24: a 35% reduction. Non-landfill-related emissions fell from 6,942 tCO2e to 5,661 tCO2e over the same period: an 18.46% reduction since 2015/16 and a 5.6% decrease from the previous 2022/23 period. A time series of emissions since the baseline year is provided in the results section.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The organisation's Internal Emissions Report is compiled from usage and
emissions data from the following emissions sources:

• Council stationary energy use (electricity, piped natural gas)

• Wastewater processing emissions

• Vehicles (petrol, diesel)

• ‘Small Plant Item’ (petrol-powered chainsaws, leaf blowers, etc.)

• Diesel use by Council generators

• Methane release from Awapuni and Ashhurst landfills

• Waste collected from all sites

• Air travel and taxi travel

• Staff commuting

• Air-conditioning unit gas refills

• Fertilizer use

2.2 This inventory is conducted entirely ‘in-house’ by Council Officers. The inventory follows the Ministry for the Environment’s standard emissions inventory methodology and is being externally audited by Edge Environmental Ltd.

2.3 An overview of Council’s 2023/24 emissions inventory is provided below in the results section. These break down Council’s emissions by emissions source
in order to show those areas that could be targeted for further reductions. A
detailed breakdown of the inventory data is provided in the results section.

2.4 The inventory is presented in terms of ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ or
‘CO2e’. This is because other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide have
different relative impacts per unit weight. For example, the refrigerant R-22,
typically only released in very small volumes, has a global warming potential
12,000 greater than carbon dioxide. CO2e accounting allows for the global
warming potential of different greenhouse gases to be compared with one
another.

3. Results

Business Group	Sum of Calculated emissions (t CO2e)
Customer	232.4
Ashhurst Library	0.9
Awapuni Library	0.2
City Library	205.3
City Pound	0.8
Highbury Library	0.8
Mobile Library	10.9
Roslyn Library	0.8
Wildbase Recovery Centre	3.9
Youth Space	8.7
Historic Business Units	16.7
Ashhurst Transfer Station	0.0
Garages	1.3
Square Gardens	15.3
Infrastructure/Logistics & Support	1721.6
Heavy Plant	587.9
Heavy Trucks	290.6
Leased Vehicles	0.0
Light Plant	37.2
Light Trucks	24.1
Medium Trucks	76.8
Mowers	80.1
Nursery	11.9
Pool Vehicles	212.1
Quad Bikes	25.2
Tankers	21.9
The Depot	16.6
Tractors	96.3
Utility Vehicles	241.0
Infrastructure/Parks & Reserves	747.9
Ashhurst	98.3
Cemeteries	2.7
Citywide Reserves	29.2
Freyberg Aquatic Centre	208.0
Lido Aquatic Centre	355.9
Local Reserves & Sports Fields	53.7
Infrastructure/Property	228.7
Civic Administration Building	224.8
Community Centres	8.8
Property	-14.1
Public Toilets	6.9
Social Housing Buildings	2.3
Infrastructure/Three Waters	1490.6
Stormwater Pump Stations	6.6
Wastewater Pump Stations	20.4
Wastewater Treatment	1342.1
Water Treatment & Pumps	121.5
Infrastructure/Transport	168.2
City Bus Terminal	1.0
Street Lighting	162.2
Traffic Signals	5.0
Infrastructure/Waste Management	11592.1
Ashhurst Landfill	70.7
Awapuni Landfill	11521.2
Waste Management	0.1
Waste Management Operations	0.0
Marketing & Communications	141.5
Arena Operations	141.5
Palmerston North City Council	212.4
Palmerston North City Council	212.4
Workplace Travel	541.9
Air Travel	141.2
Hire Cars and Taxis	0.1
Staff Commuting	400.5
Grand Total	17093.9

4. discussion

4.1 There has been a notable reduction in natural gas emissions this financial year – a 34% decrease since the 2022/2023 inventory. This is likely due both to the relatively warm weather over this time period, and a continued push for electrification through the Low Carbon Fund. It is noted that despite this push, levels of electricity emissions have remained within 2% of those of the previous inventory.

4.2 Staff commuting has shown emissions have decreased by 51% for private car usage. It is indicated by the 137% increase in bus emissions for staff commuters that the decrease in private car use is due in part to an increase in public transport usage. It is worth noting that bus emissions should decrease in next year’s emissions due to the recent electrification of Palmerston North Buses.

5. next steps

5.1 Completing the audit process. A final report will then be sent to Elected Members, noting any substantial changes.

5.2 Use the information from this inventory to inform the delivery of Council emission reductions, including through the 'Low Carbon Fund'. The fund is allocated each year towards the projects that will deliver the greatest operational emission reductions per net-present dollar spent (i.e. taking future cost savings into account), with a 30% weighting towards wider strategic benefits.

5.3 To inform future capital investment and benchmark performance, Council will continue to collect corporate emissions data and report these annually.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Monitor, and have externally audited, PNCC greenhouse gas emissions
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The emissions inventory and management plan detail Council’s progress on reducing its own internal corporate emissions goal.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 - Progress on Actions

Presented By: Natasha Hickmott, Activities Manager - Resource Recovery and Sustainability and Melissa Doyle, Waste Minimisation Officer

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 – Progress on Actions’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 October 2024.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The 2019 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) requires progress on each of the actions and targets within the WMMP to be reported annually to the Sustainability Committee.

1.2 This report provides the annual progress update from the 2023/24 financial year. Please also refer to Attachment 1 for detail on progress towards the specific actions within the WMMP.

1.3 Please note that this annual update will be the last for the 2019 WMMP as Council reviewed and updated its WMMP in 2023/24. The next WMMP progress report to Council will, therefore, report on progress towards actions and targets in the 2024 WMMP.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Palmerston North City Council (Council) has a statutory requirement under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the Palmerston North City.

2.2 This is done through adopting a WMMP which sets the priorities, actions, targets, and strategic framework for managing waste in the city. The 2019 WMMP sets a target of increasing waste diversion from 36% to 48% by 2025. Reducing the amount of material sent to landfill will be achieved via 26 actions in the WMMP.

3. Key Achievements in 2023/24

Development of a new 2024 WMMP

3.1 Considerable time was spent over the last year developing the newly adopted WMMP. This gave us an opportunity to engage with the public and ensure a fit for purpose plan was developed that aligns well with signalled government direction.

3.2 Part of the engagement included a successful open day at the Awapuni materials recovery facility (MRF), which saw 120 people visit the facility. The sorting line was running throughout the open day which gave participants valuable insight into how recycling is sorted. Officers also had a recycling truck available for participants to explore up close. Alongside this, Officers were present during the event to discuss and answer questions on the new 2024 WMMP.

Waste Diversion

3.3 In 2023/24 the amount of recycled material collected via our kerbside service is estimated to be 50kg per capita, which is the same as the previous year.

3.4 Unfortunately, the total citywide waste diversion cannot be ascertained because of incomplete (voluntary) reporting by the private waste sector, who hold much of the market share for waste collection in the city. Obtaining this data is often a challenge, and Officers continue to consider options for how we can improve this moving forward.

3.5 For context, the best tool for getting an in-depth understanding of the waste diversion in the city is a full waste assessment. These are scheduled to occur every three years, with the next waste assessment scheduled for 2025/26.

3.6 A hazardous waste collection day diverted 1,297 litres of harmful chemicals to safe disposal. Some of these chemicals were particularly toxic, including phosphorus, lindane, paraquat and 2,4-D (herbicide).

3.7 A big success in 2023/24 was the successful negotiation of a polystyrene recycling service with an external provider. Officers placed a strong focus on establishing a viable and enduring arrangement to ensure this is a long-term opportunity for the city. Alongside this, Officers continued support for existing auxiliary recycling services including batteries, e-waste, and tyres.

Resource Recovery Fund

3.8 The Resource Recovery Fund was again well utilised in its third year. The fund reflects Council's commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility, and empowering the community to be involved in waste minimisation. The total amount awarded this year was $40,000, to four successful projects:

· Environment Network Manawatu (ENM): Repair Café – continued support for the successful repair café, now in its third year. We intend to fund the repair cafe directly from the operating budgets after the current allocation expires, allowing the current allocation to be available for other initiatives.

· Mason Brothers Honey: Project Clean Comb – developing a system to wash plastic hive frames, preventing the need to throw them away.

· Just Zilch: storage capacity upgrade – increasing capacity in the food recovery warehouse to allow more food to be diverted from landfill and distributed to the community.

· Precycle: Sustainable is Attainable – bringing the successful sustainable is attainable model to the Manawatu, which will allow pathways for by-products of industry to be diverted from landfill, either by other existing businesses or new ventures.

Education and Engagement

3.9 Alongside the WMMP engagement, the successful MRF open day and tours throughout the year, the extra resource in the waste minimisation team allowed for an increased focus on education in 2023/24. An example of this is the introduction of recycling truck visits to early childhood education centres, which was very well received.

3.10 Waste Minimisation Officers have also been more available to visit groups and schools to give talks about waste minimisation. Overall, we have engaged directly with over 30 interested groups in the last year.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 The coming year will see a shift to delivering the actions in the latest 2024 WMMP.

4.2 Undertake a comprehensive service review of the Resource Recovery activity and begin scoping for the development of a new material recovery facility.

4.3 Continue momentum with focused education talks, either at the MRF, in schools and presentations to community groups. Officers will also run a few education campaigns aimed at busting a recycling myth that “it all just ends up in landfill,” followed up by a “rethink” campaign that will promote activities at the top of the waste hierarchy. Additionally, Officers will also plan to hold more open days at Awapuni during the October school holidays.

4.4 Continue to investigate avenues to divert hard to recycle materials and develop waste management and minimisation frameworks for construction and demolition and events.

4.5 Continue to follow central government changes. We expect more consultation to come from Ministry for the Environment over the next 12 months on the initiatives previously signalled.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 12. Mahere taumanu para 12. Resource Recovery Plan The objective is: · Promote waste reduction · Divert waste from landfill · Provide support for for-purpose organisations and local communities to recover, reuse, repurpose or regenerate products · Provide recycling collection services including kerbside recycling, drop-off centres and public space recycling bins · Provide waste collection services, including kerbside collection, the Ashhurst transfer station, and public space rubbish bins · Monitor and manage closed landfills
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being	This report on actions in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) provides Elected Members with an update on progress to achieving the outcomes of that Plan and provides information that will support the next review of the WMMP.

Attachments

WMMP Action Progress 2024 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 October 2024

TITLE: Manawatū River Pathway Project

Presented By: Glen O'Connor, Manager Transport and Development and Michael Bridge, Service Manager Active Transport

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COUNCIL

1. That Council:

EITHER

a. Defers all activity on the Manawatū River Pathway until Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan; at no cost over the 2024-2027 Financial Years.

b. Directs the Chief Executive to continue engagement with affected landowners and progress planning and preparations for the Notice of Requirement over the 2024-2027 Financial Years; with the Notice of Requirement to be lodged in Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan, or earlier if all directly affected landowners provide their written support prior to lodgement.

c. Directs the Chief Executive to continue engagement with affected landowners and lodge the Notice of Requirement over the 2024-2027 Financial Years; with land acquisition and construction commencing from Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan.

d. Considers 2b and 2c in conjunction with the 6 November 2024 report to Council regarding Transport Funding.

2. That Council allocates EITHER $350,000 (for 1b) OR $800,000 (for 1c) from Programme 2057 ‘City-wide Shared Pathways New and Link Improvements’ for this work over the next three years.

1. ISSUE

1.1 There are two significant shared pathway projects for delivery through Programme 2057 ‘City-wide Shared Pathways New and Link Improvements’.

The projects are:

· Palmerston North Feilding Pathway (PNFP), connecting Feilding, Bunnythorpe and Palmerston North; and

· Manawatū River Pathway (MRP), which connects Ashhurst and Palmerston North, following the river edge alignment.

1.2 A report on the PNFP was presented to the Sustainability Committee on 22 May 2024, when the Committee endorsed a motion calling for a report on the MRP.

1.3 On 30 May 2024, during the Long-Term Plan (LTP) hearings, Council agreed to budget $6M over three years to construct the PNFP.

1.4 Council also deferred further expenditure and work on the MRP to Year 4 of the LTP, with the expectation that in the meantime engagement with landowners would continue. However, Officers cannot continue to engage with landowners without a budget.

1.5 The implications of Council not providing a budget for the River Pathway project for Years 1-3 of the LTP, are that further work, including landowner engagement, cannot be resourced.

1.6 Programme 2057 consists of $6M over the 2024-2027 Financial Years for the Palmerston North Feilding Pathway (PNFP); it does not currently have funding in the LTP specific to delivering the MRP.

1.7 This report provides an update on the current status of the Manawatū River Pathway and outlines three options to complete construction of the pathway within the LTP period.

2. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Problem or Opportunity	Council has committed to implementing the Manawatū River Pathway, however the project is not funded in the current Long Term Plan (LTP). The opportunity is for Council to determine to what extent the project progresses over the next 3 years, through to completion within the current LTP period.
OPTION 1a:	Defer all activity on the Manawatū River Pathway until Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan (2027/28 Financial Year).
Community Views	Not specifically canvassed for this report.
Benefits	No expenditure over the next three financial years.
Risks	· Losing the goodwill and benefits of engagement to date with affected landowners, including the established relationships with Officers; · Reducing the currency of work to date on reports and preparations for the Notice of Requirement; this work would have to be reviewed and at least some would have to be re-litigated at a later date; · Losing the specialised knowledge and expertise of Officers and contractors involved in work to date; · Potential for increased costs in the future for the Notice of Requirement, land acquisition and construction; · Risk to Council’s reputation by not delivering on commitment to complete the Manawatū River Pathway.
Financial	No expenditure over the next three financial years.
OPTION 1b:	Officers continue engagement with affected landowners and progress planning and preparations for lodgement of the Notice of Requirement in Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan (2027/28 Financial Year), or earlier if all directly affected landowners provide their written support prior to lodgement.
Community Views	Not specifically canvassed for this report.
Benefits	· Maintaining the connection with affected landowners; · Retaining the currency of most of the work to date on reports and preparations for the Notice of Requirement; · Retaining the specialised knowledge and expertise of Officers and contractors involved in work to date; · Reducing the risk of increased costs in the future for the Notice of Requirement, land acquisition and construction.
Risks	· Losing some of the benefits and goodwill of engagement with affected landowners, some of whom are frustrated with Council; · Reducing the currency of some work to date on reports and preparations for the Notice of Requirement; some of this work would have to be re-litigated; · Potential for increased costs in the future for the Notice of Requirement, land acquisition and construction; · Moderate risk to Council’s reputation by only partially delivering on commitment to complete the Manawatū River Pathway.
Financial	Estimate $350,000 over the 2024-2027 Financial Years, including Officer time.
OPTION 1c:	Continue engagement with affected landowners and lodge the Notice of Requirement over the 2024-2027 Financial Years, with land acquisition and construction commencing from Year 4 of the Long-Term Plan (2027/28 Financial Year).
Community Views	Not specifically canvassed for this report.
Benefits	· Completing the essential first step (Notice of Requirement), providing a clear path forward for land acquisition and construction; · Maintaining the engagement and goodwill with affected landowners; · Retaining the specialised knowledge and expertise of Officers and contractors involved in work to date; · Reducing the risk of increased costs in the future for land acquisition and construction.
Risks	· The outcome of the Notice of Requirement process is not certain; · Affected landowners may raise objections through the Notice of Requirement process, which could negatively affect Council’s reputation; · Minor risk to Council’s reputation by not fully delivering on commitment to complete the Manawatū River Pathway.
Financial	Estimate $800,000 over the 2024-2027 Financial Years, including Officer time.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The Manawatū River Pathway (MRP) follows the river’s edge alongside the Manawatū River, connecting Ashhurst with Palmerston North, He Ara Kotahi, the Mangaone Pathway and the wider shared pathway and urban networks. While some sections have been completed, significant portions remain unconnected.

3.2 In December 2020, Council directed the Chief Executive to explore legal options to expedite the completion of the MRP. A petition from local residents supporting the project was also presented to Council at that time. Since then, substantial progress has been made, including engagement with affected landowners, development of feasibility designs and preparation for a Notice of Requirement to designate land for the pathway.

3.3 A Notice of Requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991 is an important precursor to any subsequent land acquisition and construction, as well as providing the necessary planning approval for any such work.

3.4 By early 2023, the Chief Executive advised Council that the Notice of Requirement for land designation would be initiated in the second quarter of 2023. While work on the Notice of Requirement was well advanced, this was not completed or lodged with Council, as work was paused to allow for further negotiations with affected landowners.

3.5 On 22 May 2024, Council’s Sustainability Committee passed a resolution requesting a progress report on the establishment of the riverside shared path between Palmerston North and Ashhurst. Subsequently, on 30 May 2024, Council resolved to defer further expenditure and work on the MRP until Year 4 of the Long Term Plan (LTP).

Strategic Context

3.6 Our shared pathways are key links to our regional and urban networks, supporting economic growth and social activity; contributing to a liveable city. They provide safe, functional and attractive walking and cycling options for everyone, whether for commuting to work and school, recreational use, connecting with whanau, getting to the shops, health and well-being.

3.7 The MRP links with existing and future shared pathways, trails, footpaths and cycleways, growing the connected local and regional network for walking and cycling. Linkages include the Mangaone Pathway, Pioneer Pathway, He Ara Kotahi to Linton and Massey, urban cycle network and the future Te Ahu a Turanga pathway to Woodville (anticipating NZTA Waka Kotahi completion by 2026), as well as the proposed City to Sea pathway to Foxton.

3.8 The MRP aligns with the Te Āpiti Masterplan, through Te Ahu a Turanga pathway to Woodville, including the new walking and cycling bridge to be built across the Manawatū River, and corresponding access through the Domain and proposed Pembroke Street bridge into the heart of Ashhurst. The strategic opportunity to develop connections with the MRP formed a key part of Council’s review and comment on Te Ahu a Turanga and its recommendation for a shared pathway as part of that project.

3.9 Once complete, there will be a comprehensive shared pathway network across the region, connecting Palmerston North with Ashhurst, Woodville, Feilding and Foxton; our local network connecting to the national cycle trail running the length of New Zealand.

3.10 The MRP is essential to implementing the key directions of the 2016 Manawatū River Framework (in respect of developing the shared path network along the river edge for connectivity and activation), 2019 Urban Cycle Network Masterplan and 2023 Strategic Networks, and aligns with the 2020 Palmerston North Integrated Transport Initiative (PNITI) through ‘Making it safer and easier for people to choose to walk or cycle’.

Figure 1: Manawatū River Framework 2016

Figure 2: Regional shared pathways and core urban cycle network (Strategic Networks)

4. MANAWATŪ RIVER PATHWAY OVERVIEW

4.1 The MRP runs between Ashhurst and Mangaone Stream to the west of the city, along the river edge alignment.

4.2 The completed sections of the MRP currently connect Ahimate Reserve with Riverside Drive, as well as Ashhurst with Raukawa Road.

4.3 There are two segments not yet complete, creating a disconnect between rural and peri-urban communities and the urban centre:

· Riverside Drive to Te Matai Road and Raukawa Road, to the east of the city; approximately 12km.

· Ahimate Reserve to Tip Road, to the west of the city, at the bottom of Maxwells Line and near the confluence with Mangaone Stream; approximately 400m.

4.4 Currently people wanting to walk or cycle between Palmerston North and Ashhurst have only the option of Te Matai Road and Napier Road, or Napier Road, which is a 100km/h state highway, without proper provision for active modes.

4.5 There are six landowners covering the gaps in the MRP network. PN City Council has easement rights over some segments of river edge land within some of these privately owned sections.

4.6 We have been engaging with all affected landowners with the aim of completing the pathway following the river edge alignment. An update of these engagements is provided in the separate confidential report titled ‘Manawatū River Pathway Project - Progress on Landowners Engagement’.

4.7 The ultimate intention for the MRP is to construct a 3m wide limestone shared pathway following the river edge alignment, which will connect Ashhurst to He Ara Kotahi and beyond, to Mangaone Stream.

4.8 Following Council’s decision on 30 May 2024, further work on the MRP is now deferred to Year 4 of the LTP. Construction of the pathway is still proposed for completion within the current LTP.

4.9 Subject to funding, the proposal is to phase implementation, covering designation, land acquisition and construction:

a) Notice of Requirement (NoR): the NoR is required to designate the land necessary to complete the MRP. This process, governed under the Resource Management Act, will formally identify the corridor within which we can construct and maintain the pathway;

b) Business case: this supports our submission to NZTA Waka Kotahi for co-funding;

c) Detailed designs for construction;

d) Land acquisition: land acquisition can include purchases and easements, a process that is governed under the Public Works Act;

e) Construction.

Throughout these phases, we will continue to engage with affected landowners.

Financial

4.10 The estimated cost to implement the above phases and complete construction is $27.7M.

4.11 Since 2018 approximately $660K has been spent on the MRP project. Since December 2020, when Council resolved to investigate legal options for completion of the MRP, approximately $450K has been spent on designs, consultant reports, legal costs and staff time.

4.12 The Manawatū River Pathway project will be delivered under programme 2057 ‘City-wide Shared Pathways New and Link Improvements’:

· Officers propose to phase land acquisition and construction of the MRP to spread the cost over multiple years and better ensure affordability.

· Subject to funding, the project will be completed within the current LTP.

· Phasing will prioritise key steps and sections to build the connections and maximise short and medium term benefits.

· Additionally, there are elements that can be deferred to subsequent LTPs without compromising deliverability of the core assets (minimal viable product).

· NZTA Waka Kotahi confirmed in September 2024 that the MRP project is not a co-funded project in the 2024-27 National Land Transport Plan (NLTP).

· The MRP project is proposed to be submitted again for co-funding in the next NLTP cycle, coinciding with year 4 of PN City Council’s current LTP and the start of the 2027-2037 LTP.

4.13 Refer to Attachment 1 ‘Delivery Phasing and Cost Summary Options’ for a breakdown of the current estimated costs for each option and proposed programme.

Project phasing and costs

4.14 Subject to funding, implementation will be split into three phases:

PHASE 1 is the Notice of Requirement (NoR) to designate land necessary to complete the MRP, which will be undertaken through the Resource Management Act 1991.

· The NoR is the essential next step towards completing the MRP; securing the designation provides the foundation for all future implementation, from land acquisition to construction.

· The NoR phase is estimated to take approximately 12-18 months and is proposed to commence as soon as possible, subject to the decision by Council.

· We propose two separate NoRs, lodged simultaneously:

1. NoR for the small section of land between Ahimate Reserve and Tip Road, at the bottom of Maxwells Line to the west of the city. This is a distinct section, separate from the majority of incomplete pathway; and

2. NoR for the balance of incomplete pathway, between Riverside Drive and Raukawa Road.

· The NoR costs and timeline depend on multiple factors, such as landowner objections. Based on previous NoRs, we have allowed for $650K in the LTP, not including Officer time.

· The costs for the NoR will be 100% funded by Council.

· Concurrent with the NoR process we will:

1. Continue engagement with landowners, seeking to negotiate access agreements;

2. Develop a business case (which strengthens our case for NZTA Waka Kotahi co-funding) at an estimated cost of $350K; and

3. Complete construction drawings at an estimated cost of $1M.

The estimated cost for Phase 1 including the NoR, business case and final designs is $2M.

Figure 3: Notice of Requirement timeline and cost estimate (not including Officer time)

PHASE 2 is the acquistion of the land necessary to construct and maintain the MRP, at an estimated cost of $3.7M (100% PN City Council funded; not including Officer time, valuation reports and surveys):

· This phase is proposed to commence as soon as possible in the LTP, subject to the decision by Council.

· Negotiations with landowners may lead to options other than land purchase – such as easements – that can provide the necessary access to the land to construct and maintain the pathway.

PHASE 3 is construction of the pathway, split into two sections over 12.3km at a total cost of $22M (Engineers estimate for construction of the minimum viable product).

· This phase is proposed to commence as soon as possible, subject to funding, progress with the NoR, land acquisition and negotiations with landowners:

1. Section one – Riverside Drive to Te Matai Road, plus the short section betwee Ahimate Reserve and Tip Road; 5.6km, Engineers estimate $9.3M.

2. Section two – Te Matai Road to Raukawa Road; 6.7km, Engineers estimate $12.7M.

The total estimated cost for delivering all three phases is $27.7M.

Value engineering and scope change opportunities

4.15 The bulk of the construction costs for the MRP are driven by:

· Material and contractor costs

· Stormwater works, such as culverts

· Civil works, such as retaining walls, cut and fill

· Bridges

Minimum viable product

4.16 We have explored value engineering options that could be considered to reduce costs and provide direction on a minimum viable product to establish a connected route.

Landscaping and amenity

4.17 Landscape designs for the entire corridor will be developed before procurement and construction, ensuring a cohesive and consistent product throughout implementation.

4.18 We propose to defer implementation of the following elements to better ensure affordability and deliverability of the minimum viable product:

· Landscaping, including vegetation planting – we propose to deliver the landscaping elements incrementally and iteratively, subject to available funding;

· Seating, shelter, lighting and other amenities – we propose to construct seating and other amenity elements over time, subject to available funding.

4.19 The minimum viable product will combine new pathway construction with existing pathways to create a safe connection between Ashhurst and Mangaone Stream, away from busy 100km/h roads.

4.20 There are three remaining segments to complete the MRP:

a) Tip Road to Ahimate Reserve

· 400m, Engineer’s estimate $700K

· This small section will link the existing pathway through Ahimate Reserve at the bottom of Maxwells Line with Tip Road and ultimately on to the Mangaone Pathway and Pioneer Pathway; connecting via Marae Tarata to significant residential urban growth areas to the west of the city - Kākātangiata and Kikiwhenua.

· Construction will commence, subject to the decision by Council.

b) Riverside Drive to Te Matai Road

· 5.2km, Engineer’s estimate $8.6M

· This section will link the existing pathway from the city currently terminating at Riverside Drive with Te Matai Road.

· Construction will commence, subject to the decision by Council.

c) Te Matai Road to Raukawa Road

· 6.7km, Engineer’s estimate $12.7M

· This final section will link Te Matai Road with Raukawa Road and the existing pathway on to Ashhurst, thus completing the pathway between Ashhurst, Te Ahu a Turanga and Mangaone Stream.

· Construction will commence, subject to the decision by Council.

4.21 Refer to Attachment 1 ‘Delivery Phasing and Cost Summary Options’.

Alternative routes

4.22 The existing route options available to people walking and on bikes between Palmerston North and Ashhurst use combinations of Napier Road, Te Matai Road and Raukawa Road.

4.23 Currently there is a 2km section of pathway along Te Matai Road, between Riverside Drive and 236 Te Matai Road. This section of pathway does not connect to other pathways at either end and is not well used or maintained.

4.24 The Traffic Safety Assessment and Multi Criteria Analysis explored the option of a complete shared pathway along Te Matai Road, Napier Road and Raukawa Road, concluding that this was a less safe option compared with a pathway along the river edge, and did not meet Council’s objective to deliver a riverside pathway.

4.25 Key considerations during the safety assessment:

· 100km/h speeds along these roads

· Volumes of heavy vehicles

· Number of quarry truck movements along Te Matai Road and Raukawa Road

· Crossing Napier Road

4.26 Additionally, this alternative route presents some engineering complexities, including bridges, narrow corridors, culverts and steep gradients. Acquisition of some private land would be required along Te Matai Road and Raukawa Road to provide enough width to construct a shared pathway.

4.27 NZTA Waka Kotahi has developed concepts for shared pathways along Napier Road between Te Matai Road and Raukawa Road, as well as Roberts Line to the city perimeter. However, the agency has not progressed either concept and we do not expect that funding will be forthcoming in the short or medium term.

4.28 Given the constraints, risks, costs and sub-optimal benefits to constructing an alternative route along Te Matai Road, Napier Road and Raukawa Road, we do not recommend Council divert resources from the Manawatū River Pathway to develop this concept.

Feasibility designs

4.29 Feasibility designs for the Manawatū River Pathway have been completed, showing the pathway alignment within the designated corridor.

4.30 The draft feasibility designs show:

· The temporary designation boundary required for construction

· The permanent designation boundary required for operation

· The pathway alignment within the designation corridor

· The main civil works, such as retaining walls, cut and fill

· Culverts and bridges

· Fencing

· Multiple inputs contributed to the development of the draft feasibility designs:

o Input from affected landowners

o Traffic safety assessment

o Civil engineering report

o Multi Criteria Analysis

o Cultural Impact Assessment

o Ecology report

o Geo tech report

o Manawatū river flood mapping

o Landscape report

o Organic farming report

o Site visits

o Land surveys

4.31 We are continuing to seek feedback from affected landowners on the feasibility designs, particularly regarding the designation boundaries.

4.32 We have been working with Horizons to define the designation corridor and pathway alignment, accounting for the river’s morphology (performance, including flooding). Consistent with their River Management Plan, Horizons has advised where along the designation corridor they are most likely to invest resources to protect assets such as property and roads. We may seek advice on additional civil works to add resilience to the construction at key points along the route.

4.33 The MRP will be constructed within a newly designated corridor along the river edge. This designation corridor is consistent with existing pathway sections along the Manawatū River Pathway, and allows for:

· Space for vegetation and fencing between the pathway and adjacent properties, for privacy, safety, security and amenity;

· Sufficient distance from the active river edge;

· Maintenance and renewal.

4.34 The pathway is designed to be 3m wide, which is the minimum NZTA Waka Kotahi shared path standard, enabling people walking and cycling to use the space and pass safely. Strips of low vegetation each side of the pathway will provide additional space for passing and help address safety issues, such as sightlines.

4.35 The MRP is designed as a compacted limestone pathway, which is consistent with the Manawatū River Framework, with limestone pathways in the rural / peri-urban areas. Where additional resilience is warranted, we may use asphalt or concrete in place of limestone.

Figure 4: Feasibility designs have been developed along the full corridor

Figure 5: Feasibility design example page

Figure 6: Feasibility design example page

Figure 7: Feasibility design example cross section

Rangitāne

4.36 We continue to engage with Rangitāne on the project, providing updates at Te Whiri Kōkō.

4.37 Rangitāne support the project and are keen to see the connection complete between Ashhurst and the City (refer to Attachment 2: Rangitāne letter of support).

4.38 A Cultural Impact Assessment was commissioned from Te Ao Turoa Environmental for the NoR, which highlighted a number of issues and opportunities through this project.

4.39 Part 5 of the Cultural Impact Assessment, ‘Conclusions and recommendations’ states that:

“The Manawatū Awa is central to our worldview, our culture and traditions. This connection is thriving and is promoted through the Awa Park Framework which the project [Manawatū River Pathway] gives effect to. We have identified a range of positive effects as a result of the project:

· The pathway will enable us to access our wāhi tapu, wāhi tupuna, and wāhi taonga;

· Kaitiakitanga actions around the awa corridor can support mahinga kai populations, our cultural connections to the landscape and our local taonga species;

· We have the opportunity to build on the awa park, our cultural expression; and comunication of our narrative.”

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Significant work has been completed on the Manawatū River Pathway project since 2020, in preparation for the Notice of Requirement, followed by land acquisition and construction.

5.2 Feasibility designs have been drafted, showing how the pathway can be constructed and what it will cost.

5.3 Open lines of communication with affected landowners have been established, providing important feedback on the feasibility designs and Council’s plans to complete the river pathway connection between Ashhurst and the city.

5.4 There are three options for Council to consider regarding completion of the pathway within the current LTP.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in: 3. Mahere tūnuku 3. Transport Plan The action is: Prioritise active transport programmes that deliver on Council goals, the purpose of this plan, and the Government Policy Statement on Transport.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Our shared pathways are key links to our regional and urban networks, providing safe, functional and attractive walking and cycling options for everyone, whether for commuting to work and school, recreational use, connecting with whanau, getting to the shops, health and wellbeing.

Attachments

1.	Delivery Phasing and Cost Summary Options ⇩
2.	Rangitāne letter of support ⇩

Brent Barrett (Chair)
Kaydee Zabelin (Deputy Chair)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Roly Fitzgerald	Lorna Johnson
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Debi Marshall-Lobb
Leonie Hapeta	Karen Naylor

Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause number
~~16 October 2024~~	~~Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Joint Action Committee Update~~	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		~~Climate change plan ongoing~~
~~16 October 2024~~	~~Progress on establishing the riverside shared path from Palmerston North to Ashhurst~~	~~General Manager Infrastructure~~		22 May 2024 Clause 17
~~16 October 2024~~	~~Citywide Emissions Inventory 2023 Annual Report~~	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		~~Climate change plan ongoing action #3~~
~~16 October 2024~~	~~Proposed scope for the co-creation of a city-wide climate change action plan~~	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		30 March 2022 Clause 6-22, Climate change plan ongoing action #5
~~16 October 2024~~	~~PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2023/24 Annual Report~~	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		~~Climate change plan ongoing action #1~~
~~16 October 2024~~	~~Waste management and minimisation plan 2019 - annual progress update for 2023/24 FY~~	~~General Manager Infrastructure~~		9 Sept 2020 Clause 17-20
1 February 2025	Alternative options for BPO – Nature Calls	General Manager Infrastructure		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
2025	Annual Sector Lead Report: Environment Network Manawatū	General Manager Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
2025	Options to enable inclusion of organisational and community-wide sustainability indicators in the 2026 Sustainability Review	General Manager Corporate Services/CFO		22 May 2024 Clause 15
TBC 2026	Develop a city-wide stormwater strategy	General Manager Strategic Planning	Prior to the development of 2027 FDS	Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.7 -24 2F(3)