Whangarei District Council - Whangarei, New Zealand€¦ · Whangarei District Council 26 October...

Whangarei District Council

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Whangarei District Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Forum North, Whangarei on:

Wednesday26 October 2011

10.00 am

Committee His Worship the Mayor (Chairperson)

Cr C B Christie Cr S J Deeming Cr A J Edwards

Cr S M Glen Cr P R Halse

Cr J S Jongejans Cr G M Martin

Cr B L McLachlan Cr S L Morgan

Cr K J Sutherland Cr W L Syers

Cr M R Williams Cr J D T Williamson

INDEX Item No Page No 1. Public Forum.............................................................................................................................1 2. Minutes of a Meeting of the Whangarei District Council held 28 September 2011 ..................2

3. Minutes of a Meeting of the Creative Communities Assessment Committee

held 20 September 2011...........................................................................................................5 4. Police Report ............................................................................................................................7 5. Liquor Management Bylaw Amendment ..................................................................................8

6. Review of Council Policy on Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone Buildings .......................................................................................................................50 7. 2010-2011 Annual Report.......................................................................................................68 8. Contract 11061 – Lower Hatea River Crossing – Design & Construction (SP5) Tender Recommendation .......................................................................................................69 9. Committee and Subcommittee Terms of Reference.............................................................113 10. International Safe Communities – Whangarei ......................................................................122

CONFIDENTIAL INDEX Item No Page No C.1 Confidential Minutes of the Whangarei District Council meeting 28 September 2011 .............1

Recommendations contained in the Council agenda are NOT Council decisions. Please refer to Council minutes for resolutions.

Whangarei District Council 26 October 2011

1. Public Forum

Reporting officer Carolyne Brindle (Senior Meeting Co-ordinator)

Date 14 October 2011

Public Forum

Appendix F in Standing Orders allows for a period of up to 15 minutes to be set aside for a public forum at the commencement of each monthly council meeting.

The time allowed for each speaker is 3 minutes.

Members of the public who wish to participate should send a written application setting out the subject matter and the names of the speakers to the Chief Executive Officer at least 5 working days before the day of the meeting.

Speakers

There were no applications to speak at this month’s Public Forum received prior to the agenda being circulated.

1


2. Minutes: Whangarei District Council Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Minutes of a meeting of the Whangarei District Council held in the Council Chamber, Forum North on Wednesday 28 September at 10.00 am

Present: His Worship the Mayor M C A Cutforth (Chairperson) Crs C B Christie, S J Deeming, A J Edwards, S M Glen, P R Halse, J S Jongejans, G M Martin, B L McLachlan, S L Morgan, K J Sutherland, W L Syers, M R Williams and J D T Williamson Also present: Relieving Area Commander Inspector Clifford Paxton (New Zealand Police) In Attendance: Chief Executive Officer (M P Simpson), Group Manager Economic Growth (J Thompson), Group Manager Support Services (A Adcock), Group Manager Infrastructure and Services (S Weston), Economic Development Manager (P Gleeson), Community Services Manager (O Thomas), Property and Community Services Manager (M Hibbert), Group Planner (D Snowdon), Executive Assistant (J Walters), Councillor Support (J Crocombe) and Senior Meeting Co-ordinator (C Brindle) At the request of His Worship the Mayor those present observed a minutes silence to reflect on the decisions about to be made at today’s meeting. His Worship the Mayor advised Item 5 – Hikurangi Swamp Flood Protection Scheme Delegated Responsibilities was withdrawn from the agenda.

1. Public Forum

There were no speakers scheduled to speak at public forum.

2. Confirmation of Minutes of a Meeting of the Whangarei District Council held on 24 August 2011

Moved: Cr Martin Seconded: Cr Halse

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Whangarei District Council held on Wednesday 24 August 2011, having been circulated, be taken as read and now confirmed and adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings of that meeting.”

CARRIED

3. Police Report Relieving Area Commander Inspector Clifford Paxton spoke to the report and answered questions from Councillors. Moved: Cr Halse Seconded: Cr Martin “That the information be received.”

CARRIED

2


4. Mayoral Remuneration Moved: Cr Syers Seconded: Cr Martin “That Council recommends to the Remuneration Authority that for the period 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012, gross remuneration levels are set at: His Worship the Mayor $118,800 Deputy Mayor $51,434.”

CARRIED

5. Hikurangi Swamp Flood Protection Scheme Delegated Responsibilities Item 5 was withdrawn from the agenda.

Urgent business

Moved: Cr Deeming Seconded: Cr Syers “1. That in accordance with NZS 3.7.5 Council consider Item C.6 – Property Transaction. 2. That the reason this late item be considered at this meeting is to enable council to progress

negotiations with affected parties without undue delay.” On the motion being put Cr Williams called for a division: For the motion: Crs Halse, Deeming, Williamson, Martin, Glen, Jongejans, Morgan, Syers and His Worship the Mayor (9) Against the motion: Crs Edwards, Williams, Christie and Sutherland (4) Abstained: Cr McLachlan

CARRIED

Exclusion of public Moved: Cr Deeming Seconded: Cr Glen

Item C.1 Lease Item C.2 Property Transaction Item C.3 Property Transaction Item C.4 Property Transaction Item C.5 Property Transaction Item C.6 Property Transaction Reasons To enable the Council to carry on without prejudice or disadvantage commercial

negotiations Grounds Section 7(2)(h).”

CARRIED

3


The meeting closed at 1.07pm Confirmed this 26

th day of October 2011

M C A Cutforth (Chairperson)

4


3. Minutes : Creative Communities Assessment Committee Tuesday 20 September 2011

Minutes of a meeting of the Creative Communities Assessment Committee held in the Council Chamber, Forum North, on Tuesday 20 September 2011 at 1.00pm.

Present:

Cr S L Morgan (Chairperson) Cr A J Edwards, C Carey, S Tipene and B Yates

Apologies:

G Eiger and R Cranenburgh Moved Cr Morgan Seconded C Carey „That the apologies be sustained.‟

CARRIED

In attendance:

Community Services Manager (O Thomas), Community Services and Funding Officer (J Teeuwen) and Senior Meeting Co-ordinator (C Brindle)

1 Creative Communities Assessment Scheme – Round 1 2011-2012

Moved Cr Edwards Seconded S Tipene

“1. That the information be received. 2. That the following applications for Round 1 2011-2012 of the Creative Communities Scheme be

Received and grants be approved or declined in accordance with the criteria set by Creative New Zealand:

a) Biggins, Stephen Bruce To create glass blown work for solo exhibition (declined)

b) Bird, Luke ‘Free as a Bird’ – The Luke Bird Experience ($3,000)

c) CHART ArtBeat 2011 ($2,775)

d) Discover Whg Heads Tourism Group 2012 Whangarei Heads Art Trail ($1,500)

e) Inspiring Stories Trust Film making workshop and community screening (declined)

f) Making a Scene Speech and drama performance ($1,000)

g) Mangakahia Garden Club Floral festival and garden market (declined)

h) Mitchell, Hannah Summer Solstice Fire Festival (declined)

i) NEWZATS Singing workshop (declined)

j) Northland Big Sing Committee Northland ‘Big Sing’ Festival ($500.00)

k) Northland Craft Trust 2012 Summer Do ($4,000)

l) Northland Society of Arts ‘Heritage Whangarei – Mair Park & the Hatea’ exhibition ($1,500)

5


m) Northland Youth Theatre ‘Aurora’ Junior Show ($3,000)

n) Northland Youth Theatre ‘The Quarry Project’ Senior Show ($4,000)

o) Old Library Community Art Centre Old Library 75th anniversary celebration exhibition ($1,500)

p) Piwai Waka Wood carving workshop (declined)

q) Rising Starz Performing Arts Trust ‘Zoom’ stage production ($1,500).” CARRIED

Cr Morgan declared a potential conflict of interest and took no part in voting on the applications by CHART, Northland Craft Trust, Northland Youth Theatre and the Old Library Community Art Centre. C Carey declared a potential conflict of interest and took no part in voting on the application by CHART.

2 Creative Communities Scheme – Project Reports

Moved C Carey Seconded Cr Edwards “That the information be received.”

CARRIED Next meeting: Round 2, 27 March 2012 The meeting closed at 2.21pm

Confirmed this 26th day of October 2011

S L Morgan (Chairperson)

6


4. Police Report

Reporting officer Carolyne Brindle (Senior Meeting Co-ordinator)


The Police report had not been received at the time the agenda closed and will therefore be circulated prior to or tabled at the meeting. Acting Relieving Area Commander Martyn Ruth will speak to the report.

In addition to the Police Report Inspector P Dimery will update Council on the ‘Neighbourhood Policing Team” initiative.

7


5. Liquor Management Bylaw Amendment

Reporting officer Mike Henehan (Bylaw Co-ordinator )


Vision, mission and values

Creating the ultimate living environment

Local Government Act 2002 – The four well-beings

Cultural No direct link

Economic There is considerable cost to the community from crime that is committed as a result of alcohol abuse.

Environmental No direct link.

Social Misuse of alcohol can give rise to anti social behaviour and loss of health and well being affecting communities and individuals.

Introduction

At the 24 August 2011 meeting of Council, it was resolved that the Liquor Management Bylaw 2007 (the bylaw) be reviewed. Council also resolved to adopt a statement of proposal to amend the bylaw to include new liquor ban areas at Kamo, Onerahi, Otaika, Otangarei, Tikipunga and Whangarei Falls; Otuihau.

Some further amendments to the bylaw were also proposed including:

a definition of the term “coast”

a schedule identifying liquor ban areas

deletion of the Langs Cove and Uretiti liquor ban areas which in any case fall within the 300 metres coastal liquor ban zone

minor formatting changes ensuring consistency and clarity.

The Local Government Act process

The Special Consultative Procedure as defined in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) must be used when amending a bylaw. Accordingly Council adopted a statement of proposal and submissions were invited during the period 30 August 2011 to 30 September 2011.

Six submissions were received, of which one, the Northland District Health Board, has indicated a wish to be heard. Council, in terms of the special consultative procedure, must hold a public hearing, after which Council can deliberate on the submissions and then progress through to the adoption of the bylaw either as proposed in the statement of proposal or with any subsequent amendment. This agenda item serves the purpose of the hearing of submissions.

The submissions

The submissions are attached to this report and details of these submissions, including summary and analysis are in the table below.

Name Organisation Summary of Submission Analysis

Goyen J Christine

Supports. Lives close to one of the „hotspots‟. Has witnesses disorder outside her house. Changes will force parents to accept some responsibility. This bylaw will make Otangarei a safer place.

8


Brittenden Kay

Kamo Community Inc

Supports the Kamo liquor ban area.

Taffs Bernard

Kamo High School

Request to include Kamo High School grounds in the Kamo liquor ban area as youths displaying anti-social behaviour tend to congregate in the school grounds when moved on. School has suffered a huge amount of vandalism. Pattern of shifting offending will continue with increased offending in areas immediately outside the ban zones therefore schools should be protected and included within the ban areas..

The bylaw only applies in public places (Section 147 LGA). School grounds are private property

Henneveld Dr Loek

Northland District Health Board

Supports. Suggests effective monitoring and enforcement of the bans. Recommends bans are intensively promoted and that enforcement agencies work with communities. Essential that enforcement agencies work via existing forums.

Police will monitor and enforce the bylaw. Ban locations will be advertised.

Clark John Onerahi Community Assn

Supports the changes which will make benefit the community and provide a safer environment in Onerahi.

Fiona Davidson

Supports. Requests the Tikipunga liquor ban area be extended to a number of new locations. Has experienced groups of people walking along footpaths drinking and behaving in a threatening way. Empty bottles and cans are left on the ground.

Extending the ban locations to suburban streets has not been a focus of this bylaw amendment, but could be considered at a later date. Whilst evidence of intoxication is quoted, there are many other suburban streets with similar issues.

Consideration of submissions

All submitters support the bylaw amendments.

The Kamo and Onerahi community associations express support.

The wish of the Kamo High School to extend the Kamo ban area into the school grounds cannot be accommodated as this property is not deemed to be a public place as defined in Section 147 LGA.

Fiona Davidson has requested that the Tikipunga ban area be extended into suburban streets and parks. There are no alcohol related crime statistics to support wider extension of the liquor ban in Tikipunga suburban streets and parks. It is considered good practice to ensure that any area proposed to be controlled under a liquor ban is fully debated by the wider community, or at least opportunity is provided for debate during the public submission process. This will not have occurred for this requested extension and it is felt prudent that this request should be subject to a separate consultation process when the Liquor Management Bylaw is next reviewed or amended.

9


Also, clearly defined locations, identifying smaller areas, will make for easier boundary identification that will assist both the public and the police enabling more effective and efficient enforcement. Accordingly, it is viewed that the existing boundaries, which primarily identify suburban “hubs”, should be maintained.

Recommendation

That the submissions relating to the Liquor Management Bylaw 2011 be received and heard.

Attachments

1 Liquor Managements Bylaw - Submissions

2 Liquor Management Bylaw 2011 DRAFT

10

Whangarei District Council

Liquor Management Bylaw 2011

October 2011

20


11/56460 October 2011 2

Liquor Management Bylaw Whangarei District Council makes this bylaw pursuant to the powers contained in the Local Government Act 2002. This bylaw restricts the consumption, bringing and possession of liquor within the specified areas of the District of Whangarei between specified hours and dates.

1 Short title and commencement 1.1 This bylaw may be cited as the Whangarei District Liquor Management Bylaw.

1.2 This bylaw is made pursuant to a resolution of the Whangarei District Council on 26 October 2011 and comes into force on 1 December 2011.

2 Interpretation In this bylaw unless the context otherwise requires

Coast means the line from mean low water springs.

In the case of the Whangarei Harbour, the coast includes the land area downstream of the southern boundary of Mair Park.

In the case of Whangaruru Harbour and the Pataua, Ngunguru and Whananaki estuaries, the coast includes the land area 2 kilometres upstream from the mouths of the harbour or estuaries.

In the case of rivers other than the above harbours or estuaries, the coast includes land whichever is the lesser of: i one kilometre upstream from the mouth of the river; or ii the point upstream that is calculated by multiplying the width of the river

mouth by 5

Council means Whangarei District Council

District means the territory administered by Whangarei District Council

Liquor has the meaning given to it in the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

Public place has the meaning given to it in section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002

3 Prohibition on the consumption, bringing and possession of liquor 3.1 No person shall at any time within the central business district

i consume liquor in a public place

ii bring liquor into a public place

iii possess liquor in a public place

from and including the 1st day of January in any year on every day through to and including the 31st day of December that same year.

3.2 No person shall at any time

3.1.1 Between the mark of low water springs and the mark of mean high water springs, with exception of those areas under management and control by the Department of Conservation

3.1.2 Within 300 metres inland of the mark of mean high water springs along the entire coastline of the District, with exception of those areas under management and control by the Department of Conservation a consume liquor in a public place b bring liquor into a public place c possess liquor in a public place

unless the chief executive officer of Council has granted permission in writing to do so in order to allow special dispensation to allow for special occasions and community events.

21


11/56460 October 2011 3

3.3 No person shall at any time within the areas detailed in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 to this bylaw a consume liquor in a public place b bring liquor into a public place c possess liquor in a public place

from and including the 1st day of January in any year on every day through to and including the 31st day of December that same year.

4 Exceptions 4.1 This bylaw does not, in the case of liquor in an unopened bottle or other unopened container,

apply to the transport of that liquor from

a premises that adjoin a public place during any period when, under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, it is lawful to sell liquor on those premises for consumption off the premises, provided the liquor is promptly removed from the public place

b outside a public place for delivery to premises that adjoin the public place, provided the premises are licensed for the sale of liquor under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

c outside a public place to premises that adjoin a public place

i by, or for delivery to, a resident of those premises or by his or her bona fide visitors, or

ii from those premises to a place outside the public place by a resident of those premises, provided the liquor is promptly removed from the public place.

4.2 This bylaw shall not apply to those areas within the District to which the prohibition on the consumption, bringing and possession of liquor in terms of Clause 3 of this bylaw apply which constitute public places but which are areas:

i of footpath directly outside approved and licensed ‘alfresco’ dining establishments; and/or

ii licensed for the sale and/or consumption of liquor pursuant to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

5 Offences 5.1 Every person who breaches this bylaw commits an offence.

22


11/56460 October 2011 4

Schedule of amendments Date of Council resolution Clause(s) Summary of Amendment

Schedule

Liquor ban areas schedule

1 Central business district

Rural/Coastal

2 Marsden village

3 Matapouri

4 Oakura

5 Pataua North and South

6 Waipu

7 Whananaki

Suburban

8 Kamo

9 Onerahi

10 Otaika

11 Otangarei

12 Tikipunga

13 Otuihau; Whangarei Falls

23


11/56460 October 2011 5

Schedule 1 Central Business District along James St from its intersection with Dent St to its intersection with Quay St

along Railway Rd from where it crosses the Waiarohia Stream to its intersection with Walton St

along Walton St from its intersection with Railway Rd to its intersection with Lower Tarewa Rd

along Lower Tarewa Rd from its intersection with Walton St to its intersection with Porowini Ave

along Porowini Ave from its intersection with Lower Tarewa Rd to its intersection with Maunu Rd

along Maunu Rd from its intersection with Porowini Ave to its intersection with Central Ave

along Central Ave from its intersection with Maunu Rd to its intersection with Western Hills Dr

along Western Hills Dr from its intersection with Central Ave to its intersection with Selwyn Ave

along Selwyn Ave from its intersection with Western Hills Dr to its intersection with Rust Ave

along Rust Ave from its intersection with Selwyn Ave to its intersection with Bank St including Alexander St

Dent St from the roundabout at its intersection with Bank St east to its intersection with James St

east along the northern side of the entrance road to the Ted Elliot/Whangarei District Council pool complex (Aquatic Centre) until its intersection with the eastern side of Ewing Rd

east along Riverside Dr until the intersection of Riverside Dr with the southern side of Dundas Rd

from the intersection of the northern side of the new bridge crossing the Hatea River across the bridge to the left bank of the Hatea River

from the intersection of James and Quay Sts along the right bank of the Hatea River to the eastern extremity of Hihiaua Point such being the confluent (meeting point) of the Hatea River, Whangarei Harbour and Waiarohia Stream

north along Bank St from its intersection with Rust Ave to the roundabout at the intersection of Bank and Dent Sts including Vinery Lane and Hunt St

north along Bank St from the roundabout at its intersection with Dent St to its intersection with Manse St

north along the left bank of the Hatea River until the intersection of a line parallel with the north side of the road entering the Ted Elliott/Whangarei District Council pool complex (Aquatic Centre)

south along Ewing Rd until the intersection of Ewing Rd with the northern side of Riverside Dr

south across Riverside Dr from the intersection with the southern side of Dundas Rd until its intersection with the left bank of the Hatea River

west along the left bank of the Hatea River and over the southernmost bridge over the Hatea River until its intersection with Quay St and James St

west along the left bank of the Waiarohia Stream including the Reyburn St bridge through to the point where Railway Rd crosses the Waiarohia Stream

and includes all intersections and Council owned land (car parks, parks and reserves).

24


11/56460 October 2011 6

25


11/56460 October 2011 7

Schedule 2 Marsden Village • east along Station Rd from its intersection with Te One St and then extending in a direct line from the

eastern end of Station Rd down to the mean low water mark on Ruakaka Beach

• north along Marsden Point Rd until the intersection of Marsden Point Rd with Sime Rd

• Sime Rd from its intersection with Marsden Point Rd east to its intersection with Te One St

• South along Te One St from its intersection with Sime Rd to its intersection with Station Rd

• south from the mean low water mark on Ruakaka Beach which is directly east of the end of Te One St along the line of mean low water to a point directly east of the main Ruakaka Beach vehicle entrance leading from Peter Snell Rd on to Ruakaka Beach

• west from the point being on the line of mean low water directly east of the vehicle entrance leading from Peter Snell Rd on to Ruakaka Beach to Peter Snell Rd

• west and north along the entire length of Peter Snell Rd until its intersection with Marsden Point Rd

and includes all intersections Council owned land (car parks, parks and reserves).

26


11/56460 October 2011 8

27


11/56460 October 2011 9

Schedule 3 Matapouri Matapouri Rd from the northern end of the bridge on Matapouri Rd crossing the Wairoa Creek at the intersection of Matapouri Rd and Te Wairoa Rd north of the coast immediately north of the parking area for the Whale Bay Reserve and all land lying between that road and the line of mean low water springs.

28


11/56460 October 2011 10

29


11/56460 October 2011 11

Schedule 4 Oakura • from the intersection of Oakura Bay Rd and Rapata Rd including Rapata Rd and the entire length to

the end, including all reserves out to the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• to the end of Oakura Rd and into Ohawini Rd until it meets the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• the entire area from the end of Ohawini Rd until it meets the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• the entire area from the end of Ohawini Rd down to the end of Rapata Rd and all the area east of Oakura Rd including both sides of the following side streets off Oakura Rd; Wharua Rd, Waimarie Rd, Omutu St, Te Kapua St.

• includes both sides of the following side streets off Ohawini Rd; Opau Rd, Motutara Rd, Omahunui Way and Ongutukura Rd


30


11/56460 October 2011 12

31


11/56460 October 2011 13

Schedule 5 Pataua North and South Pataua North and South means that part of the District that is bounded by

• from the intersection of Mahanga Rd and Pataua South Rd, including Hutchinson Rd, Mahanga Rd, Pataua St and all reserves in that area, including Pataua Island

• from 500 metres north of Pataua North Rd and Aubrey Rd intersection, including the reserve area leading to the footbridge leading over to Pataua South, including Aubrey Rd, Hall Rd, Kaye Rd Te Whangai Head Rd and all reserves and public places in this area out to the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• the foot bridge running between Pataua South and Pataua North


32


11/56460 October 2011 14

33


11/56460 October 2011 15

Schedule 6 Waipu • east along Cove Rd from the intersection of South Rd The Centre, Cove Rd and Nova Scotia to the

intersection of Cove Rd with Braemar Lane

• east along The Centre from its intersection with The Braigh to the intersection of The Centre with South Rd

• north along Nova Scotia Dr from its intersection with Cove Rd to the intersection of the driveway to the Ranburn Rest Home with Nova Scotia Dr

• north along South Rd from the intersection of South Rd with the entrance way to the Waipu Bowling Club to the intersection of South Rd with The Centre, Cove Rd and Nova Scotia Dr

• west along The Centre from its intersection with Nova Scotia Dr to the intersection of The Centre with The Braigh

• west from the intersection of Braemar Lane with Cove Rd along Cove Rd to its intersection with Nova Scotia Dr

• south along Nova Scotia Dr from its intersection with the driveway to the Ranburn Rest Home to its intersection with Cove Rd and The Centre

• south along South Rd to the intersection of South Rd with the entrance way to the Waipu Bowling Club


34


11/56460 October 2011 16

35


11/56460 October 2011 17

Schedule 7 Whananaki • all of Rockell Rd including both sides of the road and the side road Matapeko Rd

• both sides of Whananaki North Rd until it runs into Rockell Rd

• from the intersection of Whananaki North Rd and Halvorson Rd, including roadside and reserves

• from the intersection to the harbour end of Whananaki South Rd on the coastal side of the road out to the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• from the intersection of Whananaki South Rd and Edge Rd to the harbour end of Whananaki South Rd, including both sides of Whananaki South Rd and the side streets Te Ara O Tunua Rd and Pukekawa Rd

• the south side of Whananaki North Rd to where it runs into the harbour

• the coastal side of Rockell Rd out to the 300 metre beach liquor ban area

• the beach reserve area from the head of the harbour on the Whananaki North side to the entrance to the harbour

• the footbridge that runs between Whananaki North Rd and Whananaki South Rd

• or shown delineated on the map attached Schedule 7 (a)


36


11/56460 October 2011 18

37


11/56460 October 2011 19

Schedule 8 Kamo Boswell St Butler Pl from Kamo Rd to the entrance to the Kamo Sports Park Clark Rd Farmer St Grant St Griffin St Kamo Sports Park Kamo Rd from the intersection with Clark Rd to the intersection with Butler Pl Lillian St Meldrum St Wakelin St Three Mile Bush Rd from Kamo Rd to Ford Ave Wilkinson Ave from Kamo Rd to Boswell St


38


11/56460 October 2011 20

39


11/56460 October 2011 21

Schedule 9 Onerahi Goodwin St

Pine Park Rd

Waverley St

Cartwright Rd from Church Rd to Tainui St

Church St, from Onerahi Rd to Pine Park Rd

Old Onerahi Rd from Onerahi Rd to Ross St

Onerahi Rd from the intersection with Alamein Ave to Church St

Raumati Cres from Onerahi Rd to Arawa Pl

the car park area adjacent to the Onerahi shops and Onerahi Rd


40


11/56460 October 2011 22

41


11/56460 October 2011 23

Schedule 10 Otaika Abbots Way

Ashley Ave from Abbots Way south to Ashley Ln including access way.

Kendon Pl walkway from Otaika Rd to Northtec

Mt Pleasant Rd from Otaika Rd to Arcus St

Otaika Rd, from Abbots Way to Murdoch Cres

Otaika Rd Service Ln


42


11/56460 October 2011 24

43


11/56460 October 2011 25

Schedule 11 Otangarei Brake Ave

Cairnfield Rd

Car park adjacent to the Otangarei shops

Churchill St

Curtis St

Holmes Ave

Jack St

Jane Nelson Pl

Kamo Rd from Mains Ave to the railway line

Keyte St

King St

Mains Ave

Matai St

McKinnon Cres

Miro St

Otangarei Reserve

Punarere Dr

Rata Pl

Rimu Pl

Taraire Cres

Tawa Pl

Waiatawa Rd from Churchill St to Brewery Bridge Rd

William Jones Dr

Zealandia St


44


11/56460 October 2011 26

45


11/56460 October 2011 27

Schedule 12 Tikipunga Paramount Parade from the Whangarei District Council property occupied by the library (Lot 1 DP 61429) to the intersection with Kiripaka Rd.

From the north western boundary of Lot 1 DP 61429 to the western end of Wanaka St, including the Whangarei District Council property occupied by the library (Lot 1 DP 61429)

Coleridge Pl

Denby Cres from Spedding Rd

Kiripaka Rd from the intersection with Otuhiwai Cres to Spedding Rd

Maryland Pl

Otuhiwai Cres

Spedding Rd from Denby Cres to Heretaunga St

Tania Pl

Wanaka St


46


11/56460 October 2011 28

47


11/56460 October 2011 29

Schedule 13

Otuihau; Whangarei Falls The Hatea River, from Kiripaka Road to the south eastern boundary of A LOT 48PSH

A LOT 49 PSH

LOT 24 DP 100283

LOT 2 DP 162194

A LOT 48 PSH

LOT1 DEED

Includes all land and river area within the area in the map as indicated in red.

48


11/56460 October 2011 30

49


6. Review of Council Policy on Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone Buildings

Reporting officer K Crocombe (Team Leader, Building Inspections)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as creating the ultimate living environment will be assisted by providing a policy which assists in completing developments in the District. Innovation and excellence can be achieved by providing alternatives such as the implementation of the policy to achieve an outcome that benefits both Council and any developer. Council staff should exercise leadership by applying the policy in a consistent manner. Communication channels have to be used to reach a satisfactory outcome.


Cultural Earthquake policies do affect heritage buildings and other structures of cultural significance. This could be monetary as well as aesthetically. Some functionality may even be lost or entire buildings may have to be demolished pending policy outcome.

Economic Consideration needs to be given to the impact a earthquake policy adds when significant cost to a range of buildings yield no feasible return for such investment or market acknowledgement is low for building work done solely for earthquake upgrading..

Environmental Environmental considerations involve impacts to the built environment and any other environment considerations.

Social A balance perspective of what is an acceptable risk profile for our community is an essential ingredient including the wider population’s appetite for risk. Such input and consideration must translate though into substantial support.

Introduction

At the 24 August 2011 meeting of Council, it was resolved that the reviewed Policy on Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone buildings be adopted for submission under the Special Consultative Procedure (S83) of the Local Government Act 2002.

The Statement of proposal was adopted for public submission.

The Local Government Act Process

The Special Consultative Procedure as defined in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) must be used for reviewing the policy as specified in S132 of the Building Act 2004.

The Statement of Proposal was publically advertised on the 30 August 2011 with submissions invited during the period 30 August – 10 October 2011. A summary document was mailed out to over one thousand property owners who were identified as possibly being impacted by the policy.

Background

Council‟s policy on Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone Buildings must be reviewed in June 2011.

The following description is largely based on an extract written by the Department of Building and Housing:

The Building Act 2004 introduced provisions to improve the likelihood of existing buildings to withstand earthquakes. This is a long-term strategy that focuses on the buildings most vulnerable in an earthquake. It does not include small residential buildings (i.e. houses).

The strategy allows local territorial authorities in different areas to take into account their area's particular seismic, economic and social conditions. It is expected that territorial authorities will adopt these policies

50


for addressing earthquake-prone buildings in their districts over a timeframe they consider appropriate, which could be over several decades.

The legislation reflects lessons learnt from the effects of earthquakes both internationally and in New Zealand, and the growing recognition of the inadequacies of past earthquake design practices when viewed in terms of current knowledge. The changes to the Act were developed in close consultation with the engineering profession and were designed to allow consultation between local territorial authorities and building owners and users in developing their policies. It is likely that after the latest experience in Christchurch there could be further reviews of law in this area.

The legislation is directed at existing buildings (other than small residential buildings) that are less than one-third of the strength required for a new building.

Design standards for buildings in earthquakes were first introduced into New Zealand in 1935 following the Napier earthquake. Significant developments in design approaches came in 1965, when three different earthquake zones were identified, reflecting the growing knowledge of the different seismicity of various parts of New Zealand. Further significant changes were made in 1976 that allowed for more variation in seismicity over New Zealand.

More importantly, the 1976 changes introduced requirements to design and detail building structures to protect vertical load carrying elements (known as the „capacity design‟ or „strong column/weak beam‟ approach). Further refinements to the 1976 approach were made in 1984, 1992 and 2005. These generally reflect the increased knowledge of the seismicity of New Zealand, material properties and the response of buildings to earthquake shaking.

These developments over the years mean we now realise that many existing buildings fall short of the standards now required for new buildings. Past earthquakes, particularly those in Kobe, Japan (1995) and Northridge, California (1994), and no doubt Christchurch, serve as reminders of the possible deficiencies in past design methods in some cases. These reminders apply just as much to New Zealand as to USA and Japan, since development of earthquake standards in these countries has strong parallels.

The buildings concerned are not just those of brick masonry, which were already covered by legislation in New Zealand, but include particularly those built before 1976.

The increase in the scope of what could be an earthquake-prone building introduced in the Building Act 2004 are directed only at the worst of existing buildings. Buildings with less than one-third of the strength of a new building have about 10 to 20 times the risk of serious damage or collapse when compared to a new building.

The Act requires each territorial authority to have a policy on earthquake-prone buildings, but in so doing allows territorial authorities to decide on the approach, priorities and timetable to be followed. It is envisaged that implementing the provisions of the Act will take several decades in most cases.

The Building Act 2004 is in line with how other countries deal with earthquake risk, notably in USA where the Californian Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1986 was enacted following the devastating earthquake in Mexico City in 1985. That Act led to the development of a California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan, which includes requirements to deal with existing buildings.

Local policies

By 30 May 2006, local territorial authorities were required to have developed and adopted a policy regarding local buildings most vulnerable in a moderate earthquake. As part of the development of the policy, the territorial authority must follow the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act, to ensure a balance between the need to address earthquake risk and other priorities, such as the social and economic implications of implementing the policy.

A territorial authority's policies must describe:

the approach the territorial authority will take

the priorities for that approach

how the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

51


The territorial authority must provide a copy of the policy to the Department of Building and Housing. It is expected that each territorial authority will implement its policies on a local level over a number of years, or even several decades. To keep policies up to date with any advances, the Act requires territorial authorities to review their policies every 5 years.

What is an ‘earthquake-prone’ building?

The risk of earthquake-prone buildings can be measured by comparing the assessed performance of each building to the performance required of a new building.

A key factor for territorial authorities in determining their policy for earthquake-prone buildings is the level of earthquake risk in their area: what is the probability and severity of earthquakes and what impact could they have on life and property?

The technical definition of an earthquake-prone building is set out in the Building Act 2004 (section 122) and in the related regulations that define a moderate earthquake. This definition is significantly more extensive and requires a higher level of structural performance for buildings than that provided under the previous legislation. Over time this aims to make it safer for people to live and work in buildings that could be vulnerable in the event of a major earthquake.

The definition now encompasses all buildings, not simply those constructed of unreinforced masonry or unreinforced concrete as required by the Building Act 1991.

The significant change from the 1991 Building Act to the 2004 Building Act 2004 is that more buildings are now potentially covered by the definition and a higher level of structural performance of buildings is required as follows:

The definition of an earthquake-prone building is set out in s122 of the Building Act 2004:

(1) A building is earthquake prone for the purposes of this Act if, having regard to its condition and to the ground on which it is built, and because of its construction, the building—

o (a) will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in the

regulations); and

o (b) would be likely to collapse causing— (i) injury or death to persons in the building or to persons on any other property; or (ii) damage to any other property.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a building that is used wholly or mainly for residential purposes unless the building—

o (a) comprises 2 or more storeys; and o (b) contains 3 or more household units.

How is a moderate earthquake defined?

A moderate earthquake is legally defined as:

“…in relation to a building, an earthquake that would generate shaking at the site of the building that is of the same duration as, but that is one-third as strong as, the earthquake shaking (determined by normal measures of acceleration, velocity and displacement) that would be used to design a new building at the site.”

This definition was consulted on in October and November 2004, and took effect from 31 March 2005.

Characteristics of Whangarei’s Buildings and Seismic Activity

Whangarei District‟s buildings comprise a range of types and ages reflecting the modest development over the last 150 years. Construction materials include wood, unreinforced masonry or concrete, framed masonry, brick veneer as well as more modern multi-storey steel and reinforced concrete buildings.

Whangarei City along with Northland is in a zone of low seismic activity. There are no known actual faults (Beetham et al, 2004). Over the last 100 years there have been 12 earthquakes all under 5 on the Richter scale, none recording any damage to buildings.

52


To put it into perspective there is an estimated mean return period of 7000 years for a 7 on the MM scale1 in Whangarei compared to Wellington‟s 42 years. (Beetham et al, 2004)

WDC Earthquake Policy Response

In the late 1970's Whangarei City Council undertook a study of buildings in the Central Business District (CBD) to identify buildings that had been constructed of: unreinforced masonry or concrete construction and that potentially fell within the earthquake prone classification applicable at that time. Files associated with this initial assessment have been the basis for identifying the potentially Earthquake Prone Buildings (EPBs) in the CBD.

From the late 1970‟s to the late 1990‟s Council actively encouraged owners to upgrade or demolish these buildings. The majority (one or two still outstanding) of these buildings have been upgraded to a level that met the requirements of that time.

From this period on the earthquake policy has been one of “passive” implementation.

A passive response policy is typical of many Councils. It means building owners are not actively chased to upgrade their buildings. However the assessment of buildings as earthquake prone depends on many factors and can only be done by a qualified engineer.

When buildings have proposed building work a desk top exercise done by Council identifies in the first instance any building that may be earthquake prone based mainly on its age. If applicable owners are requested that their building be assessed by a qualified engineer and if found earthquake prone, requested to upgrade to 34% of today‟s current design standard as part of the proposed works. The building consent will only be granted if earthquake upgrading is included with the new proposed works.

Potential Scope of Affect of Earthquake Prone Building Policy

Whangarei District has approximately 2000 pre-1985 buildings that may be implicated by the most recent Earthquake legislation. Of these 68 are found on what is called the earthquake prone building register. This represents unreinforced buildings that have being identified as earthquake prone under the Building Act 1991. All except one or two have had building consents for alterations in the last 2 years that have included earthquake upgrading. Hence the most affected buildings built prior to 1976 have had some type of seismic upgrade.

The seismic capabilities and the risk of the remainder of these buildings pose to occupants or public in their vicinity have not been assessed or recorded over the years. Within the urban Whangarei zone there are approximately 1500 buildings in this category.

Other Council Earthquake Prone Building Policy Responses.

The following information is derived from the most recent records held by the DBH (prior to Christchurch Earthquakes) of 73 Councils. In general table (a) shows a reasonable spread of approaches to the policy:

Approach to Earthquake Prone Building Policy

Active Passive Active/Passive

Number of Councils 32 23 18

Percentage of Councils 44% 32% 24%

Table (a): Approach to Earthquake Prone Building Policy

With regards to what strength Councils require buildings to be strengthened up to; 34 (47%) Councils say they are satisfied with the statute 34% (1/3) minimum while 21 (29%) of Councils require 67% (2/3).

1 The Mercalli intensity scale is a scale used for measuring the intensity of an earthquake. The scale quantifies the

effects of an earthquake on the Earth's surface, humans, objects of nature, and man-made structures on a scale from I (not felt) to XII (total destruction). Values depend upon the distance to the earthquake, with the highest intensities being around the epicentral area. Data gathered from people who have experienced the quake are used to determine an intensity value for their location

53


There are 45 (62%) of Councils that have time lines: ranging from 1 year through to 50 years in which to do earthquake strengthening works, and 0.25 years through to 25 years in which to identify earthquake prone buildings in their districts.

Cost for identifying and assessing buildings are widely distributed between owners and Council and are summarised as follows:

Cost Allocation for Identifying and Assessing Buildings

Owner Council Owner/Council N/A

Identification 8 (11%) 63 (86%) 2 (2.7%)

Initial Assessment 25 (34%) 44 (60%) 2 (2.7%) 2 (2.7%)

Detailed Assessment 66 (90%) 2 (2.7%) 3 (4.1%) 2 (2.7%)

Table (b): Cost Allocation for Identifying and Assessing Buildings

Issues to be Considered by Council

This policy requires Council support and community consultation therefore several issues need consideration if the existing policy is to change. These are:

1 How do we view our earthquake risk as a district?

Geologically Northland is one of the most stable regions in New Zealand; however as with anything there are no guarantees.

2 What is the community response to this risk?

Presently there is a heightened awareness of earthquakes and what this could mean for our buildings. There have also been several requests for information on earthquake prone buildings. However there has being no over whelming community response indicating that a change is needed in managing this risk.

3 What is economically appropriate and acceptable?

Any policy decision needs to be cognisant with what our community can actually afford. Realistically there will be no increase in economic gain or return on investment for upgrading buildings for earthquake reasons. This money will basically be sunk cost that won‟t realise any tangible benefit other than compliance against a possible future threat.

4 How much should Council commit to research building assessments?

Table (c) shows the cost to Council of various options. Any cost implications to develop further an earthquake register will be a cost to rate payers. However there are choices that can be made that will affect the allocation of assessment cost between Council and building owners. Some Councils have even gone back to their communities to see if the rate payer will also pay for earthquake strengthening of the physical buildings as well.

5 Do we maintain a passive approach or adopt a more active approach?

This is a decision that only Council can make. The existing passive response to date has served the District well. Option One, -the status quo although slow is the least intrusive option for both Council and Building Owners. Any further requirements to become more active will cost both Council and Building owners.

6 Do we maintain the minimum 34% strengthening or adopt the 67% recommendation?

The Institute of Professional Engineers have recommended 67% however the existing minimum is 34%. At present there is considerable debate on whether this needs reviewing and the scope of this application. At present using 67% as criteria to strengthen is one option some Council have chosen.

These issues need to be considered in the wider context that there is a royal commission currently operable into the very substance of earthquake policies in general as a result of Christchurch‟s experience and this may have policy or legislative impact in the future. However, until then, there is a current obligation to review our earthquake policy as part of our 5 year cycle under current legislation.

54


The Options

There are many options available to Council in reviewing this policy as it gives a wide ranging ability to consider the many different characteristics and attributes of the different districts in answering the issues above. However the main options that need consideration are outlined below followed by an analysis of who bears the cost and what these cost might be to implement (refer table (c)). These are estimates based on imperfect knowledge.

Option One

Is status quo, i.e. passive approach, where buildings are upgraded to the minimum requirement of 34%. Buildings are identified by age only and assessed at the cost of owners for earthquake proneness, during the building consent process when buildings undergo renovations or alterations.

Option Two

Option one, plus upgrading to the higher requirement of 67% as recommended by the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineers and the Institute of Professional Engineers. This will basically be the status quo, with a greater criteria for earthquake strengthening to achieve.

Option Three

Take a more semi active approach by focusing on the most exposed risk elements of buildings in the event of an earthquake i.e. parapets and verandas within a limited time frame and upgrade to the minimum standard of 33%. This option includes option one as well.

Option Four

Option three plus upgrading verandas and parapets to 67%. This option includes option two.

Option Five

Fully active requiring all identified earthquake prone buildings are reassessed or assessed to the Building Act 2004 standards within nominated time lines depending on the resulting risk assessed. Upgrade standards can be either 34% or 67%

55


Possible number of buildings impacted

Option Time Frame

implementation. From adoption of new policy

Possible number of buildings

impacted total yearly

Possible cost of option per year

Total possible cost to building owners for all

years

Council administration

cost

Option One:

Status quo. Buildings are upgraded

to one third of current standard 1500 20 12 $912,000 $18,240,000 $ 21,000 as they do new building work.

Option Two:

Passive with higher threshold. Buildings are

upgraded to two thirds of current standard 1500 20 12 $1,470,000 $29,400,000 $ 25,000

(NZSEE & IPENZ recommendation)

as they do new building work

Option Three

Semi active

Parapets and verandas are strengthened 270 10 27 $1,350,000 $6,750,000 $ 50,000

to one third of current standard within 10yrs

Plus Option One 1500 20 12 $912,000 $16,800,000 $ 21,000

$23,550,000

$ 71,000

Table (c): Options and cost analysis.

56


Possible number of buildings impacted

Option Time Frame

implementation. From adoption of new policy

Possible number of buildings

impacted total yearly

Possible cost of option per year

Total possible cost to building owners for all

years

Council administration

cost

Option Four: Semi-active Parapets and verandas are strengthened to 270 10 27 $1,350,000 $6,750,000 $ 50,000

two thirds of current standard within 10yrs

Plus Option two 1500 20 12 $1,470,000 $29,400,000 $ 25,000

$36,150,000 $ 75,000

Option Five:

Active

Require the upgrading of all earthquake

prone buildings within (5) (10) (15) (20) yrs

to (one third)(two thirds) of the current 1500 Various 50

standard. (On average)

With option one i.e. 33% strengthening $23,550,000 $ 750,000

or or or

With option Two i.e. 67% strengthening $36,150,000 $ 750,000

Table (c): Options and cost analysis.

57


Proposed Changes to WDC’s Earthquake Policy

The staff recommendation is for option three. The difference from the existing policy is shown in the following diagram:

Status Quo:

No extra cost for Council

to administer

Proposed Revision:

Estimated: extra $50,000 for

Council to administer.

Why recommend Option 3.

Option 3 is basically the existing policy with an addition for verandas and parapets to be managed as a separate risk. This has the following advantages:

Verandas and parapets were one of the main killers in Christchurch

Most times they are less costly to upgrade than the whole building Most times they are less costly to upgrade than the whole building

This is a more specific and targeted response aimed at the highest risk. This is a more specific and targeted response aimed at the highest risk.

It is likely that these elements will also be vulnerable to other environmental considerations, other than earthquake risk, including normal wear and tear due to their features.

Combined with option one as the status quo there are the following overall advantages:

The revised policy satisfies the existing legislation requirements The revised policy satisfies the existing legislation requirements

It takes into account economic considerations. Whangarei would struggle with a more onerous policy.

It suits the lower seismic profile of Northland and weaker intensity of earthquakes.

The time frame allows for a realistic time for building owners to consider their verandas and parapets

The WDC keeps above the minimum legislative requirements for earthquake policy

Addresses a heightened social view of earthquakes and earthquake prone buildings.

Existing Policy =

Option One:

Passive Approach (Buildings are upgraded as they

do other building works).

Revised Policy =

Option Three

Option one: Passive Approach (Buildings are upgraded as they

do other building works).+

Active Approach to: strengthen Parapets and verandas within

10 years

58


Identifying earth-quake prone buildings - Process overview

Key actions will include:

Identifying potential earthquake-prone buildings or parts of buildings (verandas, parapets etc).

Compiling a list of buildings that are potentially earthquake-prone in terms of the Building Act 2004.

Advising owners that their building has been identified as being potentially earthquake-prone

Establishing the required remediation levels.

Where necessary, issuing written notices under s124 of the Building Act

For EPB's, determining with building owners the appropriate scope and time-table of this policy for building improvement.

Council will need to determine the level to which they will require the strengthening to be done to 1/3 (34%) Building Act, minimum, or 2/3rds (67%) as per the New Zealand Society of Earth Quake Engineers or somewhere in between. It is recommended that the level stay at 34% due to the physical evidence of any earthquake in Northland not being any greater than this requirement.

Also, the time frame for the work to be undertaken, given the economy at this time and the perceived or real risk to the public due to location, use of the building and the materials from which it was constructed. This has being recommended as status quo for option one combined with a 10 year time frame for verandas and parapets proven risky.

Stage 1

Council will compile a list of all buildings which could potentially be earthquake-prone based on age, building use, and construction form and materials

To complete this list Council will:

undertake a desktop review of Council's files and information, and

carry out a field survey to check accuracy of information held on Council files

Buildings unlikely to be EPB's will not be assessed at this stage.

Buildings that will not require further assessment include those:

Designed or strengthened to the 1976 New Zealand Standard (NZS) 4203 and subsequent codes, unless they have a critical structural weakness.

The initial desk top review could be undertaken by the building compliance department or contracted out to an engineer.

Stage 2

Once stage one is complete, Council will compile a register of potential earthquake-prone buildings, arranged into the following categories:

Buildings with special post-disaster functions as defined in NZS 1170. Importance Level 4.

Buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community as defined in NZS 1170. Importance Level 3.

heritage buildings or structures identified on District Plan schedules and other significant buildings or structures forming part of a Conservation Area

Buildings with an Importance Level less than 3 as defined in NZS 1170.

59


Taking action on earthquake-prone buildings

When the Council has satisfied itself that a building or a part of a building such as a veranda or parapet is earthquake-prone, it will advise and liaise with the owner(s) regarding resolution of the buildings status in accordance with s124 and s125 of the Act.

However, it should be noted that Council will discuss options for action with owners before deciding whether a notice under s124 will be issued. The purpose of these discussions will be to develop an agreed approach for the building. A notice may then be issued stating the particular parts for which the danger is to be reduced by strengthening to an ultimate capacity of at least 34 per cent NBS, or be removed. The owners will then need to provide a formal proposal with respect to the work they will undertake. Council can then formally accept the proposal.

Owners have the right of appeal as defined in the Building Act 2004. This can include applying to the Department of Building and Housing for a determination under s177 of the Building Act 2004.

Submissions and comments

A total of 10 Submissions were received with some covering a number of properties. The full submission has been entered into the spreadsheet.

The key aspects raised in the submissions are about the 1976 time period, the impact on residential buildings, the short timeframes and costs of strengthening parapets. Brief comments are made on each of these.

Pre 1976

This period is targeted because buildings constructed to NZS95 1935-1955 and NZS1900 1965-1976 are unlikely to meet the 33 1/3% of the current standard required by the Building Act 2004.

Residential Buildings

This policy does not apply to residential buildings unless they are two or more storeys and contain more than 3 household units.

Time frames

The requirement to supply a seismic report to Council within 12 months of notification could be extended to 24 months to lesson the financial impact.

Parapets and cantilevered verandas

These are of a higher risk to public than the whole of the building as they tend to collapse onto public space or adjoining properties. The cost of strengthening these items should be substantially less than that of the whole building while achieving a substantial gain in public good.

Summary

The new draft policy dealing with earthquake risk has identified the risk that parapets and verandas create. Submissions on the draft policy have identified four key areas of; Pre 1976 requirements, impact on residential buildings, timeframes and costs. Once the submitters have been heard, deliberation on all submission on the policy will need to take place at a further meeting.

Recommendation

That the submissions relating to the draft Policy on Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone Buildings be received and heard.

Attachment

List of submissions

60


7. 2010-2011 Annual Report

Reporting officer Shireen Munday (Strategic Planning Co-ordinator)



The Annual Report documents Council’s results in relation to the goals and objectives outlined in the Annual Plan for the year in question which is developed with Council’s vision, mission and values.


The Annual Report is prepared in the context of the four Well-Beings – cultural, economic, environmental and social – and reports on Council’s activities and how they contribute to all four well-beings.

Background

The Annual Report and the Summary Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2011 have been compiled and the final review from Audit New Zealand has been completed.

The adoption of the Annual Report and the Summary Annual Report will be a two step process; Council must first consider a resolution to approve the Annual Report and the Summary Annual Report for signing, with the meeting being adjourned for a short time while the documents are signed. Once the documents are signed the meeting is reconvened and the reports can then be considered for adoption.

The attached draft documents are still subject to final minor Audit NZ editorial amendments and any significant changes as a result of this process will be outlined to Councillors.

Recommendation

That the Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011 and Summary Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011 be approved for signing.

Following the signing of the Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011 and Summary Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011:

Recommendation

That the Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011 and Summary Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2011 be adopted.

Under Separate Cover

1. Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2011.

2. Summary Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2011.

68


8. Contract 11061 - Lower Hatea River Crossing - Design & Construction (SP5) - Tender Recommendation

Reporting officer Simon Weston (Group Manager Infrastructure & Services)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as it supports sustainable transportation, providing a quality environment and provides improved access to assets that contribute to community health and well being.


Cultural This item is expected to have a positive impact on local Iwi by incorporating cultural themes in the iconic design.

Economic This item considers the appropriate use of public funds and will improve productivity of Whangarei by reducing congestion and improving travel times.

Environmental This item has no effect on environmental issues.

Social This item will have a positive impact on the local community by improving access for the Riverside, Onerahi and Whangarei Heads areas.

Contract 11061 – Lower Hatea River Crossing – Design & Construction (SP5) Introduction The Council is undertaking the Lower Hatea River Crossing project to provide a road link between Riverside Drive and Port Road. This will connect Whangarei‟s eastern suburbs with the City‟s commercial and industrial areas along Port Road and, in conjunction with the recently opened Porowini Avenue extension, connect to the suburbs of Morningside, Maunu and Raumanga. The Council has the following three objectives for undertaking this project:

Provision of a critical road network link for the city.

Achievement of an iconic bridge on the marine approach to the city.

Providing an economic stimulus for local businesses in the city.

Tenders for this project were called in November 2010 through Contract 10013 to appoint a preferred design/build contractor to take the project through to construction. Six conforming tenders and four alternative tenderers were received. A rigorous tender evaluation process was undertaken using the Quality Based method which assesses tenderer‟s on the quality of their tenders only without any pricing information. This process resulted in the contract being awarded to the Transfield Services/McConnell Dowell Joint Venture at the 27 April 2011 Council Meeting. At the April 2011 Council Meeting a Working Group was also established to manage and control the development of the project so that Council‟s objectives could be achieved. The Working Group includes the following members: Cr Halse Cr Martin Cr Jongejans

69

Cr Williams Chief Executive Officer Group Manager District Living Group Manager Infrastructure and Services. Following award of Contract 10013 significant progress has been made to develop the design of the project including the architectural design for the bridge. Sufficient design has been completed to enable the Target Out-Turn Cost (TOC) to be established and a contract for the detailed design and construction phase has been developed. The purpose of this agenda item is to seek Council approval to award Contract 11061 for the detailed design and construction so that the project can be completed. The Working Group supports the recommendation to award this contract. The necessary resource consents have been obtained based on the specimen design and funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has been secured for this project.

Contracting Method

The delivery of this project has been progressed through Contract 10013 on the basis of the Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) contract model. This method is a departure from Council‟s standard tendering processes but is a process that has been approved by NZTA for this project.

The ECI process involved appointing a preferred design/build contractor to determine the Total Out-turn Cost (TOC) and negotiate the form of contract for the design and construction works. This has enabled the Contractor to be involved earlier in the project development, so they can influence and take ownership of the project design, with a view to achieving greater cost effectiveness and cost certainty in construction, as well as expediting the overall delivery.

The Early Contractor Involvement programme is broken into the following five Separable Portions (SP): Separable Portion 1 (SP1) – Investigations, Concept Design and Resource Consents. Separable Portion 2 (SP2) – Specimen Design and development of Principal‟s Requirements. Separable Portion 3 (SP3) – Preliminary Design to develop the TOC and Contract Terms for SP5. Separable Portion 4 (SP4) – Independent review of the TOC. Separable Portion 5 (SP5) – Detailed Design and Construction.

The first four separable portions (SP1 to SP4) have already been completed. This Contract (11061) involves Separable Portion 5 (SP5) which is the detailed design and construction phase of the project.

Partnering Charter

At the start of the SP3 contract, a partnering charter was entered into by both the Working Group and the Transfield Services/McConnell Dowell Joint Venture. The purpose of this charter was to foster a “best for project” mentality so that all decisions are based around achieving the best possible result for the project. The goal of the partnership is:

We will jointly deliver a zero harm, award winning project that exceeds the aspirations of the partners and the community.

70

Design

The project design is well advanced and has been agreed with the Working Group. The agreed design is shown in Attachment 1. The following sections briefly describe the key aspects of the design and outline any departures from the original scope. Bridge Design Process The bridge design was seen as a key element in the success of this project and a lot of early upfront effort was undertaken to develop a bridge design that could achieve Council‟s aspirations for an iconic structure. An Iconic Design Group was established to control the development of the bridge design. This group included the Working Group, Carin Wilson (Studio Pacifika), Mike Farrow (Littoralis), Chris Carey (CHART) and local iwi. Martin Knight of Knight Architects, an award winning bridge architect based in the UK, worked with the Iconic Design Group and established that to achieve the key aspirations for Council the bridge structure would need to: Form a gateway to Whangarei and provide a sense of arrival.

Be visually powerful and unique.

Recognise the cultural significance of the harbour – iwi occupation, fishing and food gathering.

Reflect the maritime history of Whangarei.

Would fit within the surrounding landform. Based on this, Martin Knight developed a simple but effective bridge design based on the traditional Maori fish hook utilising a rolling lifting bridge (bascule) design. The design has been left open to interpretation and feedback from many people is that it also represent a waka prow. This design was unanimously accepted by the Iconic Design Group. Project Scope

The scope of the project has remained largely unchanged during the development of the design. It will include:

a) Approximately 1km of a new two lane road. This will be predominantly over the former Pohe Island Landfill.

b) Two 2-lane roundabouts at Okara Drive and Port Road.

c) A single lane roundabout at Riverside Drive.

d) A dedicated cycle lane and footpath.

e) Associated earthworks, drainage and ancillary works, etc.

f) A 265m long multi-span bridge with central lifting section for marine navigation. The bridge will span a 200m wide tidal waterway.

g) Marine navigational mooring and guiding piles and ancillary works.

h) Minor dredging in the Hatea River.

i) Minor reclamation.

j) Provision of a manned on-site control room with monitoring equipment for management of marine and motor vehicle traffic including operation of the bridge lifting section.

Design Departures

Developments during the design process have lead to the following changes of the original scope. Many of these features could be retrofitted at a later date or undertaken as part of the project if cost savings are obtained during construction. Removal of the pedestrian underpass due to constructability and social issues. This has been replaced

by a painted non-signalised pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing) as suggested by the safety review. Removal of earth bunds due to settlement issues and to create of view corridors. Reduction in opening speed for the lifting span. This is still being reviewed and may be either 60

seconds to open/60 seconds to close or 90 seconds to open and 30 seconds to close. This change will reduce both the power supply required and the long term power costs.

71

Development of a single lane roundabout at Riverside Drive for settlement mitigation. Rationalisation of mooring and navigation requirements by replacing the floating pontoons with piles

salvaged from the Tutukaka Marina. Rationalisation the variable message sign boards on the roundabout approaches. Local control of the lifting operation rather than remote operation due to significant concerns with Health

and Safety issues associated with the lifting span. This change will require a manned on site control room.

Removal of the bollards on the bridge (design and reliability issue). Reduction in the width of the shared footpath/cycle way from 3.5m to 3.0m. Modification to bridge footpath/cycle way from 3.5m wide on one side to 2.5m minimum on both sides of

the bridge. Culvert size at Riverside Drive reduced from 2.4m diameter to 2.1m diameter. The time to commission the lifting span increased from 3 days to 14 days.

Some of these changes will require a change to the existing consents. Advice from the Group Manager: Environment is that these will be relatively simple to process through a minor variation to the existing consent conditions. Consultation with the Marine Users Group will be required to reach agreement on the changes that affect boat users.

Proposed Contract Form

The proposed form of contract uses a “cost reimbursable method”, with a pain:gain mechanism to provide a strong incentive for the contractor to reduce the project costs. Under this contract method the contractor gets paid for their actual costs of constructing the project plus their agreed margin using an open book process. The actual costs are compared to an agreed Target Out-Turn Cost (TOC). Should the project be completed for less than the agreed TOC, the contractor and Council share the savings or “gain” on a 50%/50% basis. Should the project be completed above the agreed TOC, the contractor and Council equally share the extra costs or “pain” on a 50%/50% basis. The pain share to the contractor would erode their margin until the contractor receives no margin at all. A chart showing how this mechanism will work is included as Attachment 2.

Contract Price Target Out-Turn Cost (TOC)

The Transfield/MacDow Joint Venture have prepared a TOC based on the agreed design. The TOC is $28,994,972 excl GST which includes the preliminary and general costs (establishment, insurances etc), the construction costs, contractor-owned risks, escalation and the contractor‟s margin. Independent Parallel Estimate

An independent parallel estimate was undertaken by Bond Construction Management Ltd (BondCM) to confirm that the TOC was a reasonable market value. BondCM are recognised as construction pricing experts by NZTA. This parallel estimating process was a requirement of NZTA for Council to use the Quality Based tender method. The conclusion of the independent parallel estimate process was: BondCM and the JV have closely followed the agreed reconciliation process and the outcome is that the JV estimate is generally in alignment and lower than our independent parallel estimate. There are no major differences in the pricing and we consider the JV estimate represents a reasonable market competitive price as defined by the drawings and schedule of quantities provided by the JV. This demonstrates that the contractor‟s TOC is a reasonable competitive market value for this project. A copy of the BondCM report is included as Attachment 3. Based on this report it is proposed that the contractor‟s TOC be accepted as the contract price.

72

Contractor-Owned Risks

The primary risks that the contractor has allowed for in their price are detailed below: Escalation. Foreign Exchange and commodity price variation. Material measurement volume uncertainty. Design development . Pile length and founding. Weather delays. Soft spots and undercutting. Refuse exposure at Pohe Island, relocation and cap reinstatement. Mechanical system and technical complexity. An allowance of $1,133,890 has been made for these risks and is included in the Transfield Services/McConnelll Dowell Joint Venture TOC. Should some of these risks not eventuate, this would be a saving to the contract which would be shared 50:50 between the Council and the contractor. Conversely, if the risks exceed this amount, there would be additional cost to the contract which again would be equally shared between the Council and the contractor. Council-Owned Risks

The following risks have been agreed as being owned by Council. Of the risks detailed below most of these relate to control of Council initiated variations and scope change: Council initiated scope change is under Council control. Modifications to consents is in Council control. The additional cost for any premium paid to use local suppliers is a risk Council controls. Settlement duration costs at Riverside Drive have been accepted by Council to avoid costly settlement

mitigation treatments. Unforeseen obstructions for piling (eg hitting a buried barge or rail car etc) – this risk has been accepted

by Council as it is has a low likelihood of occurring based on our geotechnical surveys to date but has a high cost risk. It was not considered appropriate to include this as a contractor-owned risk as it is outside of their control and would artificially raise the TOC.

A reasonable assessment of the cost of these risks is $777,000. It should be noted that the actual cost could be higher or lower than this assessment. Should these risks eventuate, this will be a direct variation to the contract and will increase the TOC resulting in an increase in total contract value. The Council would pay any such variations at 100% of their value. As a result, Council should actively work to avoid these risks wherever possible. Local Content

A key objective of Council was to ensure that local contractors and suppliers were significantly involved in project to stimulate the local economy. The local content of the TOC is currently 45% of project value. This includes: JV Partners Transfield Services - for construction the roading works. Northern Civil – for the design of the roading works. Concrete and local precast elements. Electrix and North Power – for the electrical elements and power supply. Miscellaneous site costs. There may be further opportunities for local suppliers to be involved during the final supplier selection.

Timeframes

The following contract timeframes are expected. It should be noted that these timeframes assume that the contract is awarded in early November: Road construction commences late November 2011. Bridge construction starts February 2012. Project Completion July 2013.

73

Financial

The Target Out-Turn Cost (TOC) for this contract is $28,994,972 excluding GST. Council‟s remaining budget for this contract is $28,981,000. This is broken down into the following financial years:

2011/12 $20,981,000 2012/13 $8,000,000 Total $28,981,000

This demonstrates that the Council has sufficient budget to cover the TOC. Given that this contract is on a cost reimbursable basis, there is a possibility that costs could exceed Council‟s budget. To help avoid this, Council will be actively working with the contractor to reduce project costs wherever possible without compromising the project outcome. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has allocated the following funding for this project:

Investigation $640,000 Design and Construction $28,520,000 Total $29,160,000

NZTA have set the subsidy rate for this project at 50% and have capped the funding at $29,160,000 resulting in a total possible NZTA share of $14,580,000. This means that any expenditure above $29,160,000 will not be subsidised by NZTA. The remaining NZTA funding available for this contract after investigation, consent, tendering costs and SP3 costs are deducted is $28,571,000. There is also expected to be $500,000 of Council internal costs relating to this project. These will cover the professional fees to manage the construction of the project and to vary the consent conditions. NZTA have advised that an additional $326,000 of NZTA share would be available to fund the Council‟s administration costs of this project. This is based on a standard 2.25% administration payment which NZTA provides for subsidised works. The rest of these costs would be covered by anticipated savings within the project. NZTA has also advised that the costs to provide an „iconic‟ design which is over and above that required for the bridge structure will not be subsidised. The actual architectural design of the bridge does not include any features that are not necessary for the structure and operation of the bridge. Therefore, the whole project should be eligible for NZTA subsidy. During the development of the design, the TOC will be constantly reviewed to ensure that the project comes in within budget and the NZTA subsidy is maximised.

Recommendation

1. That the information be received.

2. That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to finalise the contractual details and award the contract for the Lower Hatea River Crossing - Design & Construction SP5 (CON11061) to the Transfield Services/McConnell Dowell Joint Venture for the Target Out-Turn Cost (TOC) of up to $28,994,972 (Twenty Eight Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two Dollars) excluding GST.

Attachments: 1. Lower Hatea River Crossing – SP5 Agreement – Presentation to Steering Committee

2. Pain/Gain Mechanism Chart

3. Bond Construction Management – Independent Parallel Estimate Report

74


9. Committee and Sub-Committee Terms of Reference

Reporting officer Alan Adcock (Group Manager Support Services)


Background

Following the recent internal reorganisation a number of changes are required to be made to the Terms of Reference of Council’s Committees and Sub-Committees if they are to align to Council’s internal structure.

While it is recommended that these changes are made, Council could choose to preserve the status quo, although this does present some administrative and management issues in relation to the development and sign-off of agenda items.

Proposed Committee structure and changes to the Terms of Reference

It is proposed that three Standing Committees are retained:

Infrastructure and Services

District Living

Finance and Support.

The amended Terms of Reference for the three main Standing Committees are attached.

In the future it may be appropriate to establish a fourth Standing Committee, for Economic Growth. However, in the interim it is proposed that these functions fall within the Terms of Reference for the Finance and Support Committee.

It is also timely to consider deleting the sentence “All Councillors have the right to attend Committee meetings and have speaking rights. Only Committee members have voting rights.” (Refer paragraph titled ‘Attendance at Meetings’ currently included in the Terms of Reference of the three Standing Committees.This statement is considered unnecessary as the membership of those committees includes all elected members.

Appropriate minor changes are also required to be made to the Terms of Reference of the following Committee/Sub-Committees.

Subcommittee/Committee Proposed Change

Community Funding SubcommitteeSub-Committee of Finance and Support Committee

Sub-Committee of District Living Committee

Creative Communities Assessment CommitteeCommittee of Council

Sub-Committee of District Living Committee

Quorum for Committees

It is also considered appropriate for Council to consider the provisions of its Standing Orders relating to quorums for meetings of its committees.

Council’s New Zealand Standard Model Standing Orders for Local Authorities including minor amendments, were adopted in October 2010.

Those Standing Orders provide that a quorum for council meetings comprises the majority of Councillors (7) but only requires that two or more members are sufficient to allow a committee meeting to proceed. Standing Order 2.4.4 permits the council or committee to specify a great number than that.

As the membership of Standing Committees now includes all elected members, it is recommended that the requirements for a quorum are aligned with those of the full Council.

114

Recommendation

1. That the information be received.

2. That the amended Terms of Reference of the three Standing Committees as shown in the attachments to this agenda item, be adopted.

3. That the Terms of Reference of the Community Funding Sub-Committee and Creative Communities Assessment Committee, be updated to reflect that they are now Sub-Committees of the District Living Committee.

4. That pursuant to Standing Order 2.4.4, a quorum for meetings of the three Standing Committees ofcouncil (Infrastructure and Services Committee, District Living Committee and Finance and Support Committee) shall be:

half of the members if the number of members, including vacancies, is even or,

a majority of members including vacancies, if the number of members is odd.

Attachments Terms of Reference for Standing Committees:

• Infrastructure and Services

• District Living

• Finance and Support

115

10/111756

Infrastructure and Services Committee Terms of Reference

Chairperson

G M Martin

Ex-Officio

His Worship the Mayor M C A Cutforth

Members

C B Christie, S J Deeming, A J Edwards, S M Glen, P R Halse, J S Jongejans, B L McLachlan, S L Morgan, K J Sutherland, W L Syers, M R Williams and J D T Williamson

Attendance at Meetings

The Chief Executive Officer, Departmental Managers and such other Council Officers as deemed necessary may attend committee meetings.

Delegated Authority

1. Does not have the powers of Council to act in the following instances as specified by Clause (32) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a) the power to make a rate; or

b) the power to make a bylaw; or

c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term council community plan or annual plan; or

d) the power to adopt a long-term council community plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the Long Term Council Community Plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

g) the power to warrant enforcement officers.

2. Does have the power of Council to enter into contracts up to a value of $10 million + GST, provided that such contracts to be in accordance with the Long Term Council Community Plan.

3. Does have the ability to appoint Sub-committees to deal with any matters of responsibility within the Committee’s terms of reference and areas of responsibility and to make recommendations to the Committee on such matters and provided that the Sub-committee shall not have power to act other than by a resolution of the Committee with specific limitations where there is urgency or special circumstances

4. Does have the ability to make decisions in accordance with the Terms of Reference.

116

10/111756

Terms of Reference

The provision of engineering services to maintain and improve environmental health, safety and quality.

The determination and implementation of policies in respect to the delivery of services to the community.

To liaise with, and assist local communities to achieve their services objectives within Council’s legislative responsibilities.

To assist the community in the maintenance and improvement of amenities and the environment.

Areas of Responsibility

Services including the provision and maintenance of:

Roads

Footpath

Traffic Signals

Signs/Bridges/Lights

Parking and Traffic Planning

Major Projects

Provision of Potable Water and Reticulation System

Water Reservoirs/Dams

Treatment Plans/Pumping Stations

Monitoring of Quality of Drinking Water Standards

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

Stormwater Management

Public Toilets

Solid Waste Disposal/Landfills

Litter/Rubbish Collection

Hikurangi Swamp Management

Civil Defence/Rural Fire

Libraries

Parks & Reserves

Swimming Pools

Cemetery and Crematorium

Conservatory and Fernery

Sportsfields

Garden and road reserve maintenance

Trees, plants and landscaping

Reserve Management Plans

Coastal/Esplanade Reserve management

Development Contributions/ Subdivision requirements

Such other functions as may be delegated by Council from time to time.

117

11/87479

District Living Committee Terms of Reference

Chairperson

S J Deeming

Ex-Officio


Members

C B Christie, A J Edwards, S M Glen, P R Halse, J S Jongejans, G M Martin, B L McLachlan, S L Morgan, K J Sutherland, W L Syers, M R Williams and J D T Williamson


The Chief Executive Officer, Departmental Managers and such other Council Officers as deemed necessary may attend committee meetings.

Delegated Authority

1. Does not have the powers of Council to act in the following instances as specified by Clause (32) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a) the power to make a rate; or

b) the power to make a bylaw; or

c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term council community plan; or annual plan; or

d) the power to adopt a long-term council community plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the Long Term Council Community Plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or


2. Does have the power of Council to enter into contracts up to a value of $3 million + GST, provided that such contracts to be in accordance with the Long Term Council Community Plan and Annual Plan.

3. Does have the ability to appoint Sub-committees to deal with any matters of responsibility within the Committee’s terms of reference and areas of responsibility and to make recommendations to the Committee on such matters and provided that the Sub-committee shall not have power to act other than by a resolution of the Committee with specific limitations where there is urgency or special circumstances.


5. The powers and functions of council to act in respect of the following:

• Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002

• Health Act 1956 and Regulations

• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

• Dog Control Act 1996

• Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

• Building Act 2004

118

11/87479

• Council Bylaws

• Resource Management Act 1991

• Sale of Liquor Act 1989

• Food Act 1981

• Such other legislation relevant to the committee's terms of reference.

Terms of Reference

The determination and implementation of policies in respect of the regulatory functions and responsibilities of Council.

The approval for public notification of proposed reviews, designations, removal of designations and changes to the District Plan.

The processing of applications for exemptions under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

Areas of Responsibility • Environmental Health

• Building Control (including Property Information and Land Information Memoranda)

• Subdivision, Land Use and Development Control

• District Plan Changes

• District Plan Administration

• General Bylaw Administration

• Animal (dog and stock control)

• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Control

• Parking Enforcement

• Noise Control

• Sale of Liquor Act

• Food Act

• Submissions on relevant legislation

• Strategic Planning and Policy related to the issues listed above

• Community sector liaison and support

• Community funding

• Creative NZ scheme

• Community Halls

• Museum/Art Museum liaison

• Heritage, Culture, Arts and Creative Industries sector liaison.

119

10/111827

Finance and Support Committee

Terms of Reference

Chairperson

W L Syers

Ex-Officio


Members

C B Christie, S J Deeming, A J Edwards, S M Glen, P R Halse, J S Jongejans, G M Martin, B L McLachlan, S L Morgan, K J Sutherland, M R Williams and J D T Williamson


The Chief Executive Officer, Departmental Managers and such other Council Officers as deemed necessary, may attend Committee meetings.

Delegated Authority 1. Does not have the powers of Council to act in the following instances as specified by Clause (32)

Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a) the power to make a rate; or b) the power to make a bylaw; or c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with

the long-term council community plan or annual plan; or d) the power to adopt a long-term council community plan, annual plan, or annual report; or e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in

association with the Long Term Council Community Plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or


2. Does have the power of Council to enter into contracts up to a value of $3 million + GST, provided such contracts are in accordance with the Long Term Council Community Plan.

3. Does have the ability to appoint Sub-committees to deal with any matters of responsibility within the Committee’s Terms of Reference and areas of responsibility, and to make recommendations to the Committee on such matters and provided the Sub-committee shall not have power to act other than by a resolution of the Committee with specific limitations where there is urgency or special circumstances.


120

10/111827 2

Terms of Reference

To review, consider, consult, advise and instruct Management on matters relating to the areas of responsibility of the Finance and Support Committee.

To ensure that Council finances are well managed.

To ensure the provision of administrative services to Council, its Committees and Departments.

To ensure the fulfilment of Council’s legal obligations and responsibilities, including compliance with legal and regulatory matters.

To ensure the preparation of Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan, Annual Plan and Annual Report.

To oversee the management of Council’s commercial property portfolio including acquisitions and disposals within its financial delegation.

To ensure Council develops strategies for identifying and managing risk and being satisfied risks are being properly managed (operational, financial and compliance risks).

To perform the role of the Audit Committee unless Council approves otherwise.

To carry out the role of the Chief Executive Review Committee unless Council approves otherwise.

Areas of Responsibility

Financial/Planning and Control

Insurances

Corporate Accounting Services

Treasury Management

Loans

Annual Plan

Internal and External audit

Administrative Services

Legal Issues

Civic Ceremonies

Democracy Services

Information Systems

Customer Services

Business Excellence

Communications

Human Resources

Commercial property

Pensioner housing

General housing

Forum North

Marinas

Airport

Forestry

121

10/111827 3

Whangarei Information Centre

Whangarei Tourism Trust

Economic Development

Venues and Events

Such other functions as may be delegated by Council from time to time.

Specific Matters

Finance

Critique and recommend to Council the annual budget

Review monthly variance accounting reports and budget re-forecasts

Provide advice on financial policies

Ensure appropriate delegations are in place.

Audit

Agree audit scope with Management

Provide direct input on audit scope to the external auditor

Consider auditor management report, taking appropriate action

Consider any internal audit needs, including probity, waste and performance

Hold a confidential meeting with the external auditors at least once every year .

General

Consider such other matters as referred to the Committee by the Council or Management from time to time.

Make recommendations to Council where appropriate.

Facilitate a process for Councillors to formally review their performance and conduct self evaluations.

122


10. International Safe Communities - Whangarei

Reporting officer Owen Thomas (Community Services Manager)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as Community Safety is a fundamental theme within our district’s community outcomes.


Cultural Cultural well being and our sense of place are enhanced through positive perceptions of a safe community and community pride.

Economic Economic well-being is enhanced when the costs of workplace injuries and injuries at home are reduced.

Environmental Environmental well being is enhanced when crime prevention and injury prevention are incorporated into environmental design.

Social Social well being is enhanced when communities feel safe and crime free.

Introduction

On the 10th of October Whangarei was re-accredited as an International Safe Community and a signing

ceremony was held in Council Chambers. The signing ceremony was attended by Mark Simpson (WDC CEO and Co-Chair of the Northland Inter-sectoral Forum), His Worship the Mayor and a range of government and non-government agency leaders – see attachment 1. Recognised by the World Health Organisation, International Safe Community accreditation acknowledges and supports collaboration by a community’s organisations and individuals in promoting safety and reducing the incidence and severity of injuries.

Background

In 2006 Whangarei District was the 4th city in New Zealand to be designated a safe community and number

98 in the world. Since then Council has worked collaboratively with partner agencies for 5 years to better address crime and injury prevention. Every 5 years re-accreditation must be sought through a similar application process where affects and/or significant milestones are noted. Currently there are 21 Councils in New Zealand and 250 communities globally which are members of this network.

2011 Application

Safer Whangarei Network (SWN) is a group of agencies, focused on crime and injury prevention, which reports to the Northland Inter-sectoral Forum (NIF). NIF tasked the SWN with progressing the International Safe Community reaccreditation and this exercise was led by the ACC, the Northland District Health Board and Whangarei District Council. The application to be reaccredited was compiled by staff from the Northland District Health Board. The application to achieve International Safe Community accreditation is assessed on six criteria:

1 Infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governed by a cross-sectional group that is responsible for safety promotion in the community.

2 Long-term, sustainable programmes covering both genders and all ages, environments and situations.

3 Programmes that target high-risk groups and environments, and programmes that promote safety for vulnerable groups.

4 Programmes that document the frequency and causes of injuries.

5 Evaluation measures to assess programmes, processes and effects of changes.

6 Ongoing participation in national and international Safe Communities networks.

123

There were a range of positive results from our district’s application and all are an indication of the effective collaboration, within crime and injury prevention, that occurs in Whangarei. Some of the more notable results were highlighted by Monday’s presentation to NIF by Dr Carolyn Coggan, Director of Safe Communities Foundation New Zealand. These were:

Reduction in road fatalities within the region, in 2010 – lowest figure recorded in 41 years

Soba driver recidivist driver programme participants – a 92% non-reoffending rate after 4 years

Increased perceptions in the CBD as a result of City Safe initiative

Improvements in home safety as a result of changing at least one behaviour/environment following completion of the ‘Home Safety Checklist’

Significant reductions in fire fatalities and fire damage in residential properties

Graffiti vandalism data shows increased reporting and removal of graffiti vandalism in the district

A 21% reduction in reported thefts at car parks attributed to volunteers of Summer Safe car parkinitiative.

Conclusion

Accreditation by the World Health Organisation’s Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion formalises our commitment to doing all we can to create the safest possible community for those who live, work and play in our district. Including Whangarei, seven of the nine G9 councils have International Safe Community accreditation.

The International Safe Community accreditation provides our district a benchmark to say we are going about things the right way. All participating agencies involved in the Safer Whangarei Network, including Whangarei District Council, pride themselves on the difference they make in our communities by reducing the risk of violence and injury through effective safety initiatives.

Recommendation

That the information be received

Attachment

Photograph of signatories to Whangarei’s International Safe Community reaccreditation

124

Whangarei District Council - Whangarei, New Zealand€¦ · Whangarei District Council 26 October...

Documents

Transcript of Whangarei District Council - Whangarei, New Zealand€¦ · Whangarei District Council 26 October...