notice of assets and services committee meeting - thursday ... · riverlands $82,707 and picton...

M A R L B O R O U G H D I S T R I C T C O U N C I L

P O B O X 4 4 3

B L E N H E I M 7 2 4 0

T E L E P H O N E ( 0 0 6 4 ) 3 5 2 0 7 4 0 0

F A C S I M I L E ( 0 0 6 4 ) 3 5 2 0 7 4 9 6

E M A I L m d c @ m a r l b o r o u g h . g o v t . n z

N E W Z E A L A N D W E B w w w . m a r l b o r o u g h . g o v t . n z

19 April 2012

Record No: 12118271 File Ref: C135-A03 Ask For: Judith North

Notice of Assets and Services Committee Meeting - Thursday 26 April 2012 A meeting of the Assets and Services Committee will be held in the Council Chambers, District Council Administration Building, Seymour Street, Blenheim on Thursday 26 April 2012 commencing at 8.30 am.

B U S I N E S S

As per Agenda attached.

ANDREW BESLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Assets and Services 26 April 2012

Meeting of the ASSETS AND SERVICES COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chambers, District Administration Building, Seymour Street,

on THURSDAY 26 APRIL 2012 commencing at 8.30 am.

Committee Clr G Taylor (Chairman) Clr T M Sloan (Deputy) Clr J L Andrews Clr J P Bagge Clr J C Leggett Mr R Hunter (Iwi representative) Mayor A T Sowman (ex officio)

Departmental Head Mr M S Wheeler, Manager – Assets and Services Department

Staff Judith North (Support Services Administrator)

Apologies An apology for non-attendance has been received from Clr Andrews

______________________________________________________________________________

In Public Pages

1. Financial Report for Period Ended 31 March 2012

2. Springlands Intersections

3. Burleigh Store Bollards

4. Service Connection Fee Review

5. Composting and Energy Recovery Strategy 2013 Forward

6. Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Submissions

7. Charging Review for Additional Council Refuse Bags

8. Emissions Trading Scheme

9. Blenheim Town Centre Upgrades

10. Smokefree Policy – Marlborough Parks and Reserves

11. Rai Valley Public Cemetery

12. Decision to Conduct Business with the Public Excluded

1-20

21-23

24-27

28-30

31-35

36-39

40-41

42-44

45-49

50-51

52

53

Public Excluded

13. Land Purchase 54-56

1. Financial Report for Period Ended 31 March 2012

(Clr Leggett) (Report prepared by D Craig) F045-07

1. Attached is the Financial Report for the Assets and Services Department for the period ended 31 March 2012, which represents 75% of the current year.

2. Where possible, accrual entries have been completed to account for March revenues and expenditures in that month. The main exception is in the Flood Protection and Control Works activity where late March invoices for work to the value of $190,841 are not included in the report. This amount comprises operating expenditure of $86,763 and capital expenditure of $104,078.

3. Metered water charges for the March quarter were invoiced during the month, totalling $680,395 with the highest usage in Southern Valleys $279,802, Awatere $134,230, Blenheim $84,380, Riverlands $82,707 and Picton $64,882. Year to date volumes are at similar levels to the previous year.

4. Generally, revenues and operating expenditures are tracking closely to budget. Capital expenditure variations are more pronounced and are dependent on timing and progress of respective projects.

5. The major areas of variation are as follows, with variances and reasons outlined:

Revenue: Land Subdivision Revenue ($394,259) - economic recession

Donations and Grants - $114,750 - Hague bequest for Picton Foreshore improvements

Disbursement Recoveries $229,872 - unbudgeted insurance recovery and capital contribution for Aquatic Centre

Connection charges ($157,584) - offset by savings in new connection costs

Development Contributions ($521,065) - economic recession

Trade waste charges ($120,239) - basis of charging is prior years water consumption, which was lower than anticipated

Dump Fees ($760,954) - reduction in volumes from commercial activity and recycling initiatives

Parking Collections ($168,854) - free use period for Alfred St car park building

Roading Subsidy ($80,070) - related to reduction in maintenance expenditure and timing of minor safety projects and renewal expenditure

Operating Expenditure: Pump Station Power $134,516 – delayed vintage processing

Reticulation Mains Maintenance $241,924 – variances spread throughout Sewer, Stormwater and Water activities

Contracts $491,177 – variances spread throughout departmental activities but major savings predominantly in Flood Protection and Waste activities

Emergency Reinstatement ($955,645) - completion of flood damage works incurred in prior year

Environmental Maintenance $143,684 - favourable contract rates

Assets and Services 26 April 2012 - Page 1


Minor Safety Improvements $138,101 - timing of projects

Network and Asset Management ($176,922) – professional services for roading activity

Sealed pavement maintenance $402,786 - favourable contract rates

Unsealed pavement maintenance $118,459 - favourable contract rates

Flood Damage (Rivers) $178,615 – schedule of pending works presented to previous Committee meeting

6. The total budgeted capital expenditure for the Department, for 2011/12, is $42.5 million, including Council approved carryovers. Budgeted capital expenditure in the Reserves activity has been amended following the land subdivision account review. Total actual capital expenditure to 31 March was $14.0 million (net of any accrual reversals). A summary of the major budgeted activities, which are included throughout the report, is provided below:

Activity Actual YTD

2011/12 RBUD

Roads: General Roading 3,381,013 6,640,700

Water: Blenheim 1,708,473 5,686,113

Sewerage: Picton 667,597 5,654,739

Sewerage: Riverlands Industrial 290,073 3,606,614

Sewerage: Blenheim 1,152,906 3,492,393

Water: Picton 574,034 3,229,201

Swimming Pools: Blenheim 2,340,774 2,111,960

Stormwater: Blenheim 555,949 1,752,500

Roading Related Works: Other 368,789 1,336,750

Rivers out WV: Waitohi 306,394 1,034,425

Parking: Blenheim 671,374 675,000

Rivers WV: Lower Wairau 62,509 540,000

CBD Works: Blenheim 21,417 500,000

$12,101,302 $36,260,395

7. Included in the capital expenditure total is the Council’s first purchase of NZUs (more commonly referred to as Carbon Credits) under the Emission Trading Scheme, for $238,500. Further detail regarding this scheme is contained in a separate Agenda item.

RECOMMENDED That the financial report for the period ended 31 March 2012 be received.

ASSETS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT Financial Report for the Period Ended 31 March 2012 (75% year)

YTD actual Annual budget

YTD % of annual budget

Comments

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Total Land Subdivision Revenue

Total Revenue and Rates 393,241 1,050,000 37% Unfavourable land subdivision revenue $394,259

Operating expenditures 0 0

Net Surplus (Deficit) 393,241 1,050,000

Total Cemeteries

Total Revenue and Rates 343,099 475,265 72% Unfavourable interment fees $11,728 and plot purchases $7,024

Operating expenditures 293,277 468,294 63% Favourable burial expenses $10,095, contracts $7,636, plants & shrubs $6,759, repairs & maintenance $19,609, internal plant charges $3,207 and interest payments $9,882

Net Surplus (Deficit) 49,822 6,971

Net asset additions/disposals 15,998 171,627 9% Budgeted improvements at Fairhall $81,432 (actual $10,886), Havelock $10,000, Omaka $48,799, Picton $8,361 ($5,112) and Tuamarina $23,035

Total Halls Total Revenue and Rates 164,590 209,282 79% Favourable insurance claims $6,326

Operating expenditures 195,825 331,047 59% Favourable contributions $8,197, insurances $40,889, investigations (Awatere) $14,657, repairs & maintenance $7,490 and depreciation $3,285; offset by unfavourable grants $3,783

Net Surplus (Deficit) (31,235) (121,765)

Net asset additions/disposals 0 10,000 Budgeted provision for Hall upgrades $10,000

Total Memorials

Total Revenue and Rates 70,423 93,091 76%

Operating expenditures 66,859 82,091 81% Unfavourable consultancy (War Memorial Clock

seismic review) $4,750


Net asset additions/disposals 0 48,000 Budgeted memorial restoration $8,000 and pump

renewal (Seymour fountain) $40,000



Total Public Conveniences Operating expenditures 498,858 672,121 74% Favourable power $3,222, repairs & maintenance

$12,502, vandalism $8,184, depreciation $6,246 and interest payments $10,575; offset by unfavourable contracts $17,941 and minor works $7,254


Net asset additions/disposals 19,997 275,016 7% Budgeted upgrades for Blenheim $105,016 (actual $1,193), Picton $110,000, Sounds $25,000 and Other (Double Bay) $35,000 ($18,804)

Total Reserves

Total Revenue and Rates 2,807,337 3,569,700 79% Favourable grants & donations (Hague bequest) $117,572 and rates & charges $15,954

Operating expenditures 2,999,315 6,707,386 45% Favourable personnel costs $33,176, contributions $8,699, projects (DOC) $34,957, internal plant charges $42,984, depreciation $58,230 and interest payments $44,622; offset by unfavourable compensation (esplanade strips) $10,600, contracts $25,541, surveying $8,691, materials $27,186, power $11,636 and repairs & maintenance (Riverside, Lansdowne, Horton, Endeavour, A&P and Taylor river) $113,166

Net Surplus (Deficit) (191,978) (3,137,686)

Net asset additions/disposals 14,460 287,211 5% Amended budget following Land Subdivision review exercise. Actual comprises Picton foreshore waterfront redevelopment (-$178,438), Picton foreshore other ($16,660), Clearwater Reserve ($1,753), Endeavour Park lighting ($1,263), Grovetown lagoon signage ($4,941), Rarangi community playground ($4,114), Renwick Domain (car park) $3,567, unspecified signs, seats & fencing ($6,211), Waikawa foreshore ($32,649) and Hitaua Reserve land vesting ($121,739)


Street trees, berms and plots

Operating expenditures 340,544 497,307 68% Favourable contracts $40,146 and materials $4,262; offset by unfavourable repairs & maintenance (I-site and Lansdowne St garden plots) $11,131


Net asset additions/disposals 33,016 45,000 73% Budgeted street trees (Seymour St planting) $45,000

(actual $33,016)

Total Swimming Pools

Total Revenue and Rates 969,228 1,015,068 95% Favourable capital contribution $125,000 and insurance recoveries $78,603


Operating expenditures 1,083,313 1,099,924 98% Unfavourable contributions $18,881 and insurances $87,002; offset by favourable rates payable $2,026 and depreciation $60,507


Net asset additions/disposals 2,358,165 2,131,960 111% Budgeted upgrade of Marlborough Aquatic Centre $2,111,960 (actual $2,340,774) and Picton Pool $20,000 ($17,391)

Total Community Facilities Total Revenue and Rates 5,678,357 7,644,868 74% Operating expenditures 5,477,991 9,858,170 56%

Net Surplus (Deficit) 200,366 (2,213,301)

Net asset additions/disposals 2,441,636 2,968,814 82%

SEWER SCHEMES

Sewer: Combined Schemes

Total Rates 4,725,865 6,315,954 75% Funded at combined level

Total Other Revenue 314,538 928,000 34% See analysis below

Total Revenue and Rates 5,040,403 7,243,954

Opex excl interest and depreciation 2,230,670 3,375,285 66% See analysis below

Depreciation 1,539,630 2,142,846 72% Funded at combined level

Interest Payments 943,695 1,024,730 92% Funded at combined level

Total Operating expenditures 4,713,995 6,542,861


Net asset additions/disposals 1,878,323 9,583,668 See analysis below

Blenheim Other Revenue 249,343 750,000 33% Unfavourable connection charges $46,021 and development contributions $175,157; offset by favourable insurance claims $7,970 and trade waste charges $65,404

Grovetown Other Revenue 732 0 Favourable connection charges $500 and misc

revenue $232 Havelock Other Revenue 271 5,000 5% Unfavourable connection charges $3,482

Picton Other Revenue 43,349 166,000 26% Unfavourable development contributions $75,910

Renwick Other Revenue 18,809 0 Favourable connection charges $5,481 and

development contributions $13,328

Seddon Other Revenue 1,934 5,000 39% Unfavourable connection charges $3,753; offset by

favourable development contributions $1,934

Spring Creek Other Revenue 100 2,000 5% Unfavourable connection charges $1,403

Total Other Revenue 314,538 928,000


Blenheim Opex excl interest and depreciation 1,459,377 2,284,939 64% Favourable insurance $35,366, infiltration $62,054, mains maintenance $50,257 and treatment $142,591: offset by unfavourable pump stations $6,062 and connection maintenance $7,374

Grovetown Opex excl interest and depreciation 26,744 49,728 54% Favourable grinder pump maintenance $6,772, pump stations $3,905 and mains maintenance $3,483; offset by unfavourable insurance $3,403

Havelock Opex excl interest and depreciation 120,734 92,438 131% Unfavourable pump stations $4,115 and treatment

$47,912

Picton Opex excl interest and depreciation 504,905 776,163 65% Favourable connection maintenance $7,901, infiltration $33,929, mains maintenance $24,578 and treatment $33,949; offset by unfavourable insurance $4,585 and pump stations & telemetry $16,210

Renwick Opex excl interest and depreciation 32,261 55,542 58% Favourable pump stations & telemetry $4,411 and

mains maintenance $4,932

Seddon Opex excl interest and depreciation 40,454 50,468 80% Unfavourable treatment $6,927; offset by favourable

pump stations $1,744 and mains maintenance $2,627

Spring Creek Opex excl interest and depreciation 46,195 66,007 70% Favourable insurance $4,844, pump stations $1,988 and mains maintenance $2,250; offset by unfavourable treatment $3,614

Opex excl interest and

depreciation 2,230,670 3,375,285

Blenheim Net asset additions/disposals 1,152,906 3,492,393 33% Budget for connections $70,000 (actual $42,528), pipelines $960,000 ($112,792), pump stations $380,000 ($38,543), treatment plant $1,500,000 ($612,831), telemetry $2,000, engineering overheads $359,393 ($346,212) and vested assets $221,000

Grovetown Net asset additions/disposals 9,629 0 Actual for pipelines ($4,529) and pump stations

($5,100)

Havelock Net asset additions/disposals 6,991 123,767 6% Budget for connections $5,000, oxidation ponds $113,000 (actual $3,130), telemetry $625 and engineering overheads $5,142 ($3,861)

Picton Net asset additions/disposals 667,597 5,654,739 12% Budget for connections $10,000 (actual $8,605), pipelines $5,182,000 ($440,182), pump stations $125,000 ($14,229), treatment plant $75,000 ($8,372), telemetry $1,125 and engineering overheads $261,614 ($196,209)

Renwick Net asset additions/disposals 0 0

Seddon Net asset additions/disposals 33,221 302,764 11% Budget for connections $5,000, pipelines $180,000 (actual $23,744), treatment plant $105,000, telemetry $125 and engineering overheads $12,639 ($9,477)

Spring Creek Net asset additions/disposals 7,979 10,005 80% Budget for connections $2,000, pump stations $7,500 (actual $7,481), telemetry $375, treatment $0 ($399) and engineering overheads $130 ($99)

Net asset additions/disposals 1,878,323 9,583,668


Sewer: Riverlands Industrial

Total Revenue and Rates 781,652 1,278,000 61% Unfavourable trade waste charges $182,206; offset by favourable connection charges $5,358

Operating expenditures 422,017 1,345,575 31% Favourable insurance $5,269, treatment $154,606, depreciation $127,413 and interest payments $310,356; offset by unfavourable pump stations $5,365

Net Surplus (Deficit) 359,635 (67,575)

Net asset additions/disposals 290,073 3,606,614 8% Budget for connections $0 (actual $3,788), treatment $3,500,000 ($282,991) and engineering overheads $106,614 ($3,294)

Sewer: St Andrews

Total Revenue and Rates 93,509 0 Favourable capital contributions $92,559

Operating expenditures 1,900 4,380 43% Favourable depreciation $3,285; offset by

unfavourable legal fees $1,900


Net asset additions/disposals 96,896 40,000 242% Budget for pipelines $40,000 (actual $96,896)

Sewer: Grovetown (no lump sum)

Total Revenue and Rates 68,976 100,710 68% Unfavourable rates & charges $6,552

Operating expenditures 66,843 97,643 68% Favourable interest payments $6,390


Sewer: Havelock (no lump sum)

Total Revenue and Rates 621 416 149% Favourable rates & charges $306

Operating expenditures 27 34 79%

Net Surplus (Deficit) 594 382

Sewer: Picton (no lump sum)

Total Revenue and Rates 91,359 60,692 151% Favourable rates & charges $45,837

Operating expenditures 15,678 20,901 75%



Sewer: Renwick (no lump sum)





Total Revenue and Rates 405 268 151% Favourable rates & charges $207

Sewer: Spring Creek (no lump sum)

Operating expenditures 18 22 82%


Total Revenue and Rates 12,478 0

Misc Private Works Operating expenditures 32,258 0

Net Surplus (Deficit) (19,780) 0 Private works awaiting invoice

Total Sewer Schemes Total Revenue and Rates 6,113,487 8,716,158 70% Operating expenditures 5,267,784 8,031,483 66%


Net Capital expenditure 2,265,292 13,230,283 17%

STORMWATER SYSTEMS

Total Revenue and Rates 806,414 1,434,084 56% Unfavourable connection charges $39,667 and development contributions $38,699; offset by favourable rates & charges $4,220

Stormwater - Blenheim

Operating expenditures 723,445 1,081,584 67% Favourable consultancy $22,500, monitoring expenses $11,250, mains maintenance $10,633 and depreciation $47,268; offset by unfavourable berm sump maintenance $5,574


Net asset additions/disposals 555,949 1,752,500 32% Budgeted connections $70,000 (actual $22,183), pipelines $1,422,500 ($533,766) and vested assets $260,000

Total Revenue and Rates 13,716 19,200 71% Unfavourable connection charges $747

Stormwater - Havelock Operating expenditures 13,307 18,200 73% Favourable depreciation $1,557; offset by

unfavourable berm sump maintenance $1,365

Net Surplus (Deficit) 409 1,000

Net asset additions/disposals 0 18,000 Budgeted connections $1,000 and pipelines $17,000

Total Revenue and Rates 57,536 74,684 77% Favourable connection charges $1,241

Stormwater - Other Operating expenditures 40,341 104,684 39% Favourable open drains maintenance $33,043 and

depreciation $7,245; offset by unfavourable mains maintenance $1,670


Net asset additions/disposals 295 0 Unbudgeted new connection $295

Total Revenue and Rates 243,891 327,963 74% Unfavourable connection charges $3,735; offset by

favourable rates & charges $1,647

Stormwater - Picton

Operating expenditures 198,247 322,963 61% Favourable monitoring expenses $3,753, reticulation maintenance $19,235 and depreciation $21,411


Net asset additions/disposals 103,123 125,000 82% Budgeted connections $5,000 (actual $3,418) and

pipelines $120,000 ($99,705)

Total Revenue and Rates 83,319 113,149 74% Unfavourable connection charges $3,067; offset by

favourable misc contributions $1,147

Stormwater - Renwick

Operating expenditures 48,590 108,148 45% Favourable mains maintenance $3,359, depreciation $7,767 and interest payments $21,843


Net asset additions/disposals 1,306 468,760 0% Budgeted connections $5,000 (actual $455) and

pipelines $463,760 ($851)

Total Revenue and Rates 621 824 75%

Stormwater - Seddon Operating expenditures 162 824 20% Favourable depreciation $459


Net asset additions/disposals 0 0

Total Revenue and Rates 22,203 31,471 71% Unfavourable connection charges $1,503

Stormwater - Spring Creek Operating expenditures 20,363 29,471 69% Favourable mains maintenance $1,238 and

depreciation $621 Net Surplus (Deficit) 1,840 2,000

Net asset additions/disposals 0 11,000 Budgeted connections $2,000 and pipelines $9,000

Total Stormwater Systems Total Revenue and Rates 1,227,700 2,001,376 61% Operating expenditures 1,044,455 1,665,875 63%


Net asset additions/disposals 660,673 2,375,260 28%


WATER SYSTEMS

Total Revenue and Rates 418,502 631,802 66% Unfavourable connection charges $7,226, development contributions $22,362 and metered water sales $3,720; offset by favourable rates & charges $8,613

Water - Awatere

Operating expenditures 377,044 589,301 64% Favourable meter maintenance & reading $11,129, pump stations & telemetry $8,528, mains maintenance $39,755 and other reticulation maintenance $11,854; offset by unfavourable depreciation $4,788


Net asset additions/disposals 139,846 357,470 39% Budget for connections $10,000, pipelines $86,900 (actual $16,458), pump stations $1,000, treatment $242,000 ($110,212) and engineering overheads $17,570 ($13,176)

Total Revenue and Rates 3,514,455 5,063,378 69% Unfavourable backflow prevention charges $2,278, connection charges $41,609, development contributions $137,489 and metered water sales $4,069 offset by favourable rates & charges $48,609

Water - Blenheim

Operating expenditures 3,227,431 4,685,379 69% Favourable pump stations $113,451, connections maintenance $5,574, mains maintenance $13,741, depreciation $43,533 and interest payments $234,432; offset by unfavourable backflow prevention $11,783, grants for remission $8,878, toby maintenance $9,381 and treatment $83,686


Net asset additions/disposals 1,708,473 5,686,113 30% Budget for connections $80,000 (actual $50,939), lateral renewals $127,200 ($24,550), pipelines $743,000 ($101,422), pump stations $20,000, reservoirs $315,000 (-$178,861), treatment $4,125,000 ($1,649,736), vested assets $195,000 and engineering overheads $80,913 ($60,687)

Total Revenue and Rates 225,016 253,579 89% Favourable development contributions $7,083 and metered water sales $32,789; offset by unfavourable connection charges $4,255

Water - Havelock

Operating expenditures 171,399 233,034 74% Favourable pump stations & telemetry $9,503, mains maintenance $1,650 and treatment $3,455; offset by unfavourable grants for remission $5,787 and toby maintenance $3,823


Net asset additions/disposals 3,470 25,483 14% Budget for connections $7,000 (actual $2,471), pipelines $2,000, treatment $15,000, telemetry $156 and engineering overheads $1,327 ($999)


Total Revenue and Rates 1,314,454 1,762,738 75% Unfavourable connection charges $9,710, development contributions $6,768 and metered water sales $5,471; offset by favourable rates & charges $12,983

Water - Picton

Operating expenditures 1,068,085 1,567,083 68% Favourable pump stations & telemetry $47,276, mains maintenance $8,316, treatment $33,968, depreciation $28,494 and interest payments $45,558; offset by unfavourable backflow prevention $8,708, consultancy $5,158, grants for remission $6,403, connections maintenance $26,689 and toby maintenance $9,500


Net asset additions/disposals 574,034 3,229,201 18% Budget for connections $15,000 (actual $5,194), lateral renewals $27,560 ($45,895), pipelines $1,244,000 ($81,622), pump stations $65,000, reservoirs $235,000 ($31,130), treatment $1,575,000 ($359,460) and engineering overheads $67,641 ($50,733)

Total Revenue and Rates 259,035 357,889 72% Unfavourable connection charges $4,110 and development contributions $9,275; offset by favourable rates & charges $3,998

Water - Renwick

Operating expenditures 289,432 366,683 79% Unfavourable grants for remission $2,280, connections maintenance $10,222 and toby & valve maintenance $9,531; offset by favourable pump stations & telemetry $2,522 and depreciation $3,168


Net asset additions/disposals 6,201 122,009 5% Budget for connections $15,000 (actual $1,655), pipelines $58,000, pump stations $0 ($1,540), treatment $45,000 and engineering overheads $4,009 (actual $3,006)

Total Revenue and Rates 249,746 420,360 59% Favourable connection charges $2,193 and irrigation

sales $4,691

Water - Riverlands

Operating expenditures 217,615 315,365 69% Favourable meter maintenance $1,690 and pump stations & telemetry $16,206 and interest payments $2,808


Net asset additions/disposals 12,450 238,413 5% Budget for connections $0 (actual $1,537), pipelines $1,000, pump stations $20,000 ($796), reservoirs $170,000 ($811), treatment $35,000 and engineering overheads $12,413 ($9,306)

Water - Total Revenue and Rates 1,113,699 1,541,658 72% Unfavourable metered water sales $54,099; offset by

favourable capital contributions $10,032


Southern Valleys

Operating expenditures 1,080,259 1,408,167 77% Unfavourable legal fees $5,072, pump stations & telemetry $37,093 and connections maintenance $9,781; offset by favourable general expenses $5,625, mains maintenance $17,647 and depreciation $8,100


Net asset additions/disposals 2,990 80,570 4% Budget for pump stations $77,000 (actual $308) and

engineering overheads $3,570 ($2,682)

Total Revenue and Rates 11,400 35,146 32% Unfavourable metered water sales $14,943

Water - Wairau Valley Operating expenditures 22,860 40,663 56% Favourable pump stations & telemetry $2,326,

treatment $3,995 and depreciation $1,872; offset by unfavourable valve maintenance $1,722


Net asset additions/disposals 828 21,098 4% Budget for pump stations $20,000 and engineering

overheads $1,098 (actual $828)

Total Water Systems Total Revenue and Rates 7,106,307 10,066,550 71% Operating expenditures 6,454,217 9,205,674 70%



WASTE MANAGEMENT

Total Revenue and Rates 1,155,953 1,720,828 67% Favourable rates & charges $30,736 offset by

unfavourable refuse bag sales $30,656

Refuse Collection

Operating expenditures 1,065,804 1,720,828 62% Favourable fees & charges $57,769, projects (kerbside recycling) $85,932, refuse bag purchases $3,469 and interest payments $9,405; offset by unfavourable personnel costs $4,106, contracts $14,050 and refunds $2,424

Net Surplus (Deficit) 90,149 0


Total Revenue and Rates 794,075 1,316,108 60% Unfavourable dump fees $161,048; offset by favourable misc revenue $3,185 and rates & charges $1,501

Total Transfer Stations

Operating expenditures 1,199,965 1,290,108 93% Unfavourable contracts $285,844 and repairs & maintenance $22,887; offset by favourable fees & charges $74,796 and general expenses $6,678

Net Surplus (Deficit) (405,890) 26,000



Total Revenue and Rates 2,111,315 3,610,257 58% Unfavourable dump fees $595,975

Total Landfills Operating expenditures 1,954,822 2,959,132 66% Favourable consultancy $14,272, contracts $123,574,

general expenses $10,134, monitoring $11,395, waste levy $56,792, materials $27,363 and depreciation $8,010; offset by unfavourable legal fees $3,518, minor works $4,486, power $3,723 and repairs & maintenance $3,462


Net asset additions/disposals 328,301 521,591 63% Budget for closed landfills $395,000 (actual $88,650), regional landfill [design stage 7] $120,000 ($4,870) and engineering overheads $6,591 ($4,941). Actual also includes accrual reversal for weighbridge construction (-$15,660), landfill kiosk purchase ($7,000) and Carbon Credits purchased under the Emission Trading Scheme ($238,500)

Total Waste Projects

Total Revenue and Rates 952,835 1,395,268 68% Favourable contributions $31,605, infringements $3,158 and rates & charges $4,343; offset by unfavourable dump fees $3,931, grants $7,130 and sales of recyclables $47,024

Operating expenditures 781,602 1,486,268 53% Favourable general operations $40,350, hazardous waste $37,537, illegal dumping $7,178, recycling $243,443, rubbish removal $7,281 and waste audit $4,308; offset by unfavourable education activities $5,447


Net asset additions/disposals (3,304) 0 Sale proceeds from disposal of surplus trailers $3,304

Total Waste Management Total Revenue and Rates 5,014,178 8,042,461 62% Operating expenditures 5,002,193 7,456,336 67%


Net asset additions/disposals 324,997 521,591 62% PARKING

Total Revenue and Rates 1,138,893 1,907,625 60% Unfavourable collections $164,661, infringements $86,054, legal fees recovered $29,317 and parking leases $12,005

Blenheim Parking

Operating expenditures 1,465,725 2,123,836 69% Favourable consumables $5,206, contracts $46,837, legal fees (to lodge infringements at court) $26,168, minor Works (Wynen St demolition) $160,028, rates payable $5,249, repairs & maintenance $37,378, depreciation $29,772 and interest payments $5,166; offset by unfavourable consultancy (parking review) $26,777 and lease costs $41,969



Net asset additions/disposals 671,374 675,000 99% Budget for carparks $470,000 (actual $572,525), Alfred St (automated parking system & security) $200,000 ($218,504) and parking meter replacement $5,000. Actual also includes the accrual reversal for the Alfred St carpark building (-$119,655)

Total Revenue and Rates 80,496 117,281 69% Unfavourable collections $4,193 and infringements

$2,523

Picton Parking

Operating expenditures 69,657 117,642 59% Favourable contracts $5,519 and depreciation $1,962

Net Surplus (Deficit) 10,839 (361)


Total Revenue and Rates 125,419 159,139 79% Favourable rental $6,485

Other Parking




Total Parking Total Revenue and Rates 1,344,808 2,184,045 62% Operating expenditures 1,547,411 2,256,284 69%


Net asset additions/disposals 671,374 675,000 99%

ROADS AND FOOTPATHS

Total Revenue and Rates 10,071,293 14,870,877 68% Unfavourable roading infrastructure contributions $46,331, sales (stopped road) $11,451 and subsidy revenue $80,070; offset by favourable development contributions $6,111 and rates & charges $29,699

Total General Roading

Operating expenditures 11,364,502 14,852,589 77% Favourable cyclepath maintenance $17,253, environmental maintenance $143,684, minor safety projects $138,101, regional land transport planning $16,736, road safety co-ordination & programmes $45,331, routine drainage maintenance $13,746, sealed pavement maintenance $402,786, special projects (VDM Top of the South) $40,896, structure maintenance $86,233 and unsealed pavement maintenance $118,459; offset by unfavourable emergency reinstatement $955,645, level crossings $26,258, network & asset management $176,922, traffic services maintenance $20,492 and depreciation $53,082

Net Surplus (Deficit) (1,293,209

) 18,287



Net asset additions/disposals 3,591,601 6,952,645 52% Budget for sealed road surfacing $1,820,000 (actual $1,293,132), pavement rehabilitation $906,000 ($748,612), seal widening $700,000 ($459,976), drainage renewals $347,000 ($335,309), bridge renewals $436,000, structures component replacement $167,000 ($54,743), traffic services renewals $330,400 ($112,047), unsealed road metalling $631,300 ($356,762), environment renewals $40,000 ($20,432), Jacksons/ORR intersection improvements $640,000, Kenepuru Rd seal extension $137,950 ($217,826), French Pass Road seal extension $120,000, Kaiuma Bay Road improvements $52,995 (-$7,238) and vested assets $624,000

Total Roading Related Works

Total Revenue and Rates 785,789 1,029,379 76% Favourable misc revenue $6,362, property rentals $3,919 and rates & charges $45,525

Operating expenditures 639,781 1,103,657 58% Favourable abandoned vehicles $5,913, cyclepath maintenance $53,053, footpath maintenance $28,181, road legalisation expenses $10,901, sign maintenance $4,360, special projects $7,497, street cleaning $41,074, vehicle crossing maintenance $12,371, depreciation $4,410 and interest payments $19,419


Net asset additions/disposals 368,789 1,541,750 24% Budget for cycle facilities $307,500 (actual ($26,862), footpaths [new] $89,000 ($31,898) & [renewals] $470,000 ($12,602), kerb and channel [new] $90,000 ($136,671) & [renewals] $92,250 ($9,550), street furniture [new] $5,000 & [renewals] $50,000 ($11,124), vehicle crossings [new] $12,000 ($10,684) & [renewals] $46,000 ($48,438), signs $95,000 ($14,051), street lighting $80,000 ($53,795) and Wairau/Awatere seal extensions $205,000. Actual also includes land purchase costs (legal road) of $13,114

Total Other Transport Services

Total Revenue and Rates 218,188 303,832 72% Unfavourable subsidy revenue $3,166

Operating expenditures 219,088 303,832 72% Favourable bus services $4,129 and total mobility

scheme $4,654 Net Surplus (Deficit) (900) 0


Total CBD Works

Total Revenue and Rates 447,020 612,761 73% Favourable rates & charges $4,040

Operating expenditures 149,389 198,582 75% Unfavourable materials (banners & festive lighting)

$7,540; offset by favourable depreciation $7,101


Net asset additions/disposals 21,417 500,000 4% Budget for Blenheim CBD upgrades $500,000 (actual

$21,417)

Northwest Periphery

Total Revenue and Rates 26,062 160,000 16% Budgeted development levies for Blenheim northwest zone $160,000 (actual $26,062)

Operating expenditures 0 0



Total Wharves


Operating expenditures 42,428 136,444 31% Favourable repairs & maintenance $26,230,

depreciation $10,980 and interest payments $24,246

Net Surplus (Deficit) 60,373 900

Net asset additions/disposals 234,996 474,460 50% Budget for Portage $274,460 (actual $234,996) and

Torea $200,000 upgrades

Total Revenue and Rates 59,002 75,502 78% Favourable subdivisional works contributions $2,275


Subdivisional Works


Net asset additions/disposals 118,227 200,000 59% Budgeted subdivisional roading works $200,000 (actual $118,227 for footpaths $5,416, kerb & channel $36,680, seal pavement $63,197 and vehicle crossings $12,934)

Total Roads and Footpaths

Total Revenue and Rates 11,491,112 16,884,725 68% Operating expenditures 12,217,834 16,319,778 75%

Net Surplus (Deficit) (726,722) 564,947



FLOOD PROTECTION AND CONTROL WORKS

Rivers Leases Total Revenue and Rates 2,133,041 2,757,631 77% Favourable property rentals $48,798; offset by unfavourable disbursement recoveries $4,273 and rates & charges $2,341

Operating expenditures 161,958 208,631 78% Favourable rates payable $6,144 and valuations

$2,123; offset by unfavourable legal fees $2,852

Net Surplus/Deficit 1,971,083 2,549,000

Total Revenue and Rates 2,234,914 2,992,157 75% Unfavourable gravel extraction/sales $49,787; offset

by favourable rates & charges $39,405

Total rivers in Wairau Valley floodplain Operating expenditures 2,115,656 2,738,123 77% Unfavourable chemicals $30,496, consultancy & prof

fees $15,040, contracts $84,624, materials $12,186, surveying $20,862 and internal metal recharges $98,214; offset by favourable flood damage $185,741 and plants & shrubs $14,799

Net Surplus/Deficit 119,258 254,034

Net asset additions/disposals 236,189 1,170,581 20% Budgeted expenditure by river section for Lower Wairau (sedimentation control works) $540,000 (actual $62,509), Wairau Diversion $20,000 ($3,357), Wairau [Tuamarina to Waihopai] $100,000 ($102,695), Lower Opawa $50,000 ($21,136), Riverlands & Wither Hills streams $20,000 ($6,079), Taylor Dam $90,581, Taylor River $40,000, Wairau gravel extraction $30,000, Wither Hills soil conservation $40,000 ($44,198) and river land purchases $240,000 (-$3,785)


Operating expenditures 138,029 230,779 60% Favourable contracts $54,056; offset by unfavourable flood damage $6,324 and internal metal recharges $12,637

Net Surplus/Deficit (662) (50,000)

Total Wairau Floodplain Tributaries


Total Other Marlborough rivers

Operating expenditures 149,023 290,781 51% Favourable contracts $22,447 and interest payments $53,307; offset by unfavourable survey costs $2,933


Net asset additions/disposals 302,783 1,054,425 29% Budget for Kent St drain upgrade $686,232 (actual $7,852), Waitohi culvert $348,193 ($298,542) and Picton/Waikawa minor streams $20,000 ($1,518). Actual also includes accrual reversal for land exchange [Kent St, Picton] of (-$5,129)

Total Total Revenue and Rates 615,662 805,499 76% Favourable rates & charges $11,459



Drainage in WV

Operating expenditures 514,062 785,348 65% Favourable contracts $34,947, depreciation $10,701 and interest payments $46,708; offset by unfavourable fencing $2,969 and power $7,868


Net asset additions/disposals 76,332 720,000 11% Budget for Blenheim pumping stations $215,000 (actual $39,037), rural pumping stations $70,000, Blenheim minor rivers $280,000 and drainage channels $155,000 ($37,295)

Total Quarries

Total Revenue and Rates 150,663 133,982 112% Favourable external rock sales $49,935

Operating expenditures 265,459 303,982 87% Unfavourable contracts $23,795, legal fees 5,761,

materials $3,176 and internal metal recharges $4,113

Internal Recharges (163,023) (170,000) 96% Favourable internal metal recoveries $35,520

Net Operating Expenditures 102,436 133,982

Net Surplus/Deficit 48,227 0

Total Revenue and Rates 0 0

Total Nurseries Operating expenditures 21,695 15,052 144% Willow harvesting costs $21,659 and depreciation $36

Internal Recharges (20,000) (15,000) 133% Internal recovery -$20,000

Net Operating Expenditures 1,695 52

Net Surplus/Deficit (1,695) (52)

Total Revenue and Rates 0 0

Total Rivers Misc Priv Works

Operating expenditures 302 0 Gravel sales awaiting invoice

Net Surplus/Deficit (302) 0

Total Flood Protection and Control Works

Total Revenue and Rates 5,524,871 7,205,560 77%

Operating expenditures 3,190,053 4,396,220 73%

Net Surplus/Deficit 2,334,818 2,809,341

Net asset additions/disposals 615,304 2,945,006 21%

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT



Civil Defence

Net Surplus/Deficit (21,959) (43,600)

Net asset additions/disposals 6,294 11,600 54% Budgeted office equipment $5,800, communications equipment $5,000 (actual $6,294) and sundry plant $1,000: less sundry disposals $200

Total Revenue and Rates 165,054 214,805 77% Favourable misc recoveries $3,028

Operating expenditures 154,880 214,805 72% Favourable equipment $4,392

General Operations

Net Surplus/Deficit 10,174 0

Total Fire Protection

Total Revenue and Rates 261,117 393,990 66% Unfavourable subsidy revenue (timing) $13,500 and refunds (fire suppression recoveries) $22,500

Operating expenditures 196,828 342,990 57% Favourable general expenses (fire suppression) $32,633, grants (ERFD) $5,616, materials $2,970 and internal plant charges $8,198; offset by unfavourable advertising $3,586, equipment $12,487 and protective clothing $9,919


Net asset additions/disposals 2,890 4,000 72% Budgeted communications equipment $4,000 (actual

$2,890)

Total Revenue and Rates 546,857 768,836 71% Total Emergency Management Operating expenditures 494,353 761,436 65%


Net asset additions/disposals 9,184 15,600 59%

OTHER SERVICES

Total Plant Operations Total Revenue and Rates 4,282 0 Favourable insurance claims $1,322 and misc revenue

$2,960

Operating costs 254,656 383,150 66% Favourable equipment $4,165, fuel & oil $11,819, licence expenditure $12,490, maintenance vehicles $23,568, repairs & maintenance $8,313, tyres $5,098 and depreciation $8,046; offset by unfavourable internal telemetry recoveries $35,054

Internal Recharges (289,599) (512,100) 57% Unfavourable internal plant recoveries $94,476

Net Operating expenditures (34,943) (128,950)




Net asset additions/disposals 293,400 331,950 88% Budget for plant replacement programme $373,300 (actual $313,155 for administration fleet $179,035, motorcycles $11,101, pumps $12,538, radio telephones $33,750, truck $73,231 and sundry plant $3,500); less budgeted disposals $41,350 ($19,755)

Assets & Services Management Total Revenue and Rates 57,284 89,820 64% Unfavourable engineering assessment fees $7,250

and misc contributions $4,938; offset by favourable insurance claims $2,024

Operating costs 5,043,197 6,753,907 75% Unfavourable personnel costs $43,979, advertising $7,442, interviews & staff relocations $22,101, legal fees (review contracts) $24,770, surveying $12,229 and travel & accommodation $12,302; offset by favourable consultancy & prof fees $51,125, digital data $10,503, training $7,710, vehicle lease costs $14,750 and internal recoveries $6,213

Management recovery (4,970,790) (6,627,737) 75% Management recoveries

Net Operating expenditures 72,407 126,170

Net Surplus/Deficit (15,123) (36,350)

Net asset additions/disposals 13,738 0 Unbudgeted Wither Road depot alterations $12,782

and communications equipment $956

2. Springlands Intersections

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by F Porter, Marlborough Roads and M Wheeler) T135-01

Purpose 1. To outline to the Committee options for progressing the upgrade of the Battys Road State Highway

6 (Middle Renwick Road) intersection.

Background 2. SH 6 is a state highway managed by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). NZTA has the

responsibility to manage safety and efficiency of its network.

3. As traffic volumes have steadily increased on SH 6 and intersecting roads in the general Springlands area, traffic delays for vehicles entering the State highway have also increased.

4. These increases coupled with an expectation that the new Westwood development will generate further traffic prompted NZTA to fund an investigation phase to explore options to improve the current and future situation.

5. Outer Limits (Westwood developers) has made a contribution to future intersection upgrades. NZTA has some years in which to use this funding.

6. NZTA has reviewed the draft initial options report prepared by Opus International Consultants and concluded that the proposed intersection upgrade options are not currently able to be implemented based on the strategic fit in terms of the Government's "Government Policy Statement", the effectiveness of the proposed solution and the efficiency or benefit/cost ratio.

7. However NZTA acknowledge that the options report was based on traffic modelling assumptions and that once Westwood is completed it should be reviewed against actual traffic flows noting Bunnings is now open and Pak’n’Save expected within a year.

Current Situation

Intersection Capacity 8. By far the largest concern at the Battys/Murphys Roads intersection are the delays faced by

motorists entering SH 6 during morning and afternoon peak times.

9. Traffic modelling carried out as part of the draft Initial options report used surveyed 2011 traffic counts and 2026 forecast traffic flows.

10. The results highlighted that the 2011 traffic counts showed that the Battys/Murphys Roads intersection was operating at below and or approaching available capacity during the morning peak periods.

11. The intersection performed less well during the afternoon peak periods where the intersection encountered significant delays.

12. The 2026 forecasted traffic flow model also predicts that the intersection would operate at or above capacity in both the morning and afternoon peak periods, which would result in significant and or severe delays.

13. At present apart from the morning and afternoon peak times the Battys/Murphys Roads intersection performs reasonably well with little to no delays encountered by motorists.


Battys/Murphys Roads Intersection Crashes 14. The delays and resulting driver frustration may lead to drivers making poor decisions. At present

this is not a significant issue, but trends will need to be monitored.

15. Driver frustration can also result in traffic rerouting which leads to higher than expected traffic volumes on adjacent local connector roads.

16. During the period 2006 - 2010 there have been 11 reported crashes at the Battys/Murphys Roads intersection; of these three were minor and eight were of a non-injury nature.

Analysis of Intersection Crashes in Blenheim 17. A recent crash study of Blenheim intersections shows that the Battys/Murphys Roads’ intersection

was not the worst performing and that several other intersections have a higher crash rate.

Intersection Location 2000 – 2012 Crashes Rank Bells/St Leonards Roads/SH 1 22 1 Alabama Road/SH 1 22 1 Maxwell Road – Seymour Street 17 3 SH 1/SH 62 Spring Creek 17 3 Old Renwick Road/Jacksons Road 16 4 SH 1 /SH 6 Grove Road – Nelson Street 13 5 SH 6 /Battys Road/Murphys Road 11 6 Seymour Street/High Street 10 7 Alabama Road/Scott Street 10 7 Alabama Road/Redwood Street 7 9 SH 6/Hutchinson Street 7 9

Table 1: Intersection Performance Summary.

18. As discussed previously it is too early to identify what increase in traffic volumes has occurred due to the recently opened Bunnings store and what effect the newly constructed roundabout on SH 6 has on the traffic flows on the eastbound carriageway.

19. Construction of the Pak 'n' Save supermarket on the Westwood development is due for completion in March 2013. Again the effects on traffic volumes will not be realized until this time.

20. The draft initial options report concluded that the poor benefit/cost ratio for this intersection meant that upgrade works should not be progressed in isolation. Other SH 6 intersections (at Colemans Road, Boyce Street) also have issues and adding them to the Battys/Murphy project elevates the prioritisation above that of the individual projects. The Regional Transport Committee has acknowledged in its draft Regional Land Transport Plan that a solution is required.

Funding Options 21. These intersections either individually or collectively do not score highly against NZTA’s evaluation

criteria – strategic fit, effectiveness, efficiency (benefit cost). Nationally funding is very constrained and only very high scoring projects are being funded with roads of national significance (RONs) given high importance. Government policy strongly supports this funding position.

22. For this reason Marlborough Roads is considering smaller scale, interim projects, which might be more realistic in the short term.

23. Council could consider funding the project or smaller projects, itself. A large scale roundabout is likely to cost in the vicinity of $1.8 million. NZTA is also prepared to consider the endorsement of Council “lending” funds to the project with the intention NZTA funds the project in the future. Council could explore this option further. We would obviously need to ensure there is a degree of certainty provided by NZTA about their future funding. However the project would still need an improved evaluation profile to attract future reimbursement.


Next Steps 24. A further study is now underway and this will include a traffic count and a traffic flow survey as the

next step.

25. Due to the associated costs of the proposed intersection upgrade options, low cost upgrade alternatives will be analysed as a short term method of elevating the delays that motorists are currently encountering.

26. Such alternatives may include: resurfacing and re-defining the turning bays, new signage, altering the existing kerb lines, repositioning the pedestrian crossing away from the intersection to allow a longer right turn bay into Murphys Road.

27. Marlborough Roads will continually reassess the Battys/Murphys Roads intersection and keep the Regional Transport Committee and this Committee informed.

RECOMMENDED 1. That Marlborough Roads present Council with short and longer term options to deal with

intersection issues.

2. That Council continue to promote the project to NZTA including submitting at Regional Land Transport Programme hearings.

3. That funding by Council, repaid in future by NZTA, be further explored.


3. Burleigh Store Bollards

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by F Porter, Marlborough Roads) T135-01

Purpose 1. To advise the committee of a request to install bollards and rails around the Burleigh Store

footpath.

Background 2. Owners of the Burleigh Store have sought approval to install bollards and connecting rails around

the outside perimeter of the sealed footpath apron in front of the store.

3. It is unusual for such a treatment to be installed outside a CBD area therefore it is appropriate for this committee to review the application.

Discussion 4. The applicant proposes to create a more personal environment in front of the store. This would

enable chairs, a table etc to be used.

5. There is no particular conflict for other pedestrians with ready access from any nearby adjacent kerbside parks.

6. There is however some conflict with very (long) large vehicles which may need to track beyond the kerb line (see attached plan).

7. Marlborough Roads would therefore propose that the bollard line be clear of the swept paths of large vehicles.

8. Marlborough Roads note there is always a probability that a vehicle may lose control and travel onto a footpath. These bollards will not offer any protection in terms of slowing an errant vehicle, therefore pedestrians on the footpath should not use the area thinking there is some security behind the bollards.

Summary 9. Because of the location outside the CBD area, a licence fee is not appropriate.

10. The bollards and rails will no doubt add to the aesthetics of the area.

11. There is no reason in terms of road use why the bollards cannot be installed provided these are installed behind the worst combination of swept paths.

12. Users of the footpath area between the shop and the bollards may be under a sense of false security. A small notice could be erected on at least one of the rails to advise of risks from nearby passing vehicle traffic.

RECOMMENDED 1. That Marlborough Roads approve the application with limits on placement of the bollards to

ensure all vehicles can manoeuvre around the corner.

2. That there is no need for a subsequent licence to occupy footpath.


4. Service Connection Fee Review

(Chairman) (Report prepared by S Rooney) S315-01, S180-01, W270-01

Purpose of Report 1. To complete the annual review of service connection fees.

2. Attached is a proposed Schedule of Service Connections Fees’ Table for 2012/2013.

Background 3. Service connection fees (water, sewer, stormwater and disconnection) are reviewed annually.

4. The actual costs of installation are reviewed to assess fees charged are recovering the cost of services installation.

Discussion 5. All connection charges are meeting installation costs with the exception of underground stormwater

connections.

6. Underground stormwater connection fees are currently $1,427. Actual installation costs vary in the range $2,000 to $3,200; a similar cost to sewer connections.

7. Increasing these by 50% to $2,140 will bring the charges in line with the low end of the actual cost range. A further increase to the middle of that range could be considered next year.

8. All other charges should be increased by an inflationary provision. During the past 12 months the PPI has moved 3.4%.

9. Implementation of the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors with utility operators to pay a fee for a corridor access request (CAR). This cost will be an addition to current connection fees.

10. The CAR fee has not been finalised yet but is likely to be approximately $250.00.

RECOMMENDED 1. That underground stormwater connection fees increase to $2,140 (GST incl) as per table

attached to agenda.

2. That all other services connection fees increase by 3.4% (subject to rounding to nearest $10) as per table attached to agenda.

3. That when CAR fees are known this cost be added to all connection fee costs to ensure full recovery.

4. That the fee changes be advertised during May and June with an effective date of 1 July 2012.


Proposed Schedule of Service Connection Fees’ Table yr2012 / 2013

Current Charges

2011/2012

Proposed Charges

2012/2013

FEES TABLE: Services Disconnection Fee

Blenheim $312 $320

Riverlands - new standard 100 diameter $312 $320

Havelock $312 $320

Picton $312 $320

Renwick $312 $320

Seddon $312 $320

Spring Creek $312 $320

FEES TABLE: Sewer

Standard Connection Fees 100 mm diameter

Blenheim $3,081 $3,190

David Street (pressure system) $2,179 $2,250

Riverlands - (100 diameter connection) $3,081 $3,190

Havelock $3,081 $3,190

Picton $2,396 $2,480

Seddon $3,081 $3,190

Grovetown (pressure system) $2,179 $2,250

Renwick $3,081 $3,190

Spring Creek $3,081 $3,190

Current Charges

2011/2012

Proposed Charges

2012/2013

FEES TABLE: Stormwater

Standard Connection Fees 100 mm diameter

Blenheim - underground $1,427 $2,140

Blenheim - kerb and channel $789 $820

Blenheim - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Havelock - underground $1,427 $2,140

Havelock - kerb and channel $789 $820

Havelock - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Picton - underground $1,427 $2,140

Picton - kerb and channel $789 $820

Picton - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Renwick - underground $1,427 $2,140


Renwick - kerb and channel $789 $820

Renwick - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Seddon - underground $1,427 $2,140

Seddon - kerb and channel $789 $820

Seddon - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Spring Creek - underground $1,427 $2,140

Spring Creek - kerb and channel $789 $820

Spring Creek - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

Riverlands - underground $1,427 $2,140

Riverlands - kerb and channel $789 $820

Riverlands - twin kerb and channel $1,084 $1,120

FEES TABLE: Water

Blenheim $1,141 $1,180

Picton $1,141 $1,180

Riverlands $1,141 $1,180

Havelock $1,141 $1,180

Seddon (connection and meter) $1,369 $1,420

Awatere (connection and meter) $1,369 $1,420

Wairau Valley (connection and meter) $1,281 $1,320

Renwick $1,141 $1,180


5. Composting and Energy Recovery Strategy 2013 Forward

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by A McNeil) W090-10-02

Purpose 1. This report presents options for Council to consider with regard to composting and energy recovery

from grape marc, green waste and putrescible material within Marlborough.

Background 2. For any composting strategy to be successful there needs to be a demand for the end product.

This is normally achieved through resale of the compost to the commercial or residential sectors.

3. Material suitable for composting within the Marlborough region can be split into the following generic categories:

Putrescible – any biodegradable material. Green waste. Grape marc.

Putrescible 4. This would include residential and commercial materials of a bio-degradable nature. Whilst these

materials are suitable for composting they require sound operational controls to mitigate any odour generation.

5. Estimates of commercial putrescible materials currently being disposed of at Bluegums are in the region of 3,500 to 4,500 tonnes per annum.

6. Estimates of residential putrescible materials currently being disposed of at Bluegums would be in the region of 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes per annum.

7. The planned SWAPs, (Solid Waste Analysis Protocol), planned for May 2012 and August 2012 will comment on the above estimates.

Green Waste 8. Green waste consists of dead vegetation including grass cuttings. This is derived from site

clearances, shelter belt trimming and other associated general garden activities.

9. The majority of green waste within the region is burnt, left on properties to degrade, or sent to Greenfingers for composting.

10. Some material is sent to Bluegums in mixed loads. An estimate would be less than 500 tonnes per annum.

11. The Greenfingers operation processes an estimated 8,000 tonnes of green waste, generating around 5,600 tonnes of compost for resale per annum.

Grape Marc 12. Grape Marc is a by-product from the wine industry, consisting of stalks, skins and liquid. The marc

can form as much as 25% of the total harvest or between 50,000 and 70,000 tonnes per annum. The current method of dealing with this material varies. Some companies have their own composting operations and spread the end product back onto the vineyards. Others send the marc to be used as animal feed. The Council compliance group will shortly be undertaking its annual winery waste survey during the 2012 harvest. The purpose of the audit is to develop a clearer understanding of what is happening and get a measure of the associated volumes involved.


13. There is an interest within the wine industry to develop a future strategy for the grape marc that takes account of best practice, environmental impact and cost. It may be the case that no changes to current practice are required or the parameters they are operating under can be modified to allow increased operational activity with no adverse environmental impact. The compliance exercise will provide this information for further consideration.

Composting Systems 14. There are a number of systems that will produce a material suitable for use as compost. The

following are considered in this paper:

In Vessel – bagged.

In Vessel – fully enclosed and automated.

Windrows – covered or uncovered.

Energy recovery.

In Vessel – Bagged 15. This system is derived from the production and storage of winter feed in the farming sector.

16. The incoming material is shredded and mixed before being loaded through a hydraulic hopper into a flexible plastic tube similar to a silage bag. This tube contains a pipe that supplies air (oxygen) to the material in the bag (aerobic).

17. These plastic tubes are fitted with small entry points along their length (60m to 100m) which allow access for temperature monitoring and venting through an odour filter. The tubes also contain any liquid or leachate from the material as it breaks down.

18. The composting cycle takes around 60 days at which point the tube is slit open and the compost material stockpiled into a maturing pile. This is necessary to reduce the temperature of the compost prior to onward sale. This maturing phase takes approximately 30 days.

19. Using this type of system at the current Wither Road composting facility would reduce odour and leachate issues to a minimal level. Additional land would be required raising the site size from approximately 6,000 square metres to 14,000 square metres.

20. Additional putrescible materials could be diverted from landfill into such a system. These would equate to approximately 4,500 tonnes to 6,500 tonnes per annum.

21. The CAPEX for such a system is in the region of $320 k.

In Vessel Self-contained 22. There are a number of systems available that mechanise and automate the composting process.

These systems are continuously fed and therefore require a steady input of materials across the year.

23. In Vessel systems would be suitable for composting the green waste and putrescible material at the Blenheim site. In its simplest form the set up would involve a covered facility that allowed the material to be received, shredded and loaded into the composting plant. This is a continuous feed operation that processes around 12 tonnes of material per hour, per unit. The composting process takes around 12 days to pass through the machine and drop out the other end. All odour issues are removed and the whole operation is enclosed.

24. The CAPEX for such a system is in the region of $8 million. Alternatively companies may provide a design, build and charge service, where they take on all the costs and reflect this back to the user as a gate fee. The value of the gate fee can be reduced by signing up to a longer term deal, in essence this is a public, private partnership type approach.


25. For this type of system we could include some of the putrescible materials currently going to landfill. This would take the tonnage inputs to the In Vessel system to 15,000 tonnes per annum. The gate fee for this volume would be around $140 per tonne. We currently charge the public 14/m3 so this system would mean a twenty-fold cost increase.

26. This system reduces the environmental impact of the compost operation to a negligible level but it would require a substantial subsidy to make it workable for the public.

Windrows – Covered or Uncovered 27. These systems are suited for material inputs in excess of 30,000 tonnes per annum.

28. The incoming material is dropped onto the ground and then a machine forms the pile into a triangular shaped windrow, which can range in width from 2 m to 8 m.

29. An operation processing 30,000 tonnes per annum would require a land area of approximately 5 ha to 7 ha and a CAPEX investment in the region of $500 k to $990 k.

30. The windrow turner rotates the composting material in situ whilst applying an inoculant and odour suppressant liquid. The frequency of rotation can range from weekly to monthly.

31. After 30 days the windrow has stabilised with the production of odours virtually ceased. Thereafter the material is matured and turned as required to reduce the temperature to an acceptable level for onward sale.

32. Council has been working with a potential lessee of Blenheim Sewerage Treatment Plant land on a windrow proposition which might include wine industry participants. There are some site issues which need further consideration however, particularly drainage and leachate.

Energy Recovery 33. The phrase added value is often used when talking about waste. Getting more value from the

recovered or recycled material is a desirable option.

34. The next logical step for the composting material is to consider capturing the gas from the degradation process. This bio-gas (methane) can be converted to electricity through a turbine.

35. This type of facility would consist of pits that the composting material would be tipped into and mixed with liquid. These pits would be enclosed with effectively a tent that would allow the gas capture as the material decomposed.

36. This infrastructure would require a land area ranging from 1 ha to 5 ha dependant on input tonnage and a CAPEX in the region of $4 million to $6 million.

37. The electricity generated from the process would then be fed to the grid and sold on.

Energy Recovery – Landfill Flare 38. Whilst the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 promotes the reduction in waste to landfill no consideration

has been given to the potential benefits of landfill gas if converted to electricity.

39. The current New Zealand Waste Strategy has two objectives:

reducing the harmful effects of waste; improving the efficiency of resource use.

40. Utilising landfill gas to make electricity could be regarded as an efficient use of a resource.


41. The landfill also reduces the harmful effect of waste through its engineered lining and operational systems.

42. All the infrastructure is in place to manage any incoming volumes of bio-degradable material which would increase the levels of landfill gas production including roading, weighbridge, environmental monitoring, and invoicing. Council has recently discussed advances in landfill gas to electricity generation equipment with a major power generator. They provide equipment and electricity industry pricing expertise which could make generation from the national grid viable.

43. This would be a leap of faith for Council to adopt but it does have potential to prevent the unnecessary and expensive duplication of infrastructure. This is an asset that could be exploited to the benefit of the region over the next thirty years and beyond.

44. The CAPEX for the generation equipment and connection to the grid would be in the region of $1.5 million to $2 million. There maybe other capital costs associated with landfill staging and leachate capacity.

Summary 45. There are a number of composting options for Council to consider. These include:

46. Expanding the existing facility and adopting an in-vessel bagged system or similar for a CAPEX of approximately $340k.

47. Installing an in-vessel self contained system at the existing site for a CAPEX of up to $8 million. This is a very expensive option so is not recommended.

48. Setting up an open windrow composting site on 5 ha to 7 ha of Council owned land for a CAPEX in the region of $500 k to $950 k.

49. Setting up an energy recovery bio-gas or similar type system on 1 ha to 5 ha of Council owned land for a CAPEX in the region of $4 million to $6 million.

50. It is considered that the expense of this is not justified when the existing landfill infrastructure could achieve the same results at much lower cost.

51. Send pre-treated (shredded) bio-degradable material to Bluegums for energy recovery by utilising the landfill gas extraction system to generate electricity for a CAPEX in the region of $1.5 million to $2 million.

52. The following table summarises each option:

System Max Annual

Tonnage

Site Size

CAPEX Gate Fee per Tonne (GST excl)

In Vessel Bagged 15,000 1.5 ha $340 k $15 In Vessel Self Contained 15,000 1 ha $8 million $150 Windrows Open 30,000 5 ha to 7 ha $500 k to $950 k $30 Energy Recovery Biogas 30,000 1h a to 5 ha $4 million to $6

million $75 to $100

Energy Recovery Landfill Gas

Unlimited Existing Site $1.5 million to $2 million

$30 to $50

RECOMMENDED 1. That Council staff investigate in more detail the following composting options:

In vessel bagged; windrows; energy recovery – landfill gas and report back to “Council


2. That the report include consideration of siting matters, environmental outcomes, landfill life and financial feasibility.


6. Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Submissions

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by A McNeil) W090-11-01

Purpose 1. The purpose of this paper is to advise the Assets and Services Committee of any submissions

received and their impact on the final WMMP.

Background 2. The WMMP was put out for public consultation during March 2012.

3. The consultation was notified using the following:

Adverts in local newspapers.

Adverts on local radio network.

Dedicated page on MDC website.

Email to Chamber of Commerce Membership.

Post and Email to interested parties.

4. In total 15 responses were received. All of these have been treated as submissions.

5. Only one party, the Rarangi Residents' Association, Bev Doole, wished to speak in support of their submission.

6. A meeting took place on Wednesday 18 April 2012.

Submissions and Comments received 7. Simcox telephoned on 2 Feb 2012 to query the comments in the waste assessment about cleanfill.

This was clarified with no amendment to the draft WMMP required.

8. Councillor Bagge highlighted three concerns at the A&S Meeting on 2 February 2012 in relation kerbside container types, recycling bins for the CBDs and a recycling collection for the commercial sector. The draft WMMP was amended to reflect these issues.

9. Pere Hawes, MDC Environmental Policy Manager, emailed on 29 February 2012 with reference to the regional policy statement and its alignment to the WMMP. The regional policy statement was re-drafted to reflect the WMMP.

10. Stephen Rooney, A&S Operations and Maintenance Engineer, requested on the 5 March 2012 that any new kerbside routes include both recycling and refuse collection. The WMMP has been amended to reflect this.

11. The Radnors sent an email on 9 March 2012 sharing their experience on kerbside collection systems and associated pricing in Australia. They split their time between Blenheim and Australia. Their comments were noted. No amendment to the WMMP is required.

12. A proposal from Peter Brown was received on 23 March 2012 about composting general waste. No amendment to the WMMP is required.

13. A letter from the Chamber of Commerce was received on 28 March 2012. This was in support of the proposal to establish an industrial/commercial waste sorting facility. No amendment to the WMMP is required.


14. A letter from the Ministry of the Environment was received on 29 March 2012. The following amendments to the WMMP are proposed:

Original Text – Sec 2.4

The Council, together with providers from the private sector, currently supply a range of waste collection, disposal and diverted material services to the region that ensure that public health is adequately protected. The Long Term Plan (LTP) allows for the provision of waste management and minimisation services and these contribute to a healthy environment.

The Marlborough region has an extensive network of collection, transfer, reuse, recycling and disposal infrastructure. The region has at least 38 years access to the Bluegums landfill site, which is an engineered containment facility to the south of Blenheim. The landfill along with all the transfer and recovery facilities are operated under a Resource Management Act (RMA) consent process which ensures the impacts on the environment and public amenity are reduced to a minimum level.

Proposed Text – Sec 2.4

The Council, together with providers from the private sector, currently supply a range of waste collection, disposal and diverted material services to the region that ensure that public health is adequately protected. The Long Term Plan (LTP) allows for the provision of waste management and minimisation services and these contribute to a healthy environment.

In line with Sec 44(b) of the Waste Minimisation Act Council have systems in place to ensure that the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste are done a manner that does not cause a nuisance. These include regulatory departments within Council, and local bylaws. All complaints relating to waste activities are logged and appropriate follow up action initiated.

The Marlborough region has an extensive network of collection, transfer, reuse, recycling and disposal infrastructure. The region has at least 38 years access to the Bluegums landfill site, which is an engineered containment facility to the south of Blenheim. The landfill along with all the transfer and recovery facilities are operated under a Resource Management Act (RMA) consent process which ensures the impacts on the environment and public amenity are reduced to a minimum level.

Original Text in Table at 6.1

Points 16 and 17 read - Waste Min Fund

Proposed Text in Table 6.1

Points 16 and 17 to read - Waste Min Fund/Rates

Original Text in Table 6.2

In compliance with the WMA (s47) this WMMP authorises Council to make grants or advances of money to any person, organisation, group, or body of persons for the purpose of promoting or achieving waste management and minimisation. The terms and conditions of any grant will be set by Council including that an advance of money is free of interest.

Proposed Text in Table 6.2

Council use their waste levy funding to support waste minimisation and management infrastructure and service provision. There is currently no additional funding available in the form of grants or advances however, Council will consider providing assistance to any person, organisation, group, or body of persons for the purpose of promoting or achieving waste management and minimisation. This may include, where appropriate, an application to the Waste Minimisation Fund, through the Ministry for the Environment.


15. Barrie Clark sent in a submission on 30 March 2012 sharing his experience with kerbside collection systems in Christchurch. They have relocated to Blenheim. No change to the WMMP is required.

16. The Rarangi Residents’ Association made a submission on 30 March 2012 regarding the introduction of a kerbside collection service to the Rarangi area. No amendment to the WMMP is required.

17. Sharon Hansen, of the Corrections Department, telephoned on 30 March 2012 to enquire about a recycling service being supplied to the commercial sector. She was advised that her request would be noted in support of such an option. No change to the WMMP is required.

18. Monyeen Wedge of the Queen Charlotte Sounds Resident’s Association made a submission on 30 March 2012 regarding provision of waste minimisation and management services to the Marlborough Sounds area. The following amendments to the WMMP are proposed:

Original Text – Sec 4.3.6

Marlborough is a key tourist destination for New Zealand and international visitors. Whilst the demand within the Marlborough Sounds can dramatically increase between December and March the existing infrastructure can cope with current and future waste demands.

Proposed Text – Sec 4.3.6

Marlborough is a key tourist destination for New Zealand and international visitors. Whilst the demand within the Marlborough Sounds can dramatically increase between December and March the existing infrastructure can cope with current waste volumes.

These volumes may be affected by an increase in new sub-divisions or properties switching from holiday to permanent homes. This future demand will be monitored to ensure the suitability of the waste collection service provided by the coin skips and transfer stations.

Original Text – Sec 4.1.9

This area is currently serviced by the RTS at Picton, Havelock and Rai Valley as well as coin operated skips at Rai Valley, the Grove, Portage and Ohingaroa Quarry. The current coin skip rental contract is in place until 2014. The service provided to this area of the region will be reviewed during the period of this WMMP. In addition the demand for a waste collection service from boat access only properties will be kept under review

Proposed Text – Sec 4.1.9

This area is currently serviced by the RTS at Picton, Havelock and Rai Valley as well as coin operated skips at Rai Valley, the Grove, Portage and Ohingaroa Quarry. The current coin skip rental contract is in place until 2014. The service provided to this area of the region will be reviewed during the period of this WMMP. In addition the demand for a waste collection service from boat access only properties will be discussed with the relevant parties e.g. residents associations and kept under review.

19. Tim Newsham from the Environment Centre commented on the WMMP by phone on 11 March 2012. He was supportive of our vision and wanted more focus on special events music festivals etc), Marlborough Sounds boat waste and construction and demolition waste. He wants the awareness of alternatives to landfill to be raised with all these sectors. No amendment to the WMMP is required.

20. Rica Salamat from the NMDHB has sent a late submission in by post. Council will be updating upon receipt.

Rica Salamat sent in a submission on 10 April 2012. Comments were made on putrescible, kerbside and educational awareness. Although in support of the WMMP Rica felt the targets should be more ambitious. No amendment to the WMMP is required.


Summary 21. The submissions and comments have been reviewed and a comment on whether the WMMP

needs to be revised provided.

RECOMMENDED 1. That the Committee accept the decisions on the submissions and comments as outlined in

points 8-20 in the report presented.

2. That the revised WMMP be finalised and adopted by Council.


7. Charging Review for Additional Council Refuse Bags

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by A McNeil) C315-11-07

Purpose 1. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the additional costs associated with the issue of Council

refuse bags and the “free” disposal of them at transfer stations.

Background 2. Properties on the kerbside collection routes are provided with a voucher for 52 refuse bags i.e. one

per week. Council purchase these bags on behalf of the ratepayers and distribute them upon redemption of the voucher. These bags, when filled, should then be collected via the kerbside routes.

3. We are experiencing large volumes of refuse bags being delivered to the transfer stations rather than through the kerbside collection. The reported count to the end of March was in the region of 87,000.

4. The transfer station contractor was advised by a Notice to Tender (NTT) 6 to allow for the free disposal of refuse bags by the public when bidding for the contract. This was to be accounted for in the rates for the operation of the RTS rather than a measured rate.

5. NTT6 gave information on a survey carried out during a week in September 2010. This equated to 1387 bags per week or 72,124 per annum. Whilst this was only background information it is not unreasonable to assume that the contractor used this total plus a margin of comfort in his calculations.

The Issue 6. There are two contractors impacted by the refuse bags. The first is the kerbside collection

contractor, Earthcare. The second is the RTS contractor Metallic Sweeping. The details of their expected volumes are shown in the following tables:

Earthcare Kerbside Refuse Collection Statistics to 31 March 2012 Route

Houses Route Uplifts

Route Total Bags

Tonnes to Mar 2012

Route Weeks to Mar 2012

Theoretical Bag Count to March 2012

Actual Bag

Count

Average kgs/bag

13,200 52 686,400 2739 38.6 509,520 456,510

6

7. Note that disposal for this contract rests with Council.

Metallic Sweeping Transfer Station Council Refuse Bags Statistics to 31 March 2012 Blenheim Picton Havelock Rai

Valley Seddon Wairau

Valley Ward Total

69,045 11,537 4,197 264 718 1,439 94 87,294

8. The above tables confirm that Council refuse bags are being shifted from kerbside collection to the transfer stations.

9. Whilst there will be many reasons for the choice by the public to use the transfer stations it should be recognised that the relative low cost will be a contributing factor.

How Many Bags Does Council Purchase Annually? 10. The following table highlights the breakdown of refuse bag purchase. What the table cannot show

is how many bags residents have left over from previous years. For example Council used to


purchase blue coloured bags back in 2009 and these are still appearing on the routes and at the transfer station. Some residents also return their vouchers and claim a rebate if they do not require 52 refuse bags.

Cost of Bags in

2010

Unit cost Total Bags Nett bags for Resale

Rebates in 2011

Bags from Rebates

Total Bags for Resale in 2011/12

135,000 $0.179 754,189 67,790 $3,500 2893 70,683

What Difference Does it Make Where the Refuse Bags Go? 11. If the bags go via the transfer station the contractor is liable for disposal but they are likely to claim

for bags in excess of the allowance they made in their tender. This will introduce another tier of cost that is not reflected in the current bag price.

12. If bags go via the kerbside contractor they go direct to landfill and Council cover the cost of disposal, which is reflected in the current bag price.

13. Were the transfer station contractor to start charging for bags the rate would be based on the contract rate, which averages at $21.27per m3. This would equate to a disposal charge at each transfer station of $1.28 per bag.

14. The cost to the public for additional bags at present is $1.21 per bag which does not include transfer station disposal costs.

15. Bags are being bought by residents who may or may not be on the kerbside collection route and by the commercial sector.

16. Introducing an additional charge for Council refuse bags at the transfer station could be a source of contention. An option would be to direct this cost to the purchase price of additional bags obtained from the retail outlets or Council Offices. However this penalises those who need additional bags for kerbside collection which is not a cost issue for Council.

17. On balance we consider the additional charge is fairer if targeted at transfer station users where the quantum of disposal is causing increased costs to Council.

Longer Term 18. The conversion of the bags to wheelie bins will be looked at as part of the WMMP. It should be

noted that the CAPEX for the bins alone would be in the region of $528k.

Summary 19. Excess bags are being fed through the transfer stations because it is a cheap option for refuse

disposal. This will result in additional costs which are not budgeted.

20. By charging 50 cents per bag (GST excl) Council will eliminate the cheap source of waste disposal, reduce the volumes being experienced at the transfer station and provide a better cost recovery from the user.

RECOMMENDED That Council charge a fee of 50 cents (GST excl) for refuse bags disposed of at the transfer station with effect from 1 July 2012.


8. Emissions Trading Scheme

(Clr Taylor) (Report prepared by D Craig and A McNeil) W090-01

Purpose of Report 1. To update councillors on the impacts to Council of the Emission Trading Scheme (NZETS) as it

applies to landfill gas.

Introduction 2. Regulations for landfill methane emissions under the New Zealand Emission trading Scheme (NZ

ETS) came into effect on 1 January 2011. Under these Regulations, waste disposal facility operators are required to report information about their methane emissions from 1 January 2012 and must surrender New Zealand Units (NZU) to match their emissions from 1 January 2013. An extract from a recent Ministry for the Environment document is attached which helps explain the scheme.

3. Council owns and operates the Bluegums Landfill and is therefore a participant under the NZ ETS.

Background 4. Landfill gas is a by product of the anaerobic degradation process of waste within a landfill, and

predominantly consists of methane and carbon dioxide. Under the NZ ETS waste regulations, disposal facility operators are responsible only for methane emissions from their facilities.

5. The Regulations allow facilities operators to apply for a Unique Emissions Factor (UEF) for site specific waste composition, methane destruction and a combination of the two. There is an established process to follow to develop, apply for and use a UEF.

6. The New Zealand Emission Unit Register (NZ EUR) is the official register of Kyoto units and became operational for this purpose on 6 December 2007.

7. The NZ EUR manages the accounting, reporting and reconciliation of emission, unit holdings and transactions as part of the NZ ETS.

8. The NZ EUR is similar to an online banking system. It contains multiple accounts (known as holding accounts) and allows the transfer of units between NZ EUR holding accounts and holding accounts in the registry systems of other Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, or between holding accounts within the NZ EUR itself.

9. Therefore, an account holder can use the NZ EUR as they would any other bank account and buy and sell NZUs to match their requirements. For example an account holder may choose to buy units when the price is low, in advance of when they are required to surrender units, thereby minimising their liability. How this will work in practice is yet to be seen.

10. The New Zealand Unit (NZU) is NZ’s domestic emissions unit of trade. One NZU corresponds to one tonne of CO2e emissions. Participants can use NZUs to meet their obligations under the emissions trading scheme by transferring them to a surrender account.

Council’s Position under the NZ ETS 11. The Ministry for the Environment has set an emission factor for landfill gas based on tonnage

landfilled at a standard site. The assumption is that the gas dissipates into the atmosphere untreated.

12. However Bluegums currently extracts and destroys landfill gas by flaring. Therefore, as a bare minimum Council should apply for a modified (reduced) emission factor (a Unique Emission Factor – UEF). We explain this below for landfill gas destruction. Furthermore, the waste composition at Bluegums, based on the recent waste assessment, appears to have a lower organic content than


the default waste composition in the regulations. Therefore it may be advantageous to the Council to apply for a combined waste composition and destruction UEF.

13. In order to complete the application, the Council will need to commission two SWAP surveys in the base year, each at least a week in duration and at least three months apart. An application will need to be submitted by 31 January 2013.

Landfill gas extraction and destruction 14. The calculation of the UEF is based on an assessment of the collection efficiency of the extraction

system. A landfill gas extraction system requires care and attention if extraction is to be maximised. The extraction system also needs to be extended as waste placement continues. This requires capital expenditure to ensure the system is progressively extended and well maintained and operated.

Gate rate cost implications 15. The implementation of the NZ ETS will cause cost implications on landfill fees. Further work is

required to determine the level of fee increase required to recover the additional costs. At present it is intended to consider a fee increase applying from 1 January 2013.

Summary 16. Council is a participant in the NZ ETS through its operation of Bluegums landfill. Recent waste

composition analysis together with the landfill gas extraction system in operation at the landfill suggest that Council could apply for UEFs for the landfill thereby reducing the emission costs that will need to be passed on to consumers.

17. If the Council wishes to apply for a UEF they need to complete the application process by 31 January of the following year to which they wish to apply the UEF. To minimise risk to Council the UEF application is to be lodged as soon as is practicable thereby having it in place in advance of when the Council will need to commence collecting revenue to cover their liability (ie; for waste deposited from 1 January 2013).

18. Optimisation of landfill gas extraction and destruction is the most efficient way to minimise emission liability. Therefore, if Council’s liabilities under the NZ ETS are to be further reduced, the landfill gas system at Bluegums must be effectively operated and progressively expanded as the waste is placed.

19. The NZ ETS is a market driven process and therefore the cost of NZUs will vary with time. The system has been set up so that the Council is able to buy units in advance of surrender date thereby making the most of low prices if available. Council has recently purchased 30,000 NZUs @ $7.95 per unit (total cost of $238,500), which will give some surety for setting of landfill fees from 1 January 2013, when emission costs are applicable. Government has set a cap of $25 per NZEU so Council’s purchase price can be considered an excellent risk mitigation. Forecasts are for significant purchases as the scheme is introduced.

RECOMMENDED That the report be received.


9. Blenheim Town Centre Upgrades

(Clr Sloan) (Report prepared by R Bartlett) E225-M01-06

Purpose 1. This report provides an update on the progress of the Blenheim Town Centre Upgrade projects

and reaffirms Council priorities.

Background 2. In 2009 Council adopted the Blenheim Town Centre “A vision for the Future” document which

provides a programme of Council projects to revitalise the town centre. The document was adopted following significant consultation.

3. One of the strategic themes, (6. Vibrant Streets and Open Spaces) was further developed through the Streetscape design brief presented to Council in 2011. This led to three of the proposed 12 projects being funded through the 2011/12 Annual Plan. Funded projects were: Street Tree Planting on Seymour Street, a pocket park on the Queen Street carpark (this project was to include street furniture selection for the wider town centre) and a Gateway feature for the Sinclair Street/Alfred Street intersection.

4. A separate project that comes directly from the Blenheim Town Centre “A Vision for the Future” document was a wayfinding package design and signage for the town.

5. Funding of $740,000 was allocated to these projects both from existing budgets. The wayfinding is funded by Marlborough Roads existing sign budget.

Progress 6. The Street Tree planting on Seymour Street has been completed in conjunction with the

implementation of the cycle lanes and was achieved within existing budget. There is no additional street tree planting in the District this year. The cost of inner city tree planting is far greater than suburban planting due to protective structures and greater planning being required.

7. The Queen Street Pocket Park proposal enables several other development initiatives such as the relocation of the library and art gallery, creating connectivity with Market Place and the river, redevelopment of Market Place and better managed markets and events in the town. The objectives of the Park are to create a positive public space but also to create a purpose built area for markets and events to amend some of the operational difficulties of Market Place. The initial design in the Blenheim Town Centre document was for a staged development relating to the Alfred Street carpark being functional. The Streetscape Design concept design showed the entire area as park. There has been one public meeting on the specific pocket park concept design. Some of the affected neighbours are not happy with the entire space being taken for a park due to their customers losing car park spaces. Further consultation is underway with affected parties with the aim to take the design to the next stage while being able to cater for their needs.

8. Included in the Queen Street pocket park project was a street furniture selection process so that any furniture that was to go into the pocket park would be the design that would be carried throughout the rest of the CBD as and when required. There was no intention to replace any furniture other than when required through wear and tear. To date only the street lamps and heads have been selected as the Alfred Street upgrade, resulting from the carpark building, meant this selection needed to be made. The brief for the selection process was that Council would be able to purchase off the shelf (not to be custom-made). Maintenance and operation were researched and these requirements considered as part of the selection which has been made by staff and the councillor representing the CBD upgrade (Clr Sloan).

9. The Gateway Feature Project went out to the community in the form of a Request for Proposal. Twenty-five companies collected the document and eight proposals were received. A selection


panel consisting of Marlborough Roads, Marlborough Lines, an art representative and Council staff considered the proposals against various criteria ranging from traffic safety to achieving the objectives as set out in the Town Centre Strategy. A selection has been made but tenderers have not been notified pending this Committee meeting.

10. The design and build of four wayfinding signs was tendered and won by Janet Bathgate of Janet Bathgate Design. The construction is being completed by four companies coordinated by Ms Bathgate. These are the timber panels, glass works, steel work and installation. Ms Bathgate is coordinating and overseeing the project. The construction is currently underway. Sign locations were decided through the Blenheim Town Centre consultation process and fine-tuned by her. Due to limited budgets this project is being staged with four signs going in initially. Potentially, a total of 15 wayfinding signs could be required, and a number of finger signs.

Other Projects 11. There have been various discussions and suggestions about other Blenheim Town Centre or

related projects and the prioritisation of these.

12. Staff have worked on those above which have been given clear Council prioritisation and funding. However Council can of course reconsider these decisions where the projects are not yet fully committed.

13. The only projects not fully committed are the pocket park and gateway feature projects.

14. Other suggested projects not yet prioritised or funded include:

a) 2 High Street landscaping The Tim Barton designed concept is currently out for consultation. Future funding has been assumed to come from a commercial lease of part of the site.

b) Grove Road/Main Street landscaping Concept designs (attached) were prepared some years ago but the project was not given priority and funding.

The landscaping of Grove Road and Main Street is included in the Blenheim Town Centre Vision document.

c) There are many other town centre upgrade projects which Council has considered lower priority in the past (eg; overall street lighting, Scott Street upgrading).

15. Budgets for these projects are:

Pocket Park $538,530 (funded)

Gateway Feature $161,470 (funded)

$700,000

2 High Street landscaping $650,000 (estimate)

Grove Road/Main Street landscaping $135,800 (estimate Stage 1) – Grove Road only

$376,845 (estimate Stage 2)

$512,645 (estimates)

Summary 16. Blenheim Town Centre upgrade projects are proceeding as prioritised by earlier decisions of

Council.


17. Street tree planting (Seymour) and wayfinding signage works are either complete or in progress so are committed.

18. The pocket park and gateway feature designs are progressing with gateway feature selection ready to be confirmed pending this meeting’s direction.

Committed budgets (less some funds already spent on planning, design and consultation) for these two projects, totalling $700,000 could be redirected to other projects if Council considers that public support justifies that.

19. Staff are progressing with the priorities already given.

RECOMMENDED That Council confirm its prioritisation and the funding of Blenheim Town Centre upgrades.

Or

That Council redirect remaining confirmed funding to other projects which need to be determined.


10. Smokefree Policy – Marlborough Parks and Reserves

(Clr Sloan) (Report prepared by R Hutchinson) R505-01

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update councillors on the status of smokefree policy for all Council-

owned reserves, parks and sports parks smokefree.

History 2. At the 2007 Annual Plan hearing it was Council’s decision “That in principle Council discourages

smoking in public areas” following a submission from Smokefree Marlborough.

3. At the 2011 Annual Plan hearing a further submission from Smokefree Marlborough asked Council to implement an educational smokefree policy for Marlborough District parks, reserves and sportsgrounds.

4. The decision of the meeting was to refer this request to the Assets & Services Committee for further consideration.

5. At the Assets & Services meeting of 21 July 2011 the Smokefree Marlborough Annual Plan submission was further discussed. The decision of the Committee was “that the existing policy be reconfirmed”.

6. During debate on this item staff were directed to further look at the policy of Smokefree parks and report back to the Assets & Services Committee.

Discussion 7. Council staff have been working with Smokefree Marlborough, Nelson Marlborough Public Health

Unit and Marlborough Cancer Society to further enhance Council Smokefree Policy and the upgrade of signage.

8. Council’s existing smokefree policy is for parks and playgrounds only.

9. Enlarging the scope for the policy to include all parks, playgrounds, reserves, sports parks and gardens will be a positive show of Council’s commitment to a smokefree educational policy.

10. Enlarging the policy to include all Council parks, playgrounds, reserves and sports parks also promotes positive role modelling and assist groups and organisation already pushing the smokefree model such as softball, football, rugby and netball and brings consistency to Council’s decision in 2007 to “discouraging smoking in public places”.

11. Enforcement of the policy has always created debate among many and has delayed many councils from having a full smokefree policy.

12. The policy is not a ban on smoking in public places; no enforcement measures will be used. Expanding this policy allows people a choice to comply in the spirit of promoting healthy lifestyles.

13. To ensure the message gets out to the public Smokefree Marlborough, Nelson Marlborough Public Health Unit and Marlborough Cancer Society will create a robust communication plan that promotes positive role modelling and identifying Marlborough parks are smokefree; this plan is long-term and hopefully will achieve a positive attitudinal and behavioural change by smokers.

14. Council’s role will be to upgrade signage at park entrances and within parks to integrate the smokefree symbol.


15. The integration of the signage can be undertaken during the signs replacement/removal programme for parks, playgrounds and sports parks which will be covered by existing budgets.

Summary 16. Council’s existing smokefree policy covers parks and playgrounds at present.

17. Smokefree signage will be integrated with an existing Council park signs as part of the replacement renewal programme.

18. Staff have worked with Smokefree Marlborough, Nelson Marlborough Public Health Unit and Marlborough Cancer Society to enhance smokefree policy on Marlborough parks.

19. The expansion of a policy to include all sports parks, parks, reserves and playgrounds is a positive role modelling for further generations and will assist sports and community organisations already pushing smokefree activity on Council reserves.

RECOMMENDED No recommendation pending discussion by the Committee.


11. Rai Valley Public Cemetery

(Clr Bagge) (Report prepared by N Crous) C045-04

Purpose 1. To appoint trustees for the Rai Valley Cemetery Trust.

Background 2. Council has received notification about trustees newly elected for the Rai Valley Public Cemetery

Trust.

3. In accordance with the Burial and Cremations Act 1964 Council must approve such appointments as well as organise public notification of the appointment.

4. The trustees who have been elected are:

Karl Young (Chairman)

Nancy Cowan (Secretary)

Noel Wallace

Brent Morrison

Lynn Callister

Richard Hewetson.

RECOMMENDED That Council approve the appointment of the above trustees in accordance with section 23 of the Burial and Cremations Act 1964 with such appointments to take effect following public notification as required by that Act.



12. Decision to Conduct Business with the Public Excluded

Decided: That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

- Land Purchase

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

General Subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Land Purchase To enable the Council, as holder of the information, to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) as provided for under Section 7(2)(i).

That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under Section 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

notice of assets and services committee meeting - thursday ... · riverlands $82,707 and picton...

Documents