council meeting may 2018 .................................................. council meeting . notice...

11 May 2018

..................................................

Council Meeting

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a meeting of the Whanganui District Council at:

9am to 5pm on Wednesday, 16 May 2018 and reconvening at 9am on Thursday, 17 May 2018

in the Council Chamber, 101 Guyton Street, Whanganui

Prayer

Apologies

Declarations of Interest

Items Page Reference

1 Standing Order 3.5 – Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders ........ 32. Consideration of Public Submissions on the

Proposed Long-term Plan 2018-2028 .................................................... 4 A, B, C, D, E

Kym Fell

Chief Executive

_____________________________________________________________________________

Council Meeting 16 - 17 May 2018

Terms of Reference:

To carry out the leadership functions including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of thecommunity

To exercise all non-delegated functions and powers of the Council

To make decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the localauthority

To determine all financial matters not delegated

To authorise all expenditure not delegated to staff or other committees

To consider any matters referred to it from any of the Standing Committees

To receive reports from the Audit and Risk Committee

To receive reports from Whanganui and Partners Board

To receive reports from Whanganui Holdings Board

To receive reports from Iwi partners

To receive reports from the Youth Committee

To develop and approve the Long-term Plan including any amendments and Annual Plansand associated policies, to hear submissions and approve the final plan

To approve Plan Changes for notification and make decisions in respect to District Planmatters.

Procedural matters:

Delegation of Committee powers

Adoption of Standing Orders

Confirmation of all Standing Committee minutes

Employment of the Chief Executive, setting of the Chief Executive’s performance targetsand review of the Chief Executive’s Performance and Remuneration (in accordance withEmployment Agreement)

Other delegations

Items of business not on the agenda which cannot be delayed

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the chief executive or the Chairperson. The meeting must resolve to deal with the item and the Chairperson must explain at the meeting when it is open to the public the reason why the item is on the agenda and the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. Refer to Standing Order 9.11.

Note: nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA with regard to consultation and decision-making.

Discussion of minor matters not on the agenda

A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. Refer to Standing Order 9.12.

2


Whanganui District Council

Mayor Hamish McDouall (Chair), Deputy Mayor Cr Jenny Duncan, Crs Charlie Anderson, Philippa Baker-Hogan, David Bennett, Josh Chandulal-

Mackay, Murray Cleveland, Helen Craig, Kate Joblin, Hadleigh Reid, Alan Taylor, Rob Vinsen and Graeme Young.

Wanganui Rural Community Board appointee – David Matthews

Prayer

Apologies

Declarations of Interest

1. Standing Order 3.5 – Temporary suspension of standing orders

Significance of decision – In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy 2018, the recommended decision is not significant.

Recommendation to Council

1.1 1THAT pursuant to Standing Order 3.5, the Council temporarily suspends Standing Order 4.2 to enable the meeting to continue for more than six hours.

Standing Order 3.5 – Temporary suspension of standing orders A local authority or committee may temporarily suspend standing orders during a meeting by a vote of not less than 75% of the members present and voting, and the reason for the suspension must be stated in the resolution of suspension (see Standing Order 4.2).

Standing Order 4.2 – Meeting duration A meeting cannot continue more than six hours from when it starts (including any adjournments) or after 10.30pm, unless the meeting resolves to continue.

If there is no such resolution any business on the agenda that has not been dealt with must be adjourned, transferred to the next meeting, or transferred to an extraordinary meeting.

A meeting which is scheduled to transact its business over two consecutive days can continue for more than six hours provided that the meeting, on any one day, does not exceed six hours unless the meeting resolves to continue.

A meeting cannot continue more than three hours without a break of at least ten minutes unless the meeting resolves to extend the time before a break.

It is recommended that Standing Order 4.2 – Meeting duration – be set aside for the duration of this meeting.

3


2. Consideration of Public Submissions on the Proposed Long-term Plan 2018-2028

Significance of decision – The decision to adopt the proposed Long-term Plan 2018-2028 is significant and has, therefore, been through a consultation process. Any further decisions that arise out of this deliberation process may also be significant and, if determined to be so, will be required to go through the appropriate consultative process

Recommendation to Council

2.1 THAT the submissions on the proposed Long-term Plan 2018-2028 are considered.

2.2 THAT all decisions made during deliberations will be incorporated into the final Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Marianne Cavanagh, Principal Advisor – Corporate, reports:

Introduction The purpose of this meeting is for the Council to consider all submissions and make decisions to be incorporated into the final Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Background Fifty-two of the 121 submitters to the proposed Long-term Plan 2018-2028 elected to present their submissions to Council.

Following the consideration of public submissions, the final Long-term Plan 2018-2028 will be presented for adoption at a Council meeting scheduled to be held on 28 June 2018.

Additional information to assist Elected Members in their deliberations is provided. This includes the deliberations agenda (Ref A); a summary of community feedback (Ref B); manager comments to submissions where applicable (Ref C); manager comments to submissions received on the proposed targeted forestry rate (Ref D); and a report on the Gerse St culvert (Ref E). An electronic volume of all submissions has already been supplied to Elected Members.

4

Long Term Plan 2018-28 deliberations agenda

Wednesday 16 May – Thursday 17 May

Time Item

Page ref summary of community

feedback

Proposed Officer Resolutions

9.00am Mayor: Introduction

9.10am Mike: Financial overview; Marianne: Process

9.20am Key issues

Forestry harvesting 4 THAT Council implement a new targeted rate for exotic forestry properties to collect $135,000 per annum.

Port revitalisation 7 THAT Council proceed with the Port Revitalisation Programme – should the business case be approved.

Stormwater network 8 THAT Council allocates $25M over 30 years, at $500K per year for Years 1-10 and then $1M per year thereafter to upgrade only the stormwater network priority areas (to today’s standard), and the remainder in descending order of priority over time.

MORNING TEA

Reference A5

Other work initiatives

Library hubs 10 THAT Council approves the establishment of four self-service library hubs at a cost of $50,000 per hub.

Whanganui Regional Museum 12 THAT Council approves increasing the funding to the Whanganui Regional Museum from $800,000 to $850,000 for the 2018/19 year, and then to $900,000 thereafter.

Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre Trust 13 THAT Council approves the increase of $25,000 per year to the Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre.

Regional facilities 14 THAT Council approves $50,000 per annum as a contribution towards a Regional Facilities fund.

Heritage incentive funding 16 THAT Council approves $100,000 per annum for a heritage grants scheme.

Sport and recreation strategy 17 THAT Council approves $100,000 per annum towards the implementation of the Sport and Recreation Strategy.

Kerbside recycling 19 THAT Council further investigate the introduction of kerbside recycling

Lower river control 21 THAT Council continue to work with Horizons Regional Council to seek government contribution towards costs to repair the river control structures.

6

Transferring of our marine and airport activity 21 THAT governance and management of the Ports Group remains with Whanganui District Council Holdings Ltd.

AND THAT the Chairperson of Whanganui District Council Holdings Ltd chair the Port Revitalisation Governance Group, whilst the Chief Executive remains as a stakeholder on the Governance Group.

LUNCH

Dog pound 22 THAT Council approves the additional funding of $450,000 to complete construction of the new dog pound on Airport Rd.

Wakefield St Bridge 24 THAT Council continues with the project as outlined in the Long Term Plan, contingent on NZTA funding.

Dublin St Bridge 24 THAT Council await the results of the new NZTA application for funding.

Wikitoria culvert 26 THAT Council continues with the project as outlined in the Long Term Plan, contingent on NZTA funding.

Property portfolio investment plan – deferred to Property and Community Committee on 29 May 2018

27

Funding structure changes

Wastewater and trade waste 27 THAT Council approves the funding structure for the Wastewater activity outlined in the Long Term Plan Consultation Document.

7

Resilient Roading

28

THAT Council approves continuing the storm damage rate as a roading resilience rate set on a per SUIP basis with farming properties paying $5 more than commercial and residential properties (for 2018/19: Commercial $45; Farming $50; Residential $45).

Animal management 29 THAT Council approves the change in rating allocation for animal management to the standard “unit” basis (for 2018/19: Commercial 8.5%; Farming 8.0%; Residential 83.5%).

Port and River 30 THAT Council approves funding the sea port and river activity from the general rate on the standard “unit” basis (for 2018/19: Commercial 8.5%; Farming 8.0%; Residential 83.5%).

Policies and fees and charges

Revenue and Financing Policy 30 THAT Council adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy

Rates remission and postponement policies 30 THAT Council adopts the rates remission and postponement policies

Fees and charges 2018/19 30 THAT Council approves the fees and charges for the 2018/19 year

Proposals raised through submissions

(Note: these have not been publically consulted on)

Living wage 31 THAT consideration of introducing a Living Wage is left to the Chief Executive.

8

Climate Change 32 THAT Council refers the issue to the appropriate Committee for further discussion.

Employment of a Youth Hub facilitator 32 THAT Council await the outcome of the Youth Committee Review Working Party

CBD traffic flow - Mainstreet 33 THAT Council refers this issue to the appropriate Committee for further discussion.

New funding requests

Rate increase Year 1

Proposed Officer Resolutions

Whanganui Earthquake-Prone Building Community Taskforce - $20,000

0.04%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Whanganui Earthquake-Prone Building Community Taskforce

Community Education - $15,000

0.03%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Community Education

Whakawhanake – Waitangi Day celebrations $10,000

0.02%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Whakawhanake

Tamaupoko Charitable Trust - hub $10,000

0.02%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Tamaupoko Charitable Trust

Te Ao Hau Marae - $10,000

0.02%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Te Ao Hau Marae

9

Chamber of Commerce – business training programme $40,000

0.07%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from the Chamber of Commerce

Whanganui Regional Heritage Trust – Durie Hill Elevator and tunnel $60,000

0.11%

THAT Council considers the request for funding from Whanganui Regional Heritage Trust

Proxiam – funding for establishing an IT and creative hub THAT the requests from Proxiam are referred to the Whanganui and Partners Board for their consideration from existing budgets

Other issues from submissions raised by elected members

Rates and wrap up

Recommendations That all decisions made during deliberations will be incorporated into the final Long Term Plan document for Audit NZ prior to adoption

10

1

Additional information for LTP 2018-2028 deliberations: Summary of community feedback

This information has been gathered to assist elected members in their decision making regarding the Long Term Plan 2018-2028. It summarises submissions received on the consultation document and identifies additional requests made throughout the submission and oral hearing process.

Summary of consultation process The proposed LTP 2018-2028 sets out the work programmes and budget for the next 10 years. The focus of community engagement was on the three key issues outlined in the consultation document and other proposed initiatives.

A consultation and engagement schedule for the LTP 2018-28 was agreed by the Council at a LTP workshop on 19 February 2018.

The consultation and engagement schedule was designed to meet the Special Consultative Procedure requirements set out under legislation (the Local Government Act 2002), and achieve the following:

• Provide the opportunity for stakeholders and the community to give feedback on thekey issues and other proposed initiatives.

• Provide the opportunity for public participation in Council’s decision making process.• Contribute to Council's accountability to the community.• Provide details on the Council’s budget and programme of activity for the 2018-2028

period.

The formal consultation period on the proposed LTP 2018-2028 ran from 19 March to 19 April 2018. A broad range of methods were used to engage people in the process and to gather their feedback on what was being proposed. The following is a summary of the tools and techniques used to engage with the community.

Proposed LTP 2018-2028 consultation documents Approximately 500 copies of the consultation document were distributed. These were available online, at libraries, the Splash Centre, cafes, at Council reception and on request.

Submissions The proposed LTP received a total of 121 submissions with 75 (62%) of these using the Council submission form. Once again the submission form was structured as a questionnaire. Submitters could complete as much, or as little of the questionnaire as they desired and the form also provided for general comments to be made. This method provides us with a greater range of feedback as it made the process much clearer and simpler for submitters to comment on each proposal.

The submission form was created as an online form and submitters were encouraged to complete their submission online. As online submissions were received they were automatically populating a database. This allowed for results to be supplied in real time

Reference B11

2

throughout the consultation process. Submission forms received in hard copy were also manually entered online by officers. Hard copy submissions not on the form were summarised, coded to an activity area and entered into a separate database.

This online method aligns with the desire to provide a consistent and convenient means for the public to make submissions.

Submitters that had indicated they wished to speak to Council on their submission, were sent a one pager of information on the hearing process and what to expect on the day. This information included where to come the process of speaking to Council, and the fact that it would be livestreamed. For new submitters this can be seen as an intimidating step, in which we hoped was made easier by knowing what to expect when they arrived. The aim was to also streamline the process of the oral hearings with multiple people arriving and presenting.

World cafes Two world café events were held throughout the formal consultation period, the first held at Red Eye Café on 26 March 2018 and the second on 16 April 2018 at the Columbus Café at Mitre 10.

A world café is a simple, effective, and flexible format for hosting large group dialogue. It provides participants the opportunity to discuss key issues in small groups, then sharing their insights at the end of the event.

Each world café event was attended by councillors and were well received by attendees with over 20 attending the last event.

Market stall Council officers also manned a stall at the River Traders Market on Saturday 7 April 2018. Many copies of the consultation document were handed out along with copies of the submission form. All councillors were invited to attend and some were present providing an opportunity for the public to address concerns and ask questions directly.

Workshops A workshop on the proposed LTP 2018-2028 was held with the Rural Community Board (10 April 2018) providing the opportunity to discuss the consultation document, ask questions and discuss which of the key issues and proposals they wanted to submit on. The Board elected to submit online using the submission form and orally present additional information at the hearings.

Iwi Tamaupoko and Tupoho were met with individually over the period of developing the proposed LTP 2018-2028. WMRTO and Te Ao Hou Marae were also engaged and encouraged to submit to Council through the formal submission process.

Forums The Positive Ageing Forum held on 21 March 2018 promoted the proposed LTP 2018-2028, outlined some of the key issues and the processes for making a submission.

12

3

Virtual Ward For the first time this year officers introduced a virtual ward. This event was hosted through the Council’s Facebook page, and invited people to ask questions for real time responses from councillors. The event was promoted through Facebook but unfortunately there were limited people that engaged with us on this event.

Advertising The proposed LTP 2018-2028 and information on how to make a submission was advertised online through Facebook, on the Council’s website, Community Link in the Midweek newspaper, and in the Chronicle and River City Press newspaper. Copies of the consultation document were also placed at key locations such as council facilities, cafes and doctor’s offices.

This year there were radio advertisements and videos of councillors posted to Facebook, talking about some of the key issues and encouraging people to submit to Council.

All submissions have been provided to elected members, and made available to the public through the Council website. Each submitter will be advised of the Council’s decision on the points made in their submission after the final Long Term Plan 2018-2028 is adopted.

Submitters were asked how they found out about the proposed LTP 2018-2028 consultation. Word of mouth and the newspaper were the most common methods, followed by Council’s website and River City Press.

Some key facts on submitters The number of submissions, and who makes submissions tends to reflect the nature of the proposals included in the proposed plan and the level of interest and/or impact on the community, or a section of the community.

People completing the Council’s submission form were asked to provide some personal information about themselves; namely their gender and ethnic group.

Of the people that completed the Council’s submission form, 65 people provided their gender. This year more males (60%) had submitted than females (35%), and 5% identified as gender diverse. Of the 59 respondents that provided their age range, the majority were aged 60 years and over (61%) and 19% were aged under 40 years. Of the 61 that provided their ethnicity the majority (79%) identified as New Zealand European with Maori and NZ European/Maori being the next highest at 8%.

Summary of feedback The next section of this report outlines the results of the submission form and written feedback on key issues of the draft plan.

Note on analysis: The information in the graphs of this section is taken from the results of the Council’s submission form. The form was completed by 75 respondents in total. Indicating a preference

13

4

for each option in the submission form was not compulsory, and consequently the total number of responses for each option varies.

Where comments are outlined, these are taken from all submissions received. Not all topics received specific comments within submissions.

The consultation document outlined a number of key issues and, as legislatively required, what Council’s preferred option for each was.

Key issues The proposed LTP 2018-2028 consultation document identified three key issues the Council is focussing on, and for each of these, the preferred option was outlined. The submission form sought feedback on each of the preferred options.

Paying for the impact of forestry harvesting on our roads The preferred option was to collect $135,000 per annum by implementing a new targeted rate for exotic forestry properties. This would mean that exotic forestry properties pay 2.5 times their current contribution to roading.

The majority of respondents (55%) strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed option of a targeted rates for exotic forestry properties.

We support Council’s preferred option to raise $135,000 / year via a targeted rate on exotic forestry plantations, with the balance of the costs carried by other ratepayers. We would also be comfortable with the option that sees forestry properties rated to cover the full costs of damage to road pavements associated with forestry harvest.

Submission: 052

Those responsible for damaging our roads should be paying the majority of the repair costs

n=53

23%

32%

25%

0%

21%

Paying for forestry harvesting

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disgaree Strongly disagree

14

5

Submission: 090

The proposals presented in the long term plan for funding roading improvements due to the increased activity in forestry harvesting appear to me to be pragmatic and practicable.

Submission: 100

Some submitters (21%) disagreed with the proposal, and this was further supported by written submissions. Many forestry owners submitted against the proposal and felt the funding should be more equitable across sectors to demonstrate the impact forestry has with regards to employment and financial impact for the entire district.

This is inequitable situation when you compare road usage to economic benefit to the region brought by forestry.

Submission: 050

Forestry needs to be considered in more general terms, i.e. the economic benefits it brings to the district as a whole.

Submission: 053

Forestry submitters acknowledged they were willing to pay their fair share - but wanted it to be fair and equitable. Some felt that they had already contributed through the current rating system, however did not benefit from services provided.

Questions on who was categorised as exotic forestry were also raised, with smaller block owners concerned on the impact this would have on their rates.

We are unsure of the breakdown between large and small owners, but the owners of small blocks may well pay the farming rate.

Submission: 074

Concerns were also raised about the forecasted harvest tonnage stated in the consultation document.

The graph also shows roading expenditure over the next 25 years, overlaid won the predicted harvest volume. My concern is that while roading expenditure jumps in line with predicted harvest tonnage (as can be expected), it continues to increase from 2030 onwards despite harvest volumes decreasing substantially. I fail to see how this can occur in reality.

Submission: 042

A further concern centred on the impact that the targeted rate may have on replanting and the effect on the long term viability of forest investment.

replanting decisions will be significantly impacted if they will also trigger a 2.5 times increase in the roading rate. Such a rate will become well known and will impact property value. Landowners will be reluctant to plant trees if it decreases their property value and increase their rate bill.

Submission: 106

15

6

Some submitters supported other options such as a tonnage based levy on harvesting as it occurs.

In this way a true user charge can be implemented which will provide the financial reserves necessary to meet maintenance requirements following the projected harvest peak.

Submission: 056

Some forestry owners indicated other methods they were undertaking in order to reduce the impact that forestry harvesting was having on local roads.

Our industry is seeking to gain approval for larger vehicles in an effort to reduce the number of logging trucks.

Submission: 074

WDC could offer options to owners such as incentives to reduce load tonnages leading to smaller loads/trucks and therefore less damage or the option to pay council a proportion of their stumpage earnings at time of harvest.

Submission: 030

Some forestry submitters also questioned the impact that dairy farms also had on the roads with the milk trucks regularly using the same roads. They felt forestry was being unfairly disadvantaged.

In addition to submissions feedback was also received through the world café events. Participants questioned whether there were other techniques to restrict the impact on the roads such as bylaws whilst others were concerned about safety if the logging trucks were made to use alternative roads.

Some felt that it was appropriate the forestry owners pay for the impact the logging trucks were having on the roads, while another questioned whether Council can distinguish between where the logs have originated from – and the possibility of apportioning costs appropriately.

Participants also acknowledged the importance of forestry as an industry and wanted to see incentives for this to continue, and suggested that the costs be spread over the establishment and growth phases as well as the logging phases.

For further information, see the additional paper which has a summary of the various issues raised by forestry submitters and the manager responses.

16

7

Revitalisation of our Port Council had proposed to proceed with the Port Revitalisation Programme – should the business case be approved, as it provides the opportunity to attract government investment in regional economic development to help grow the district.

The majority of respondents (74%) were supportive of Council proceeding with revitalising the port, should the business case be approved.

We support Council’s investment in the revitalisation of the port. The outcome of the business case will show if the investment is safe and will generate returns for the District. We believe that the port is an example of infrastructure that could benefit a broad range of sectors.

Submission: 052

Revitalisation of the port should be regarded as a central feature of an integrated economic strategy for Whanganui encompassing industrial, tourism, fishing and transport development along with enhancement of recreational facilities and public space.

Submission: 056

One submitter in support stressed the importance of the commercial aspect to the redevelopment.

It’s important that the approach to the port revitalisation should have a commercial basis. If the emphasis becomes “… developing land and water based recreational facilities” we will have a set of facilities which has to be supported and maintained through rates, rather than through commercial fees.

Submission: 018

28%

46%

20%

2%4%

Port Revitalisation


n=50

17

8

Those that were not supportive cited concerns around what the development of the Port would result in, and what would able to be maintained.

As a fair weather port there will be great difficulty developing and maintaining reliable freight or ferry services so its use will largely be limited to recreational activity when opportunity (weather and sea conditions) allow.

Submission: 054

Some submitters encouraged a partnership approach with regards to the port revitalisation.

The Trust believes the business case will demonstrate commercial and community benefit by attracting new and grow existing business and brings economic development and job growth to the region. This option also has the opportunity to develop investment and partnerships between local, central government, businesses and the community.

Submission: 065

Feedback received from the world café events indicated an emphasis on the economic viability of the port, with any community beautification occurring later. Participants also encouraged the incorporation of cycleways in the port revitalisation including having secure bicycle facilities at the end of the path.

Stormwater network As outlined in the consultation document, Council’s preferred option is to upgrade only the priority areas to today’s standard, and the remainder in descending order of priority over time. This would be at a cost of $25M over 30 years, at $500k per year for years 1-10 and then $1M per year thereafter (debt funded in year 1 and rate funded thereafter).

The majority of respondents were in agreement (81%) with the preferred approach.

20%

61%

14%

2%2%

Stormwater network


n=49

18

9

Option 3 gives priority to necessarily addressing repeated flooding threats to our property (1b Grey Street), from the existing inadequate stormwater system: ie. newer larger capacity pipes feeding into older smaller capacity pipes. Consequently, I have given my 'agreement' to the Council's plan to upgrade priority areas in priority order.

Submission: 045 One submitter supported the approach but disagreed with the network priorities. I live in Campbell Street down near London Street and the stormwater system is just about zero to none. Each time it rains my driveway and street guttering floods. The gutter is full of weeds and the concrete in the gutter has parted so grass is now grows out of the crack.

Submission: 009 For further information on this submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet. Some submitters questioned the process for identifying what the priority areas are. I believe that the prioritisation method proposed by the council does not take into account the severity of damage incurred and whilst there might be less dwellings in other areas the frequency of events is high.

Submission: 025 The Gerse St culvert was identified by various submitters with concerns that under the preferred option the flooding issues from Matarewa Stream and the Gerse St culvert would not be addressed. The responsibility of addressing this issue was also raised. What is needed is for the council to take responsibility and prioritise adding additional capacity to the Gerse St culvert. Small work such as increasing the capacity of the Gerse Street culvert should be done as a minimal change within the existing budget of the council. The current procedure is wrong. Horizons Regional Council noted in their submission that the matter of the Gerse St culvert is a WDC asset and therefor any improvements to that asset would be the responsibility of Council. For further information on the Gerse St culvert please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet and the Gerse St Culvert Report. Some submitters raised concerns on the impacts development has had, and a population increase may have, on the stormwater infrastructure. In fact the whole stormwater scheme is a disaster with huge amounts of stormwater still getting into the wastewater system and overfilling the wastewater plant. Also a stupid policy be the Mayor and Council to increase our population is only going to make things worse.

Submission: 014

19

10

It needs to be acknowledged that extensive necessary upgrading of the whole stormwater network is an inevitable consequence/need arising from the earlier city-wide stormwater separation project.

Submission: 045

Feedback from the world café events regarding the stormwater network centred on concern of cost and whether enough was being done to invest in the stormwater assets for the future. Others questioned whether bottlenecks would be created in other areas and wanted a focus on sustainability and environmental protection.

Other work in the next 10 years

In addition to the key issues, additional work programmes and initiatives for the next 10 years were also outlined in the consultation document for community feedback.

Support for each individual proposal is outlined below.

Library hubs Over the next four years, Council aim to establish four self-service suburban library hubs in partnership with existing facilities to enable us to deliver a service locally in a cost-effective manner. Each hub will cost $50,000 to set up and the modest operating costs will be met from the library’s existing budget. The first hub will be established in Castlecliff during 2018/19. Further hubs will be established over the years 2019/20 to 2021/22 and we are considering establishing hubs in Whanganui East, Aramoho and Springvale

As evident in the graph above there was not strong support for the library hub proposal with only 31% agreeing. However a large proportion (30%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Those

11%

20%

30%

30%

9%

Library hubs


n=46

20

11

that were not in support cited concerns over the loss of the large mobile bus and resulting impact that may have on the community.

In addition to submissions received, a petition against closing the mobile library bus was received, signed by over 400 people.

Concerns were raised on the impact of not having the large bus attend events, and be available for group visits would have on the community.

The mobile bus service is also significant. Because of its size, classes can be conducted on-board as the whole class group can fit inside. Moving to two smaller buses may be considered more cost effective, but the community will be disadvantaged.

Submission: 109

Evident from some submitters was the lack of clarity about the proposed option. The introduction of two mobile vans were not only to service the hubs, but also to increase the outreach and accessibility for communities.

The bus presence at various places around the district, as well as part of many events is a wonderful asset to Whanganui and promotes and encourages people to access the resources available.

Submission: 100

Many submitters indicated support of the proposed library hubs and believed that working collaboratively within communities to create the hubs would provide more opportunities for people to connect.

The Trust strongly agrees and believes that Library Hubs will bring meaningful collaborative involvement and positive change and have a positive impact on individuals and communities; and make it easier for people to find and share information and connect with services.

Submission: 065

While some submitters were in support of the hub idea, concerns around accessibility were raised.

Suburb hubs fine but some people would not be able to get to them. Still need small vans/buses to visit rest/retirement homes/areas not on bus roots.

Submission: 097

Others saw this an opportunity for greater community involvement.

As a Committee we completely endorse this idea and we thought that this would be a great opportunity to get the community involved in a community project. It would be fantastic if these Library Hubs could include either a mural wall (possibly made of recycled materials such as bottle caps) or a large painting done by youth in the community. We would like to

21

12

see careful consideration put towards where these Library Hubs are located and where they will make the largest impact.

Submission: 090

Some submitters did not want to see an increase to the library services at the risk of losing current established services such as the mobile bus and Gonville library.

We support the development of suburban library hubs, recognising that libraries are a valuable centre for community socialisation, but do not wish to see this innovation developed at the expense of already established and successful library services.

Submission: 109

Others recognised the need for Council to rationalise services and believed that strengthening the outreach in the community was more a priority than providing the services centrally.

The hubs are more vital and closer to the community than the central library. Rationalisation of library services is needed but strengthen the hubs and reduce central services accordingly

Submission: 054

For further information on Library Hubs submissions, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Feedback from the world café events identified moving the central library to the CBD as a priority, and others saw the library hubs as an opportunity to seek volunteers to read to children.

Whanganui Regional Museum Council had proposed to increase the funding to the Whanganui Regional Museum from $800,000 to $850,000 for the 2018/19 year, and then to $900,000 from the 2019/20 year onward. The funding increase is to enable the museum to undertake promotional activity to capitalise on its re-opening in 2018; to improve the care of its nationally-important collections; and to enhance its exhibition and events programmes for the benefit of the community.

22

13

Most respondents (57%) were in agreement for the increase in funding to Whanganui Regional Museum. Those that were in support acknowledged what a significant asset the Museum was to Whanganui.

The Museum is a wonderful asset and an essential part of our community which has operated on a restrictive budget for many years. It is an exceptional education resource as well as a significant attraction for the visitor market. There should be further funding increases in ensuing years.

Submission: 109

One submitter supported the increase as long as there was appropriate inclusion of Tangata Whenua.

Support the additional funding for the museum with a proviso this supports telling the stories of Tangata Whenua effectively and appropriately

Submission: 070

Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre Trust Council proposed to allocate an additional $25,000 per year to the Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre taking its total funding to $175,000 per year. This increase will enable the centre to introduce a kiosk reception booth to handle all traffic to the rear of the centre and manage the centre’s increasingly popular user-pays services. This will improve customer service and address health and safety concerns.

23%

34%

25%

16%

2%

Whanganui Regional Museum


n=44

23

14

Sixty-one percent of respondents agreed with the proposed funding increase to the Resource Recovery Centre. Over a quarter (28%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Submitters acknowledged support for the centre and the work undertaken there not only for recycling, but also for sustainability.

…Helping transform the WRRC from a recycling centre to a truly resourced Resource Recovery Centre.

Submission: 020

The resource recovery centre does a fantastic job and deserves more support Submission: 054

We were also pleased to see the proposed increase of budget for the Resource Recovery Centre. We are aware that at present Whanganui is storing all plastics that are brought to the Resource Recovery Centre. Through this increase we would like to see further investigation into the recycling of soft plastics in our town to ensure that these plastics do not end up in landfills.

Submission: 090

Regional Facilities Council proposed to allocate $50,000 per year as a contribution towards a Regional Facilities fund. This fund recognises the benefit certain localised facilities, such as Whanganui’s cycling velodrome, provide to the wider Manawatu-Whanganui region.

22%

39%

28%

7%4%

Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre Trust


n=46

24

15

Most (48%) were undecided in their support for this proposal. Over a third (38%) supported the proposed fund.

Localised facilities such as the Whanganui cycling velodrome are a benefit for the Whanganui/Manawatu region. We would like to see the velodrome roofed, and the facility improved so that its full potential can be achieved and which will the benefit of the community.

Submission: 109

Some submitters were concerned that this would take the focus away from Whanganui, with one submitter suggesting a local fund rather than a regional one.

Regional Facilities - Look after Wanganui. No not include Manawatu. Submission: 003

The Trust would like the Council to consider a local facilities fund to support the many local organisations that provide services to the community rather than the proposed regional facilities fund.

Submission: 086

Some submitters acknowledged that projects like the Velodrome roofing would provide regional benefit as well as to the local economy, and wanted to see funding within the LTP for this project.

This is a significant, existing asset for the Whanganui region and the roofing project is a strategic project for local economic growth.

Submission: 088

11%

27%

48%

9%5%

Regional Facilities


n=44

25

16

This is a project where the benefits and nature/extent of use will be widespread, and the Club and our members welcome the prospect of sharing a redeveloped Velodrome with other users, both local and regional.

Submission: 092

One submitter felt that this should not be funded through Council and that the roofing project should be paid for by the cycling clubs. This was supported by a further submitter who felt that any developments such as the velodrome should be covered by a user pays process.

For further information on Regional facilities and velodrome submissions, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Heritage incentive funding Council proposed to allocate $100,000 per annum for a heritage grants scheme to assist building owners to comply with heritage preservation initiatives which may also provide an incentive to undertake earthquake strengthening work at the same time.

The majority (63%) were in support of this proposal, acknowledging the importance of retaining our heritage buildings. Some submitters felt the $100,000 was not enough and wanted to see this increase.

The incentive scheme should be expanded if at all possible, as the nominated sum won’t go very far. Perhaps a carrot and stick approach can be used, especially to encourage owners to make presentable empty sections and decaying facades.

Submission: 018

The Taskforce applauds the WDC for this initiative and would like to see the funding increased as built heritage is extremely valuable to Whanganui, both culturally and economically. The Taskforce would also like to be involved in developing the policy around

20%

43%

28%

7% 2%

Heritage incentive funding


n=46

26

17

how this funding could be best used as we have a number of ideas about how we could best make it achieve quick and rewarding results.

Submission: 046

In addition to their support for the incentive funding the Taskforce also outlined their investigations into developing verandas that are strong enough to provide protection to pedestrians and building customers. The Taskforce made a funding request to support the Verandas as Safe Zones project – in conjunction with the Auckland University School of Engineering.

For further information on the Taskforce submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Some submitters were not in support in heritage incentive funding and questioned whose responsibility it was to strengthen and retain a privately owned building.

We as ratepayers are expected to contribute to the saving of privately owned heritage buildings. This is private property and not ratepayers responsibility.

Submission: 006

A further submission identified concerns that owners were facing when wanting to develop heritage sites.

I am deeply concerned at the difficulties experienced by developers wishing to convert heritage buildings to new uses eg residential or commercial.

Submission: 004

For further information on the Heritage incentive submissions, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Sport and recreation strategy Council proposed to allocate $100,000 towards the implementation of our Sport and Recreation Strategy. In 2018/19 we will continue development discussions with sporting codes to support better and more efficient utilisation of Whanganui’s sport and recreation facilities (both Council and non-Council-owned).

27

18

Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated support for funding implementation of the Sport and Recreation Strategy, with some wanting to see further budget allocated to this. It is very heartening to see some real investment placed against the implementation of the Sport and Recreation Strategy. More would be better, but it's a great starting point.

Submission: 035

Funds need to be increased they do not appear to be amounts that would make any difference.

Submission: 011 Submissions in support were also received from two sporting codes. Cricket Wanganui are hugely supportive of the implementation of a Sport and Recreation Strategy to continue development of Cricket in our region by improving our facilities. We currently have Black Caps, White Ferns, Stags and Hinds that have come through our Wanganui cricket system but as a region, we are falling behind in community facilities for training compared to other districts.

Submission: 045 More is needed in the Sport and Rec facilities, Rate payers underestimate how much money hosting events bring to the community. Hockey on its own contributes on average $850k per annum. Hockey is in desperate need of support, with the funding opportunities out there, we are very limited. If we get the turf this will improve and strengthen the development of the modern game. The new surface will provide a safe, attractive exciting and welcoming facility that will be assessable to everyone. It will also attract more opportunities which in effect help our economy.

Submission: 098

20%

41%

27%

9%2%

Sport and recreation strategy


n=44

28

19

The proposal was also supported by Healthy Families supported the proposal and saw the strong linkage to delivering on the Leading Edge vision of being a deeply united community.

It is great to see in the draft LTP continued investment in the sport and recreation strategy implementation and a commitment to ensuring adequate provision of open space, playgrounds and facilities in the parks and recreation plan for this 30 year period.

Submission: 077

One submitter believed it should be a user pays system rather than rate funded.

Kerbside recycling Submitters were asked if they would support a proposal to introduce a rates funded kerbside rubbish, mixed recycling and organic (garden and/or food) collection service for urban households by the 2020/21 financial year.

Clearly outlined in the consultation document was the next steps for this proposal, and that this was an opportunity for residents to provide indicative support to investigate this further.

Submitters were clearly in agreement with this proposal with the majority (69%) agreeing or strongly agreeing.

Rates-funded kerbside recycling is the norm in many districts and if introduced here has the potential to: 1. greatly increase recycling rates (more than double) 2. Reduce waste to landfill by diverting organics to compost 3. Reduce waste to landfill by retaining rubbish bags (as opposed to bins)

Submission: 017

I believe over 10 years the council should be committing strongly to environmental impacts especially in the over use of plastics and utilising recycling opportunities.

42%

27%

17%

10%4%

Kerbside recycling


n=48

29

20

Submission: 036

We were pleased to see that the Council are planning to introduce a Kerbside Recycling system. We feel that this is an excellent method of make recycling more accessible and also sends a clear message that there is an expectation for all members of our community.

Submission: 090

Our members support the introduction of a rates funded kerbside rubbish, recycling and organic collection service. We have a duty to try and reduce the thousands of tonnes of waste currently going to landfill. We look forward to the Council progressing investigation and discussion and eventually making a firm decision on kerbside recycling.

Submission: 109

Some submitters in support also had specific requests for how this may be undertaken.

Small easily stackable crates please rather than huge wheelie bins. Submission: 097

I would like to see the use of environmentally friendly, recyclable plastic, or strong paper bags for use with un recyclable rubbish. This must be in conjunction with containers for recyclable rubbish, if necessary…Question: are those bins made from recyclable material as well?

Submission: 048

The cost of introducing kerbside recycling was a concern for some.

The cost estimates for kerbside recycling appear excessive when compared to other urban schemes. In any event, an economic system should be explored which could involve a community based organisation as the principal operator. It should not be assumed that a rates based scheme is the only option. The council has to become far more creative and open in thinking and methods as it faces the future.

Submission: 056

Those that were not in support questioned the role of Council in establishing a kerbside recycling service, and the impact this may have on current providers.

Has the current provider of weekly rubbish collection actually confirmed their intention to withdraw the service? If not, will the council be operating in competition with the current provider?

Submission: 015

Feedback on kerbside recycling from the world café events focussed on whether this should be rate payer funded or user pays.

The waste minimisation working party is currently undertaking a resident survey on kerbside recycling and this information received from submitters will inform that process.

30

21

For further information on kerbside recycling submissions, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Lower River Control A submission was received by the Wanganui Volunteer Coastguard requesting use of the Wharf Street boat ramp for emergency operations.

24 / 7 use of Wharf Street boat ramp for emergency operations for Coastguard. Currently there are issues with there not being enough water to launch the rescue vessel around low tide. A short and long term plan is required to allow 24 / 7 operation of the coastguard unit.

Submission: 057

Transferring of our marine and airport activity Council proposed to transfer the governance and management of the Ports Group from Whanganui District Council Holdings Limited into Council’s Property Department.

The majority of respondents (57%) were indifferent to this proposal, and just over a quarter (28%) were in support.

Those that were not in support included Whanganui District Holdings Limited, who raised concerns about the proposed change.

Council has recently agreed to a revised governance structure and has appointed a new board. This structure included the continued governance of the Ports Function. It is therefore with some surprise that we see this proposal come forward so quickly following this process.

Submission: 101

2%

26%

57%

10%

5%

Transferring Marine & Airport Activity


n=42

31

22

Holdings felt that any change to this should have occurred as part of their Statement of Intent process, which will commence later this year for the 2019/20 year. For further information on the Holdings submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet. This concern was also shared by the Chamber of Commerce who felt the governance should remain with Holdings. We consider that governance of the ports group should remain with Whanganui District Council Holdings Ltd during the process of revitalisation and growth of both ports. While the management of this activity sits well in property, Holdings has shown an excellent record of governance over commercial projects and as such it makes sense to continue with a governance team that has already been working on this project and understands the issues.

Submission: 088

A further submission expressed concerns on the economic impact that this change in governance could have on the port and airport as businesses. The airport and port are major commercial operations both requiring dedicated focus to develop over the long term. As such they require the appropriate company structures and focused management expertise and independent financing in order to move forward. To assume that running these strategic businesses are an extension of existing council operations of the Property Department is not taking the future success of these businesses seriously.

Submission: 071 Dog pound Council outlined the proposal to increase the funding to complete construction of a new and compliant dog pound on Airport Road. There was already $450,000 in the budget for the 2017/18 year, and it was proposed to increase this by a further $550,000 taking the total funding to $1M.

32

23

Just over a third (36%) of respondents supported the funding for the new dog pound at Airport Road. A third (33%) were not in support and concerns centred on the proposed cost and the location.

In addition to submissions disagreeing with the proposed option there over 50 submission style forms received that disagreed with the proposed location of the new dog pound.

Further concerns on the proposed location were due to the land claim settlement currently under negotiation with iwi.

… against spending 1M of rate payers funds on a dog pound on land that does not belong to the council, this land should not be allocated to any development as it is part of a land claim settlement soon to negotiated.

Submission: 011 For further information on this submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Some questioned whether the current site was more appropriate and requested Council to work in collaboration with the SPCA.

Upgrade existing facility – best location. Submission: 110

The most ideal site for the pound is in the proximity of the SPCA and to work in collaboration with this organisation.

Submission: 011

One submitter in support of the proposed dog pound acknowledged the legislative requirements for Council to provide the service.

7%

29%

31%

13%

20%

Dog pound


n=45

33

24

It’s essential that animal welfare regulations are met, so I support the Council’s initiative. Submission: 018

Feedback from the world café event was a question of the cost of upgrading the current site to meet compliance.

Wakefield St Bridge Council identified that the cost of replacing the Wakefield Street Bridge is $1.9M. An application for funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency has been made, and replacement will only go ahead if this funding is approved.

The majority (55%) agreed with this approach, with over a quarter (29%) neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

One submitter felt that any replacement should be funded through user pays, and another questioned if this was a result of deferring maintenance.

If this is an example of the effects of deferred maintenance, then it is a pity that the community has to find, in a lump sum, the considerable amount needed to replace the bridge. Would targeted maintenance as needed have served the community’s interest better?

Submission: 018

Dublin St Bridge Council has identified that the Dublin Street Bridge is reaching the end of its life and the Council needs to decide in the next ten years whether or not to renew it. The estimated cost of replacing the Dublin Street Bridge is $33.3M. This is dependent on receiving funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency.

7%

48%29%

10%

7%

Wakefield St Bridge


n=42

34

25

The majority (62%) of respondents were in support of this proposal noting that the Dublin St Bridge is a key access route for many, and the impact the closure would have on other arterial routes. An almost constant flow of vehicle traffic, along with pedestrians and cyclists using the side lanes, indicates the importance of the Dublin Street Bridge for Wanganui. Whenever the bridge has been closed, there has been a serious build-up of traffic along Anzac Parade to the city bridge and stress on the already fragile riverbank approach to the city bridge (in front of the Red Lion) is exacerbated. The decision must be made to renew the bridge as soon as possible. Meanwhile, work needed to "maintain network resiliency and efficiency" is critical.

Submission: 109 Surely this is beyond question – traffic flow without the bridge would put impossible pressure on the City Bridge, Taupō Quay and Victoria Ave.

Submission: 018 One submitter supported the replacement and also requested that Cornmarket reserve remain in Council ownership so that when the Bridge is replaced the reserve is available to provide for roading design and layout upgrades. Another suggested changing the traffic direction to alleviate the problem. Why not have the Dublin and City Bridges one way (opposite to the other) instant solve apart from advising the public and traffic concerns.

Submission: 031 For further information on this submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

24%

38%

31%

5% 2%

Dublin St Bridge


n=42

35

26

Wikitoria culvert Council are proposing to upgrade the Wikitoria Road culvert, subject to New Zealand Transport Agency approval of funding. Application has been made for funding and we are awaiting the results. Replacement will only proceed if funding is approved.

Relatively equal numbers were in support and indifferent to this proposal (45% and 44% respectively). One submission in support did represent multiple residents on Onetere Drive.

These submitters requested that the upgrade go ahead regardless of NZTA funding.

I and the other residents of 9, 10, & 11 Onetere Drive strongly disagree with the Wikitoria Road culvert only being upgraded if NZTA approval of funding is granted. I believe that the upgrade should go ahead regardless.

Submission: 007

For further information on this submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Other submitters were concerned about securing access to the airport.

Wikitoria Culvert must be upgraded as a security to the Whanganui Airport against flooding of Wikitoria Road which has occurred after improvements made to the State Highway and a housing development on the hill above the Highway.

I support the Council’s proposals. However, as the culvert is essential for access to the airport perhaps the Council’s responsibilities under the Whanganui Airport Joint Venture require that access to the airport be maintained.

Submission: 018

19%

26%44%

9%2%

Wikitoria Culvert


n=43

36

27

Property portfolio investment plan One submission was received regarding the Property Investment Plan. This has been included with other submissions received and will come to the Property and Community Committee on 29 May 2018 for discussion.

Changes to funding structures Also included in the proposed LTP 2018-2028 consultation document were some proposed changes to our funding structure for some activities. Wastewater and Trade Waste Council assessed the fairest way of allocating costs between municipal and trade waste users. The proposal sees business who discharge trade wastes pay for the additional costs over and above the cost of conveying, treating and disposing of domestic discharges. The targeted rates for trade waste and the new charge for tankered waste were outlined in the consultation document.

The majority of respondents (70%) were in support of the proposed funding structure. We support the proposed introduction of targeted rates to reflect costs involved in trade waste discharges into the city wastewater system.

Submission: 052 A submission received from the Wanganui Rural Community Board questioned whether the sale of the forestry would be better aligned to an activity that all ratepayers would benefit from, rather than subsidising the wastewater system.

24%

46%

22%

2% 5%

Wastewater and Trade Waste


n=41

37

28

Council’s intention to sell its forestry portfolio to keep the wastewater system affordable to those connected to it does not benefit all ratepayers. This asset is as much the rural ratepayers as it is the urban and the WRCB believe that the sale of this asset should go towards something like the Port Revitalisation project which is an activity that will benefit everyone.

Submission: 041

Resilient Roading Council proposed to continue the storm damage rate over the period of the long term plan as a roading resilience rate. This rate would be set on a per SUIP basis with farming properties paying $5 more than residential and commercial properties given the most weather-related damage occurs on rural roads.

Fifty-four percent of the respondents agreed with this proposal. Over a third (36%) neither agreed nor disagreed.

We support the proposed use of the Storm Damage Rate to reduce debt and provide for roading activity, as an alternative to further debt or funding via the Roads and Footpaths Rate.

Submission: 052

We support the proposed road resilience rate and consider this the fairest option to ensure our roading network is maintained to a high standard. Keeping roads open and in good condition is vital for local businesses.

Submission: 088

10%

44%36%

3%8%

Resilient Roading


n=39

38

29

Animal management Council proposed to change the rating allocation for the animal management activity. Animal management is partially rate funded from the general rate which means the rate has been split in proportion to the capital values of the groups, with commercial properties being attributed 200% of their capital value. Council decided that the standard general rate unit is a better fit for funding this activity because dog owners (generally from residential and farming properties) benefit most and create the need for this activity.

Most (42%) were indifferent to this proposal, and over a quarter (29%) were in agreement.

We support the proposal to change how animal management is funded by altering the rating allocation from ‘CV2’ to the standard general rate.

Submission: 052

The Chamber of Commerce who have submitted previously about this rating allocation split were in support however requested that the commercial proportion was reduced even further.

Commercial ratepayers continue to pay more than farming for animal control. This seems incongruent and we consider that commercial ratepayer should be looking at an even lower percentage than you propose. Similar to farming ratepayers who pay nothing for footpaths and berms (even though they use them when they come to town), commercial ratepayers should be looking at close to 0% for this activity, with farming staying at around the original rate.

Submission: 088

For further information on the Chambers submission, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

5%

24%

42%

13%

16%

Animal management


n=38

39

30

Port and River Council proposed to move the river control activity from waterways and natural drainage to a new activity named port and river, as these two activities have a better fit and are managed together in practice. It was proposed to fund the new port and river activity from the general rate based on the standard unit based rating allocation.

Just over half (51%) supported the proposed funding structure for the new sea port and river activity. A third neither agreed nor disagreed.

We submit that fees and charges for port users be reviewed, as a possible alternative to funding the commercial port and river control works from the general rate.

Submission: 052

We support the proposed activity change and subsequent change in rates funding. We suggest that the shortfall in revenue from the Harbour Endowment is included in the wider consideration of the port redevelopment. We suggest that the proposed business case to the PGF for port redevelopment include all necessary upgrades to the port and river works.

Submission: 088

Concurrent consultations Alongside the proposed LTP 2018-2028 consultation document, Council also reviewed and consulted on the Revenue and Financing Policy; draft Rates remission and postponement policies; and the Fees and Charges for the 2018/19 year.

One submission received on the proposed fees and charges for the 2018/19 year objected to the proposed fee for the Wharf Street boat ramp and raised concerns regarding the charge out rates for Council staff

10%

41%33%

10%

5%

Port and River


n=39

40

31

Hourly charge out rates for council staff are comparable to professional, private commercial businesses which have full overhead costs to recover and a commercial profit motive, unlike council.

Submission: Fees and Charges 001

Federated Farmers also submitted in response to the Revenue and Financing Policy; draft Rates remission and postponement policies; and the Fees and Charges for the 2018/19 year.

We support proposed amendments to fees and charges for trade waste, policy and planning, environmental health and rural infrastructure access fees, as the fairest method of recovering costs.

We support the proposed removal of delegations from the rates remission and postponement policies, as well as the proposed clarification of which rating units fall within the Rates Remission Policy, as being protected for natural, historic or cultural conservation purposes.

Submission: 052

Summary of other submissions received by activity area Submissions identified other areas of interest and topics. These have been categorised into activity areas. In many cases they are best responded to through an appropriate committee.

For further information on the submissions, please see the Manager Responses to Submissions spreadsheet.

Corporate Finance A concern was raised regarding the increasing rates with the high amount of fixed income pensioners that reside in Whanganui.

With the disproportionate number pensioners living in our city - many who have contributed considerably over their life-time here - constant rate increases become an increasing incumbrance on so many of our residents . This aspect must continually be weighed up appropriately, against 'essential' and 'desirable' works projects.

Submission: 045

Living wage Submitters asked Council to commit to becoming a living wage employer.

Consultation Some submitters raised concerns about consultation on various aspects of the proposed LTP 2018-2028.

41

32

We are concerned that our members who are corporate forestry owners and who are directly affected by the significant, proposed rate increases have not been directly consulted on this issue.

Submission: 088

It would be good to a situation where various groups are actively involved in developing this long-term plan in partnership with the council - a much more transparent process and one that would support wider rate-payer participation and understanding of the challenges we are facing as a community and that the council is facing in terms of funding

Submission: 075

Climate change Climate change was raised by multiple submitters.

Climate Change is still the most important challenge that we are facing. So decisions as to priority need to be made that are sensible! It will be very expensive, insurance companies are already finding that they cannot meet claims for the whole property now.

Submission: 016

I see no indication of anything to do with solar power.....electric vehicles/power points/solar panels etc. I do feel this is a significant area....our world is changing rapidly.

Submission: 024

Governance

Restorative Practices A submission was received by Restorative Practices requesting Council to add “Towards a Restorative City” to city signage welcoming people to Whanganui, and for two Councillors to join their advisory group.

Enviroschools Acknowledgment of support from Council and request that this be maintained.

Youth hub The Whanganui District Council Youth Committee submitted and raised their idea for the establishment of a Youth Hub. This is something the committee had been investigating for some time but were struggling to facilitate the necessary planning. Their submission requested the employment of a facilitator for creating a youth hub.

The Youth Hub would be a safe place for young people. We have a high rate of youth suicide and mental health issues and a Youth Hub would create a “safe haven” for those in need. It would also support youth talent and growth by creating not only a safe place but also an opportunity to showcase art, music and other creative forms of youth engagement.

Submission: 090

42

33

Roads, footpaths and pathways Various submissions raised issues regarding roads, footpaths and pathways. These included concerns over footpaths being hazardous for pedestrians, requests for great safety for cyclists on the road network, and requests for additional roading signage.

Roundabouts are especially off-putting to many new cyclists, esp. the double-laned ones, so we want to ask you not to put in a roundabout at the Fitzherbert Ave/Totara St intersection, as some locals are asking for.

Submission: 043

On Mosston road there are signs warning motorists of pukeko. Please can these signs be also placed on Heads Road and Hinau Street? As we have pukeko in these areas too.

Submission: 020

Support for the work Council has undertaken with regards to cycling and the shared pathways was acknowledged. This included the adoption of the Active Transport Strategy and a request that the strategy direct future decision making regarding cycling.

Council to do better this time and use the strategy as an active document in their decision making and future planning to make cycling a safer and more popular transport mode.

Submission: 043

I support the idea of linking areas with footpaths and cycleways and make a plea for the Marybank/Kaitoke area to be given priority because of the residential density and lack of safe roadside pathways alongside a high volume, high speed highway route.

Submission: 030

Water

One submitter noted their opposition to water fluoridation.

Parks and recreation Submissions received in this activity area included requests for reinstating the edible gardens as public plantings in our community spaces; consideration to plant native tress rather than exotics; installation of more drinking fountains in our parks and sportsgrounds and a request for improvements to walkways to provide better access for cyclists.

CBD Mainstreet submitted requesting the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Guyton Street and Victoria Avenue, and street calming measures. This was supported by a further submission referring to pedestrian flow for the top block of Victoria Avenue.

The traffic lights and faster traffic flow at the Guyton Street/Victoria Avenue intersection has always been a barrier to greater pedestrian flow into the top block of the Avenue between Guyton and Ingestre Streets…we feel that pedestrian linkages between the Council Buildings, Cooks Gardens and Victoria Avenue could be enhanced, traffic could be slowed and pedestrian raised crossings could be installed to make this whole area more inviting and to encourage longer stays by shoppers.

43

34

Submission: 028 Heritage The Whanganui Regional Heritage Trust submitted for funding for improvements to the Durie Hill elevator and tunnel entranceway.

Community and culture Leading Edge vision A couple of submissions were received acknowledging the Leading Edge vision and the work Council was undertaking towards delivering on this. The Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that the consultation document itself did not identify a clear vision for the future of Whanganui. A further submission referred to talking a Leading Edge approach with regards to how we approach a policy change for building developments. Iwi engagement Multiple submissions were received requesting funding to support iwi initiatives including hapu development. Further to this, Tupoho presented about Council/iwi/central government needing to work on a tripartite agreement to fund the delivery of services to the deprived sector of the community as a whole to address the negative socio-economic issues. Safer Whanganui Support was offered regarding the work undertaken by Safer Whanganui. I would like to endorse and support the work that occurs under the Safer Whanganui Collective. As one of the coalition agencies that works alongside and also as a member of our community who benefits from the outcomes achieved through this work, I would like to encourage the council to continue to promote community safety and to reduce harm in the Whanganui District.

Submission: 063 Women’s network A submission was received from the Women’s Network acknowledging its long-term partnership with Council and offering support for Safer Whanganui and the funding available through Community Contracts.

Summary of Oral Submissions Fifty-two individuals and organisations presented their submissions orally. The main theme was forestry, economic development, funding request, library hubs and culverts.

44

35

Conclusion This report highlights the key themes from the feedback received during the consultation period on the proposed LTP 2018-2028. This information is provided to support elected members in their deliberations to finalise the Council’s programme of activities and corresponding budget for the next 10 years.

45

Sub No. Name Organisation Topic Submitter comment Manager response Action

007 Dave Thomson Stormwater

We the residents of 9, 10, 11 & 12 Onetere Drive wish to again address the inadequacy of the existing culvert located at Wikitoria Road. Over the years Council have engaged numerous engineers to carry out specialised reports on theculvert and each time the result being that the culvert is an engineering disaster.You have the reports, you’ve seen the photos of the devastation this culvert is capable of, you’ve heard our plight time and time again and you even acknowledge in your 10 year plan that the likelihood of much more frequent heavy rainfall resulting in flooding is inevitable. We submit to you that the culvert is replaced in the 2019/2020 financial year regardless of whether NZTA funding is approved.

The result of the NZTA funding application is excepted by September 2018. If the application is successful, the work will be undertaken during the 2019/2020 financial year. If the application was unsuccessful, the matter will be brought to council for further consideration.

Refer to Committee once NZTA position known

009 Ruth Hutchinson Stormwater

I disagree with the Our Stormwater network priorities on page 19. I live in Campbell Street down near London Street and the stormwater system is just about zero to none. Each time it rains my driveway and street guttering floods. The gutter is full of weeds and the concrete in the gutter has parted so grass is now grows out of the crack. I have sprayed the area but am not going to keep doing that at my expense. Also since the road has been tar sealed my drive way is worse. I also disapprove with the large half circle in front that I have mow again at my expense. The edging is broken and because cars park on it is not very nice looking. I have photos that will support my argument if required.

Campbell St does fall within priority area No 1 , the highest priority, and work will commence in July 2018. The kerb channel does need to be cleaned out routinely and this has been passed on to contractors. Council do periodically reseal roads but driveways are an 'owned asset' of property owners, hence they are the property owner's responsibility to repair/renew. The grassed extension always been a feature of that residential road's 'look and feel' and there are no short-term plans to change.

Infrastructure - contractors to check kerb and channel

025 Colleen McArthur Stormwater

My husband and I are located on No 3 Line and the Matarewa Stream runs through our property.For our property on No 3 Line, the current capacity through the existing diversion is already causing damage to our property. We believe that the diversion to the Mateongaonga Channel will cause further flooding and significant damage to our property. We viewed the Gerse Street culvert after the Horizons meeting and believe that there is an opportunity to create a more efficient solution at the Gerse Street culvert, without the ‘price tag’ that is currently being attached for such work. To proceed with the proposed solution being explored by Horizon is simply the council avoiding the real issue. I believe that the prioritisation method proposed by the council does not take into account the severity of damage incurred and whilst there might be less dwellings in other areas the

An independent Engineer's report on the Gerse St culvert has been prepared. However, given Horizons' recent proposal to fully 100% divert flows during flood events through the Mateongaonga diversion, any proposed alteration of this culvert will need to take the Horizons proposal into consideration and require Horizons to model the implications, if any, for this culvert arising from their proposal.

Infrastructure to request Horizons modelling. Refer to Committee.

029 Michael McCartney Horizons Regional Council Stormwater

At Horizons’ Matarawa Scheme community consultation meeting in April, ratepayers attending the meeting raised the matter of the Gerse Street culvert, in particular the impact that the Gerse Street and other WDC road culvert crossings of the Matarawa Stream have on flood extents. Horizons is currently undertaking work to clear the section of the Matarawa Stream through Whanganui East of vegetation that has congested the channel, work that will be completed next summer. We are also proposing to modify the Mateongaonga Stream diversion to fully divert flood flow in the Matarawa Stream away from Whanganui East. A view seems to persist that the size of the Gerse Street culvert is a matter that Horizons needs to take action over. As noted previously, the Gerse Street culvert is a WDC asset and the effects associated with the current structure are the responsibility of the asset owner. Enlarging that crossing is a matter for WDC to consider, alongside other infrastructure level of service issues, as part of your Long-Term Plan process.With regard to your decision not to allocate funding to improving the quality of stormwater discharges, we encourage WDC to collaborate with the territorial authorities across the region and Horizons to focus on stormwater. In an environment of intense public and central government interest in water quality, changes to freshwater standards seem likely to become more stringent over the life of the long-term plan. While wastewater discharges remain Horizons’ most pressing priority, we are starting to work more closely with territorial authorities in the region to ’lift the bar’ around the quality of discharges of stormwater to water.



032 Elaine Mayer Stormwater

The existing stormwater sumps at the intersection of Grey & College Streets (both sides) prove to be incapable of dealing with the rainwater entering them - resulting in flooding across theroads/footpaths and into adjacent properties.

Stormwater modelling has shown the underground pipework performs sub-standard in this area. Improvements have now been budgeted for in the 2018/2028 LTP as part of the stormwater system performance review. This location falls within the Priority 2 area for Springvale. Physical works is likely to occur around years 7-10.

Already being addressed, no additional action required

INFRASTRUCTURE

Reference C46

033Graham Adams/Sharron Callaghan Grey Power Stormwater

Gerse St culvert - Several of our members residing in the Ikitara Rd, Gerse St, Raine St area have asked that enlarging this culvert be included in the Long Term Plan. They feel that future flooding of their properties will be lessened if the size of the culvert is increased.



051 Brian Rhodes Stormwater 100% diversion of Matarawa stream thereby negating the need to replace the Gerse Street culvert.



054 Bill Simmons Stormwater

Before upgrading the stormwater system, more information and remedial action is needed to identify properties which have not yet separated stormwater and wastewater. This appears to be an unknown but is a priority ahead of upgrades.

Separation is removing stormwater from the wastewater system, thereby increasing flows in the stormwater system. Council continues to pursue separation completion, and has completed several studies on the degree of compliance of these for further consideration and refinements.


056 Jock Lee Stormwater

The Long Term plan is completely silent on the subject of accelerating coastal erosion, even though this will have direct impacts on port. The known dynamics of climate change are likely to result in increases in severe flooding events affecting Whanganui City. The present stormwater system including the proposed works outlined in the LTP are highly likely to be overwhelmed by more severe and frequent flood events. The council must look beyond installed infrastructure to mitigate the worst effects of such events. Substantial forest planting of the Whanganui catchment is one such obvious example to mitigate flood peaks. Other cities in New Zealand have begun adopting ambitious tree planting plans to stabilise slopes and reduce runoff. Stormwater discharge peaks can also be reduced by the installation of rainwater tanks, a strategy a number of Queensland urban authorities are now adopting. The council needs to move its attention beyond existing physical infrastructure to better meet the challenges posed by climate change. Accordingly, I support the chosen option 3 for infrastructure management but strongly recommend that other non infrastructure measures which can mitigate storm effects are urgently addressed and comprise an integral part of forward planning for stormwater management.

We note your support of the preferred option No 3. Council will continue to work alongside Horizons where possible as part of our Healthy Streams Whanganui initiative, and the Sustainable Land use Initiative(SLUI). Both these initiatives aim to use vegetation to slow down run-off within the greater Whanganui catchment.

Infrastructure to continue to work with Horizons

111 Trevor GilliganResidents Living Adjacent to Gerse St culvert Stormwater

Requests Council to now revisit the submission made in 2017 and to review the suggestions made to Council to provide flooding and damming relief at the culvert.



076 Barry Francis Wastewater

Marybank sewage scheme. Currently the WDC are not permitting connections to the Marybank sewage scheme, making any smaller sections of land non-buildable, lowering land values. Surely the Council should encourage as much building as possible, as it adds more people paying rates, providing jobs & spending with local building merchants. What is Council proposing to do about this issue & when? The current resource consent for the oxidation pond outfall, held by WDC and issued by Horizons, expires in 2021. Does this imply no new connections to Marybank sewage scheme are available til after 2021!

Our Horizons consent does limit the total daily volume that can be treated at the Marybank oxidation ponds, and hence the number of connections. This limit has been reached and Council will be applying for an increase of this limit in the new consent, along with increasing the size of the oxidation ponds. Meanwhile anyone wishing to develop more properties in Marybank will need to treat their wastewater by using approved onsite solutions such as septic tanks

089 Craig Thiele Tasman Tanning Wastewater

Tasman Tanning make submission regarding conditional discharge permit for limits/levels of chromium discharge. We submit that the proposed level of 5 ppm or 10 kg per day is too stringent and inconsistent with other operators and competitive companies, in other regions of the country. Tasman propose a limit of 20 ppm or 40 kgs per day.

This concern has been noted in trade waste negotiations between Tasman Tanning and WDC. An agreed solution was to set the Chromium level at the existing trade waste limit until such time as WDC and Tasman Tanning can get a clear understanding of how the Chromium accumulates in the new WWTP. Once we have a better understanding of how the Chromium will affect the treatment process, we will be able to set a new limit for Chromium from Tasman Tanning.

Infrastucture to monitor and continue dialogue with Tasman Tanning.

029 Michael McCartney Horizons Regional Council Wastewater

Horizons is seeking that all territorial authorities have an active and clear consenting strategy for their wastewater treatment plants and that expenditure in relation to that strategy is built into long term plans and asset management plans. In particular, Horizons encourages your council to recognise the focus nationally on water quality improvement and the increasing level of environmental standards in your strategy.Horizons’ expectation is that consenting strategies minimise the use of the existing use rights provisions of the Resource Management Act. Horizons councillors have directed staff to use the powers available to them to avoid prolonged use of existing use rights for wastewater treatment plant discharges. Council will be seeking an explanation from all territorial authorities where there are discharges occurring via existing use rights as to timeframes and approach to reconsenting. Council’s expectation is that planning for reconsenting has occurred well in advance of consent expiry and the need to resort to the use of existing use rights is removed. Horizons is keen to continue to work with council officers as you further develop and refine your approach to consent renewals.

WDC is committed to improving our environment as far as is practical and affordable. Historically consents have included a degree of reasonableness in them, in so much as they expect Councils to “minimise” any abnormal discharges or change any current consent conditions. Before Horizons move to totally prohibit any discharges, Horizons must take into account the principles of practicality and affordability to our ratepayers as applicable to wastewater and storm water

Already responded to in WDC submission to Horizons LTP

47

010 Donna Mummery Water

I would ask Council to keep a careful eye on the overseas French company that isrunning our water infrastructure. Vialeia has a dreadful reputation overseas. It was runout of several Latin American countries for pricing water too high for the average personto pay and was fired from a US city for destroying the water infrastructure. I would bevery cautious about giving this company a pass on supervision. You must be very carefulwith their actions.

WDC keeps a close eye on all its contractors to ensure the community receives the best services available. All our long term contractors have performance indicators that are continuously measured and contractually must be met. The Veolia Water contract is managed in the same way, and their performance to date has been exceptional. We will continue to monitor and manage all our long term contract (including Veolia Water) in this way.


Various ForestryFor forestry roading related submissions and managers comments, please refer to separate attachment

043 Lyneke OnderwaterWhanganui Bicycle Users Group Cycling

Many of the older cycle lanes are now looking rather tatty. Some are badly in need of a re-paint andin some cases a re-alignment. It would also be good to allow more space for car doors opening as this is done, as “dooring” is a common accident as reported by ACC recently. Sometimes these accidents are fatal. Many cycle-lanes in Whanganui have this risk. A better alternative would be to position the parking lane between the bike lane/path and the road, as the risk of dooring would be much reduced.We would like to see more designated and separate cycle lanes which are kept away from car traffic. Education must be high on the priority list particularly around schools.

Actions requested are part of Council's Active Transport Strategy, Road Transport Activity Management Plan and LTP 2018-28. Cycling is acknowledged to be dangerous and not to be appropriate within roundabouts, especially on arterial roads, and should be separated from motor-vehicles.


020Graham and Lyn Pearson Cycling

We enjoy using the shared walking & cycleway to the North Mole and are keen tosee it completed. Meanwhile minor improvements could be madea) A direct access across the berm to Balgownie Ave, where the pathway exitsfrom the river side.b) Removal of the kerb on Taupo Quay, where the pathway exits from the riverside. Currently you have to divert to the BP station accessway, which ishopeless.c) Signage on Heads Road to indicate to cyclists that the start/exit of theriverside pathway is located in Gilberd Street. Plus signage on Heads Roadto warn motorists that cyclists are turning in and out of Gilberd Street.

a) Access is planned to be installed on the Balgownie Ave pathway entry/exit in2018/19; b) A crossing is planned to be installed opposite Wilson Street in2018/19; c) Signage is planned to be improved at the Gilberd St end of thecycleway in 2018/19.


019 Caryl Blomkvist Footpaths

Council needs to include in the plan firm, specific, measurable standards/criteria which apply consistently and are adhered to, giving certainty to staff and citizens – not vague standards or, alternatively, stated standards (eg 10mm lip), which may or may not apply at any particular time, depending on something I am unaware of.The plan must also provide for recording of accidental injuries and recorded inspectionof pavements, in a regular, systematic way, for compliance with the criteria, so that wehave safer pavements – this situation does not exist at the moment.

Council has measurable LoS for footpaths and these are described in the Road Transport Activity Management Plan. These measures include the measure of footpath settlement, bumps, depressions, cracks and scabs. Council attend to cracks greater 10mm, but wholesale footpath renewals are programmed on a prioritised process. With this approach Council has successfully reduced defects from over 57,000 in 2003 to under 16,000 at the last measure in 2014.


030 Bill Fleury Footpaths

I support the idea of linking areas with footpaths and cycleways and make a plea for the Marybank/Kaitoke area to be given priority because of the residential density and lack of safe roadside pathways alongside a high volume, high speed highway route. Alternatively WDC could request that NZTA designate state highway 3 between ?Kaitoke school signs and Airport road roundabout as 80km/hr zones. I can think of no other Whanganui suburbs that are as ill served by safe walking or cycling pathways.

Marybank is isolated from urban Whanganui and a footpath/cycleway link along SH3 will have to be NZTA's. Refer to NZTA

029 Michael McCartney Horizons Regional Council Roading

Given the vision indicated by the Government and the strategic direction of the RLTP, your Council is encouraged to consider opportunities for development and enhancement of facilities to enable active transport, particularly walking and cycling within the district and allocate funding accordingly. Given the messaging from the Ministry, the Minister himself and the likely direction of the new Government Policy Statement, we feel strongly that this is an opportune time to seek central government funding for walking and cycling projects through the National Land Transport Plan. We acknowledge the work already undertaken and committed to by WDC in this space with the Active Transport Strategy and Urban Cycleways Programme, however urge your council to be aspirational with planning for and developing, in unison with your partners, opportunities for more active transport infrastructure.Regarding bus shelters, we wish to highlight that Horizons, in our long term plan, is proposing to increase the annual expenditure for bus shelters on urban services, as well as invest in improving bus services in the City. Further to this, as part of a review of the Whanganui urban bus services in 2017, a public consultation process was undertaken in which feedback highlighted that members of the community feel the current level of infrastructure is inadequate and poorly maintained. We agree with the community in this regard and, given Horizons is proposing to increase investment in both the bus services and shelters, we ask that you ensure adequate funding is available for bus stop and shelter maintenance

Bus shelter maintenance forms part of Council's Road Transport Activity Management Plan and is included in the LTP 2018-28.


PROVISION OF ROADS AND FOOTPATHS

FORESTRY ROADING

48

030 Bill Fleury Roading

I support the future replacement of the Dublin Street bridge but note the LTP suggests $33M in years 1-10 for deck replacement and later $33M for replacement of the bridge. Is there an error there?

There is only a $100,000 study on the Dublin Street bridge in years 1-10. Any statement about $33M in years 1-10 is an error.

031 Ruth Tidemann Roading

I was at the meeting Monday 16th and in the group on stormwater with Allan we were discussing the problem of the congestion on Dublin Bridge. Why not have the Dublin and City Bridges one way ( opposite to the other) .!instant solve apart from advising the public and traffic concerns.

Unfortunately the Dublin Street bridge is a weight restricted bridge and is unable to be used by trucks/buses. No further action required

034 Nobby Bullock Roading

I have access from Marybank Road to Airport Road should it be required. The bulk of this track is up to trucking standard, however the Marybank end would require the stripping of topsoil and metal approximate cost $15,000 - $20,000 Your offer is noted, thank you. No further action required

056 Jock Lee Roading

I have previously commented above on the need to align transport planning with overall economic development including port development. The Westbourne industrial park is an example where this has not happened. The result is that residential areas of Castlecliff are subject to heavy transport moving in and out of that industrial zone as trucks link with the Heads industrial area and Highway 3. As a consequence, whatever roading strategies are adopted, they inevitably involve heavy trucksrumbling through established residential areas in order to access the port area and Highway 3. Atpresent, Manuka and Polson Streets bear the brunt of this heavy traffic on streets which do notallow two large trucks to pass. Further, Polson Street contains Castlecliff School which isencountering major safety issues as a result. Funding should also provide appropriate streetmodifications to both Manuka and Polson Streets to deter and or moderate heavy traffic andprovide for the safety of Castlecliff School.

These improvements are programmed for implementation in the 2018-21 period.


068 Rod Trott Step Up Durie Hill Roading

The Durie Hill “Village” has a major roadway running through Portal Street comprising a steep long hill from the riverside and then a long road through the retail shops/residential area and past a busy primary school. This is a hazardous traffic/pedestrian area. It needs planning and action to minimize the hazards like slowing excessively speeding traffic, provide safe pedestrian crossings and to make cycling and walking safer.Portal Street/Plunket Street, Durie Street intersections. Here measures are required to improve the village centre. This is already starting to occur [see Hairdressers mural and redevelopment] and we want to see this continue and include traffic, pedestrian and the physical enhancement of the area within the WDC 10 year plan

Council is happy to engage with the Durie Hill community to discuss options of creating a "village" feel to the top of Durie Hill.

078 Amanda Gibbons Mainstreet Whanganui Roading

Roundabout and raised crossing at Victoria Ave and Guyton Street intersection. It was Mainstreet and the Town Centre Regeneration Committee's understanding that the Victoria Ave/Guyton St round-a-bout additional would be in the LTP, however it doesn't appear. Also parking improvements as per graphic in submission.

The process necessary for this proposal must be done through the Town Centre Regeneration Committee, followed by the appropriate Council Committee. Refer to Committee

018 Gordon Dryden Roading

Dublin Street Bridge: the Plan indicates either (a) that it’s only the decking that will be replaced (LPT p.43) or (b) that the bridge will be replaced (LTP p.53). I assume from the stated cost ($33.3 million)that it is the deck that will be replaced. Further, the Plan suggests that “the Council needs to decidewhether or not to renew it” (LPT p.53). Surely this is beyond question – traffic flow without thebridge would put impossible pressure on the City Bridge, Taupō Quay and Victoria Ave.

There is only a $100,000 study on the Dublin Street bridge in years 1-10. The $33M in 2028-33 is the estimated cost of replacing the deck. No further action required

020Graham and Lyn Pearson Roading

As more people use Mosston Road each year, especially with the proposedFitzherbert Ave extension, we’d like to suggest that planning is made for a cyclelane here. At this stage Council plans to have off-road cycleway along Mosston Road.


020Graham and Lyn Pearson Roading

On Mosston road there are signs warning motorists of pukeko. Please canthese signs be also placed on Heads Road and Hinau Street ? As we havepukeko in these areas too.

Council will investigate and report back on this request for 'pukeko' signage along Mosston Road. Refer to Committee

099 Paige's Book Gallery Roading

We support the instalment of a roundabout along Victoria Avenue at the Guyton St intersection. It will improve safety, create connectivity across the town centre, improve pedestrian flow, and help solidify Guyton St as an arts and culture related zone. We would like to have this project brought into the Long Term Plan and have it marked as a future council project.

The process necessary for this proposal must be done through the Town Centre Regeneration Committee, followed by the appropriate Council Committee.

Refer to Town Centre Regeneration Committee

020Graham and Lyn Pearson Building

Ensure that any Council building renovations or new buildings are Ecodesigned.Not only would this have positive environmental benefits, it would provideoperational savings to WDC, and provide positive Community leadership on thisimportant issue.We have seen several Council building where earthquake strengthening workhas required re-roofing, yet solar water heating and/or solar power panels werenot incorporated into these renovations.Building to the “Living Building Challenge standard”, would be a further wayof practically demonstrating future building technology. Projects need to be considered on a case by case basis.

PROPERTY

49

081 Jan PavarnoCastlecliff Beach Reserve

I submit than in making the Castlecliff Beach Reserve and dune areas a premier park, Whanganui District Council would be lifting the rating values of nearby properties, enticing both tourists and locals to the area and creating an area of ecological and aesthetic value to our lovely city. (Quote NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 Policy 20 (control of use of vehicles on beaches, foreshore, seabed and adjacenty public land)). In order to do this vehicle access to the beach reserve, the dunes and the beach above the high tide mark needs to be strictly limited and controlled.

Council has received a technical report on options for the long term management of the Castlecliff Beach Reserve. This report and its findings requires further consultation with the community and key partners such as DoC and Horizons before making any long term strategic decisions. Refer to Committee

068 Rod Trott Step Up Durie Hill Durie Hill

Entranceways. A. Tower area; lift; steps; zig zag. This area is one of our key tourist/visitor attractions in the City. Enhancement is occurring and there is potentially much more that can be done. Signage; sculpture; murals; photographic; facilities. A long term vision and plan for this area is sought as a matter of urgency over the next 12 months.

Real Estate /gardens/open areas. Collaborative planning and work to enhance the environment in both private gardens and public areas. Durie Hill was originally developed as the “garden suburb” and we need to regain and resurrect this vision. Assistance with this via a private/public approach is an obvious action and a community plan for this is under discussion and Council support will be sought for a specific plan. Included in this plan there needs to be a review and action as required in relation to litter /waste disposal.

If there is community support, then ideas could be fed through as part of the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy that is due for review this year.

Refer to Parks and Open Space Startegy review

070 Anne-Marie Broughton Te Kaahui O Rauru Lower River

Question the absence of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi in relation to the proposed MOU with regard to the lower river controls. Our rohe is identified in our settlement legislation as extending to the northern Whanganui River mouth and therefore we have an interest in these works.

The Te Mata-0Te Rua agreement was struck between Ngaa Rauru KiiTahi and Te Awa-Nui-aa-Rua at the time the draft Deed of Settlement of Ngaa Rauru KiiTahi was being discussed with the Crown, at the then Kingsgate Hotel in Whanganui. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure the cultural boundary of Ngaa Rauru is Kaiiwi. However, matters of wahi tapu and sacred or significant sites would be a matter of shared responsibility to the Whanganui River. On that basis it is an iwi decision -to exclude.

061 Roger Shand Montgomery ReserveThat the entire Montgomery area be gazetted as a scenic and/or scientific reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

An item will be going to the 29 May 2018 Property & Community Services Committee on this topic. Refer to Committee

058 J Newton Planting

Please consider planting native trees rather than more exotic (eg. conifer) around Virginia Lake. South spit is being used as a rubbish tip - everything from disused furniture to animal offal. How difficult would it be to clean up & protect that area.

There are a number of established native trees including native conifers. We try to provide variation and interest across the seasons, and therefore have included a number of exotics species as well. Rubbish and litter dumping is a frequent issue at South Beach. The Litter Team respond when required.


052Harry Matthews/Tim Matthews Federated Farmers Port fees

We submit that fees and charges for port users be reviewed, as a possible alternative to funding the commercial port and river control works from the general rate.

River control relates to controlling the river's path to the sea for the benefit of all residents. As such it is appropriate that this is general rate funded.Council continue to monitor user / lease charges, with this also forming part of the Port Revitalisation Project.

101 Annette Main Holdings Ports Governance

Our submission refers to a proposal in the Long Term plan document to transfer the Portsgovernance and management, both Marine and Air, to the Council Property department.This proposal was not discussed with our Board, as an obvious stakeholder in such adecision, prior to its inclusion in the document.No reason for the suggested change is put forward in the document, nor is there anyinformation include which would assist in assessing the benefits or otherwise of thissuggested change. As a result, the board of WDCHL finds itself needing to submit to Council on a the continuation of its existing responsibilities despite having mutual agreement on the current statement of intent.

The proposal to change the reporting lines for the Ports Group was a recommendation from Councillor Rob Vinsen. Council’s Chief Executive recommends that the Ports portfolio remains with WDCHL. For completeness, the Chairperson of WDCHL should also chair the Port Revitalisation Governance Group. The Chief Executive will remain as a stakeholder on the Governance Group.

Council to make a decision at deliberations

013 John Carson Walkways

I would like either the Alexa Place walkway or the walkway along Christies Hill improved so that cyclists can have better access to St Johns Hill. Christies Hill because of its narrow carriageway is dangerous to cycle up and cyclists are forced to detour a considerable distance to Victoria Ave and Great North Road.

After recent consultation with the community, the Council voted to keep the Alexa Place, Smart Terrace and Burnett Terrace walkways open. The Alexa walkway will be repaired and opened in due course, Burnett Terrace will be cleared, and a new fence will be installed at the top of Smart Terrace. With regard to Alexa Place but there are no plans to alter it in any way in terms of gradient etc. The walkways are primarily for walkers. While we realise that some people do bike along these walkways, there are safer options for people to use such as the shared pathway up Great North Road. On a bike this is a short distance to travel. No further action required

057 Mike CarsonWanganui Volunteer Coastguard Wharf St boat ramp

Submission regarding 24 / 7 use of Wharf Street boat ramp for emergency operations for Coastguard. Currently there are issues with there not being enough water to launch the rescue vessel around low tide. A short and long term plan is required to allow 24 / 7 operation of the coastguard unit.

During the week commencing 7 May 2018 Council are trialling a cutter suction dredge. Should this prove successful, long term dredging in this manner may form part of the Port Revitalisation Business Case to be presented to Central Government in the coming months.

022 Marion Sanson Living Wage Whanganui CorporateWe ask WDC to take a bold step; make a commitment to the LW; and even better, to find a way to do it early on in the term of this Long-Term Plan.

Recent figures released to Living Wage Whanganui in January 2018 below $20.20. The cost to bringing Council staff up to the Living wage of $20.20 would be approximately $143,687.80 Matter referred to the CE

FINANCE & CORPORATE

50

033Graham Adams/Sharron Callaghan Grey Power Corporate

These are projected to increase by an average of 3.12% a year for the five years to 2022/23. A few years ago we argued for a nil increase and nearly suceeded. Current economic conditions now are very similar to what they were then and we wonder why it is that increases of the magnitude proposed are budgeted for.

All expenditure lines within the LTP (except finance costs) are required to be inflated, Council uses the Local Government Cost Index for this. However actual salary increases are negoiated with Unions and for recent years have been kept within CPI movements. In addition the LTP budget also includes additional staff costs, e.g. Sarjeant Gallery transition staff, Waste Water Treatment Plant, Welcoming Communities (externally funded). No further action required

083 Stewart Gray Corporate

A base minimum wage for all Council workers that accords to the hourly rate so designated by Living Wage Aotearoa can easily be implemented…Work toward a requirement that all Council contractors include as part of the tender process a wage component that recognises the Living Wage concept

The cost to bringing Council staff up to the Living wage of $20.20 would be approximately $143,687.80. The cost to Contractors to bring their own staff up to the living wage is unknown and would lay with the Contractor to decide if this was able to be achieved and economically viable. Matter referred to the CE

052Harry Matthews/Tim Matthews Federated Farmers Financial

The Federation also advocates for the use of the UAGC at its maximum 30% of total rates revenue, as a fair way of paying for services that benefit all equally. We do not support use of fixed charges per SUIP, as farmers end up paying multiple times for the same service.

Our current UAGC is around 26%. Generally speaking, increasing the UAGC places a higher burden on lower value properties.SUIPs are designed to capture the likes of apartments, multi unit flats and or if there are multiple dwellings on a single property that are capable of habitation. Any change to our current approach would have a wider impact on a number of residential properties also. No further action required

052Harry Matthews/Tim Matthews Federated Farmers Financial

We note that under the existing policies, only rating units used solely for residential purposes are eligible for rates remission or postponement on the grounds of financial hardship. This effectively excludes farming ratepayers from access to rates remission or postponement, even though they may be in severe financial hardship and are resident on the property. We note that the ratepayer applying must also not own any other rating units; farms are often in multiple titles, for various historical reasons and it is unclear whether this criterion would also be a barrier to farmers wishing to apply for rates relief under these policies. We acknowledge that there is provision for rates remission for properties affected by natural calamity: presumably this is applicable to farmers, although it is not entirely clear.

The policy is designed to assist residential ratepayers. Farming properties are often able to claim tax benefits and GST that residential properties cannot, and assessment of financial hardship is much harder to ascertain. For natural calamity, no properties are excluded and therefore all ratepayers are eligible to apply. No further action required

088 Marianne Archibald Chamber of Commerce Financial

We note that commercial ratepayers continue to pay more than farming foranimal control. This seems incongruent and we consider that commercial ratepayer should be looking at an even lower percentage than you propose. Similar to farming ratepayers who pay nothing for footpaths and berms (even though they use them when they come to town), commercial ratepayers should be looking at close to 0% for this activity, with farming staying at around the original rate.

The standard general rate percentage split that is proposed is based on the number of properties in each sector. This change has dropped the commercial share from $165k (incl GST) last year to $38k (incl GST). Rates are not a payment for service. No further action required

089 Craig Thiele Tasman Tanning Financial

Tasman Tanning submits that’s the fixed rate capital charge being a rate per property is no longer applicable to the Tod Street site.There has been major reduction to the Tod St activity, this plant is no longer a processing facility and the activity has been reduced to packing and storage only. Tod St is now well below the threshold 100m3 per day discharge, ( discharge is now around 50m3 per month), by definition is no longer a major trade waste user and not subject to the targeted rates.The rate has been set based on historic data, however this no longer represents the status of the Tod St plant, we submit that the capital fixed rate charge and the operating charges should be reviewed and removed completely to reflect the cessation of the Tod St plant processing activity. We object to the fixed rate charge for a property/site which is no longer contributing to trade waste.

We are discussing the impact of these recent processing changes at Tod Street and Heads Road with Tasman Tanning. This will need to occur to set trade waste discharge permit limits for the upcoming year for the site(s), as well as to set the trade waste rates. If Tod Street no longer meets the 100m3/day threshold, the targeted rates for capital and fixed operating costs will be removed from that site. However we will need to consider the extent to which the Heads Road site's trade waste discharges will increase with the transfer of processing to that site, and any impact on the capital and fixed operating targeted rates for that site. Refer to Council meeting 12 June

51

089 Craig Thiele Tasman Tanning Financial

Tasman Tanning submit that the proposed trade waste charges specific to Tasman are notconsidered affordable. Affordability is a key principle for the commitment of industry to WWTP and trade waste charges.Tasman Tanning has invested and continues to invest heavily in improved processing and clean technologies, these costs are in addition to the proposed trade waste charges, and no cost benefit or trade waste charge reduction has resulted from this investment. Tasman Tanning should not be made to pay twice, by treating it effluent prior to discharge to atreatment plant.We also have concern with the fixed nature of the charges, such a small proportion of variable charges leaves little incentive for future improvement in trade waste quality or reduced loadings.

Council has moved to a marginal cost model for both capital and operating costs which is beneficial to trade waste businesses. Council is also applying the expected proceeds of the sale of forestry and carbon credits to the Wastewater activity which also benefits trade waste businesses.

Tasman Tanning's benefit from its investment in pre-treatment (primarily to reduce Chromium) has already been factored into the proposed trade waste fees and charges. We have assumed that the dried solids from the treatment process will be disposed of to the settling pond until its capacity is reached, and thereafter we anticipate spreading the biosolids to local land. Metal content must be controlled to ensure that this is possible. If metal content is too high, the dried solids will need to be disposed of to landfill which will increase Council's costs by approximately $500k per year, also increasing Tasman Tanning's trade waste charges.

Council has had to balance conflicting requirements in proposing its funding approach. Trade waste users have raised significant issues with the previous trade waste model reallocating mostly fixed costs between users based on the prior years loads which caused reshuffling of costs and in some instances an increase in costs for one user with the same or lower discharge, because another user reduced their loads more. We have sought to address this issue by linking fixed costs to a fixed parameter (e.g. permit limits), and variable costs to a variable parameter (actual loads discharged). This will reduce the reallocation of costs between users and stabilise the unit prices. No further action required

103 Troy Lambly AFFCO Imlay/Land Meat NZ Financial

Affordability –any funding model must be both reasonable and affordable for users and supportive of ongoing business in Whanganui. To date we have expressed strong concern that the indicative models, even amended as they are, do not provide commercial and viable options for trade waste users. They risk imposing high comparative costs on users which will see Whanganui lose business to alternative regions and /or suffer a gradual loss of competiveness with the loss of business. This affordability principle has been a priority for the Waste Water Advisory group yet remains our largest issue today unfortunately. Indicative costs to date remain just that, uncommercial and unaffordable.

Council has moved to a marginal cost model for both capital and operating costs which is beneficial to trade waste businesses. In addition Council is also applying the proceeds of the sale of forestry to the Wastewater activity to make the new waste water treatment plant more affordable for all users. No further action required

103 Troy Lambly AFFCO Imlay/Land Meat NZ Financial

Certainty – Consultation has covered a variety of trade waste charging models in recent years. Whist we remain hopeful that we can reach an agreement that provides surety and confidence for trade waste users we cannot accept a model that will be open to constant change. The indicative regime remains open ended and subject to considerable change in the future. No business can plan or invest based on such large costs lines varying wildly from period to period. This will discourage existing users to invest and warn off potential new entrants from the region. The regime must allow users to enter long term contractual arrangements with WDC that “fix” their trade waste costs (i.e. fixed rates, on variable volumes/loadings)We have engaged directly with WDC regarding clarification of proposed capital and operational charges ion the regime and the level of certainty on offer to attempt a position that would provide both affordability and Certainty for AFFCO. We are not at that point. The Long Term plan document doesn’t provide adequate detail for any user or potential to form a view, on certainty or affordability.

Council has iteratively developed its new trade waste charging model over a number of years, taking into account concerns raised with the previous model by trade waste users and often conflicting objectives e.g. certainty and variability. The proposed model addresses many of the concerns that trade waste users have raised during discussions over this period. The plant is yet to be operational, and while significant modelling has been undertaken to ascertain operating costs these are still forecasts. Council cannot bind future Councils by locking into a contractual agreement to fix unit pricing. Council has discussed with trade waste users that it will work to document the funding principles contained in the LTP in more detail.

Refer funding principles document to Committee

090 Youth Committee Community gardens

An idea that emerged through our discussion was the creation of community gardens. We thought it would be ideal if these were to be located in the middle of Whanganui or in an area that many citizens would be able to access. Additionally, we would like to see a greater encouragement of environmental education within schools. It was discussed that these gardens could contain fruit and vegetables for anyone to take within the community.

The key to the success of community gardens seems to be to have the right person driving them. This can take quite a bit of work, and is generally a volunteer within the community. While WDC have planted fruit trees etc in various parks potentially for use by the community that surround them, a it appears that a key factor in them not necessarily establishing is having a group that is prepared to do the extra maintenance required, perhaps educate community members as to what is required and take an ownership. Efforts to establish fruit trees in some parks have not been that successful to date. It would be worthwhile having a discussion with groups such as the Community Fruit Harvest group to see if they are prepared to help in this way.

Property to discuss with Community Fruit Harvest group

061 Roger Shand Environment

That a high level geomorphological assessment be carried out for Whanganui City and environment. Such assessments provide the basis for investigations in many areas relevant to local body activities including engineering, hydrology and drainage, planning, hazard and ecological studies, and environmental and asset management. The cost, scope and potential use of such an assessment is currently unknown.

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL

52

012 Jane BilderbackWhanganui Advocacy and Support Trust Library hub

Whanganui Advocacy and Support Trust a non-profit organisation, would like to put in asubmission to be considered for the Library Hub in the Whanganui East Community. Our facility is about making access to resources easy, we are planning to get people ‘work ready’ which includes enabling them to access learning through books, absorbing information to improve their capability, future and to strengthen themselves.Our Trust is connected to an early childhood education centre so the placement of the Library Hub will make books a normal part of these children’s lives hopefully flowing through their family and encouraging members of their household that may have literacy difficulties – creating more people reading, reading more.In late 2018 our centre will be open five days a week from 9am -4pm giving people a wide range of times and days to access the Library Hub at their convenience

A formal "Expressions of Interest" for hosting library HUBs will be opened in July/August 2018. The EOI will ensure a transparent and fair process for appointment is established, minimum operating/service specifications are outlined and all interested community stakeholders have an equitable opportunity to present their venue as a viable hub.

Refer to EOI for hosting library hubs

030 Bill Fleury Library hub

Re the library hubs. I suggest that a good business case be developed using data from the usage of existing mobile and distributed services and analysis of key customer requirements. If the critical demand is for free WiFi rather than access to hard copy books then partnerships with schools might be a better model.

The library is committed to facilitating literacy. Hubs are not just designed to deliver free wifi to participants, it is an offshoot of ensuring communication to the library system is maintained within expected operability.The business case for library hubs are effectively co-written by those community partners who seek to host them via the "Expressions of Interest” process. The library believes that communities most in need of an expanded library service will indicate that need themselves backed up business data regularly reviewed and collected by the library. The library’s ability to adapt its service delivery (via the Mobile service) means that school based hubs may still be developed outside of the Hub/EOI rather than be limited to it.The mobile and hubs complement each other rather than compete with each other – reviews and logistics for mobile services will be adapted post-award of the hub EOI. No further action required

068 Rod Trott Step Up Durie Hill Library hub

A thriving community centre. Initial very cooperative consultation has been held with Anglican Church Authorities on the future of St Barnabas Church complex. This needs to involve interested individuals, businesses, Council library now to see whether a significant community hub can be developed in this now disused church building of sound structure. The building could become a fine community hub for a wide range of activities. Initial discussions have been held with Council Library to see what opportunities existed at present.

A formal "Expressions of Interest" for hosting library HUBs will be opened in July/August. The EOI will ensure a transparent and fair process is established, minimum operating/service specifications are outlined and all interested community stakeholders have the opportunity to present their venue as a viable hub. Refer to EOI for hosting library

hubs

LATE 116 Jamie Waugh Policy change

What I propose is that the Council obtains a legal opinion from a leading Local Government Lawyer, in conjunction with a Construction/ Building Legal Expert within the same firm.The opinion would ask the experts to assess any risks associated with the proposed change to policy - that is allowing a more liberal interpretation of ANARP, that takes into account the uniquepracticalities of the Whanganui economy/ environment and also to advise on the process toimplement this policy change in practical terms for the Building team.I am happy to be involved with Mr Goldsbury at the Council, and other members of the town Center Rejuvenation Steering Group to obtain the required opinion - I understand funding is available inexisting budgets to take this step. From there, support at a governance level would be required toensure the policy is implemented and followed by Council Officers.

There are a range of other similar levers that could be pulled by the Council to allow usual market factors and an engaged community to achieve Whanganui's leading

Mr Waugh’s submission asks the Council to initiate a project to examine how a Building Act phrase (as near as is reasonably practicable – “ANARP”) should be interpreted in the particular circumstances of Whanganui buildings. The core of any such project would involve legal interpretation but other building related disciplines could also be involved.

If the Council is minded to support Mr Waugh’s request the project would need to be “scoped” and resourced.

Refer to Committee

53

086 Marie McKayWhanganui Community Arts Council Trust Property Plan

1. The proposed Property Portfolio Investment Plan - The trustees would like to point out that thedecision-making principles (Page 11) outlined do not include any consideration of cultural wellbeing- either for Mana Whenua or for the many cultural activities and practices that are undertakenthroughout the community. Therefore the decision making principles are at odds with therelationship principles outlined in the following paragraph (page 12). These should be aligned if therelationship principles are to be successfully followed. They are also concerned that economic andsocial value are not adequately defined within this policy - so these criteria cannot be objectivelyapplied to investment management and will always be subject to the perpective of those working inthe Property Group. The Arts Centre has a long-term lease on Council-owned land and is concernedthat, should the property be considered for divestment, this policy does not allow the Trust to begiven first right to purchase the land - and, in fact, that land could be sold to a third party. It's hardto have confidence that the Property Group of Council will operate a fair and transparentdivestment process when, as current leaseholders, the Arts Centre Trust has not even been advisedthat these proposed changes to the investment and divestment policies are being consulted on. Asthe Chair of the Whanganui Community Arts Centre Trust, I haven't found the Property Group easyor even ethical to deal with. We had serious issues when we last came to renew our perpetual leasein 2015 and the Property Group tried to change the conditions of the lease even though this wasnot permitted under the terms of that lease. In addition, the Whanganui Community Arts CentreTrust has asked multiple times to be able to freehold the land it leases because the commerciallease we pay is crippling and we want to be able to be financially sustainable and provide moreservices to the community. The trustees have not even been granted the courtesy of being provided with an outline of the process we need to go through despite being promised this at meetings withthe Property Group and with the Mayor. We would love the opportunity to be able to freehold theland that we lease and believe we can provide significant benefits to the community by doing so.

Leighton and Elana Macdonald-Rose met with Marie MacKay directly after her verbal submission to Council. LT & EM advised that the draft Plan had been put together following an extensive consultation process with Iwi which stretched over a number of years. With regards to the Community Arts Centre ground lease, LT & EM advised that this property does not feature on Council’s proposed divestment list, nor is it likely that this will be considered for sale in the short to medium term. If this Property was to be considered for sale in the future, Council would consult with the Community Arts Centre as the Lessee, and also follow the Decision Tree Matrix engagement process as outlined within the draft Plan. No further action required

086 Marie McKayWhanganui Community Arts Council Trust Regional Facilities

2. Regional Facilities Fund - The Trust would like the Council to consider a local facilities fund tosupport the many local organisations that provide services to the community rather than theproposed regional facilities fund.

The Community Contracts Grants supports local charitable organisations that provide services to the community. No further action required

011 Moari Bailey Dog pound

This submission is against spending 1M of rate payers funds on a dog pound on land that does not belong to the council, this land should not be allocated to any development as it is part of a land claim settlement soon to negotiated. It is irresponsible spend for ratepayers, particularly when there are plenty of more pressing issues and council is being presumptuous in making these plans without ,making direct contact and engaging in proper consultation with local iwi.

At the 13 February 2018 Council meeting, Council resolved to approve the Airport Road location and approve proceeding to tender close, subject to Council approving the tender award.

Iwi has been consulted at the regular meeting between Council and Te Runanga o Tupoho at its November 2017 meeting. Further, in information discussionswith Mr HoneTamehana, a full explanation of the rationale of the proposalwas provided to him. In the final outcome this is an operational matterexecuted for the benefit of the whole community. No further action required

104 Hone Tamehana Dog poundIwi engagement and the location of the dog pound. See additional 50 submissions not supporting dog pound location, and supporting upgrade of Wikitoria culvert.

Iwi engagement has been undertaken. It is a matter a record that Mr Tamehana supported the proposal. This is an operational matter.

We are expecting the results of the application for NZTA funding to upgrade the Wikitoria culvert to be available in September 2018.

Refer to Committee if NZTA application unsuccessful

008 Alex Drover Dog poundDon't expand the pound, pass a bylaw then put the dogs to sleep or at least neuter/spey otherwise you are perpetuating or facilitating the dog problem.

At the 13 February 2018 Council meeting, Council resolved to approve the Airport Road location and approve proceeding to tender close, subject to Council approving the tender award. No further action required

018 Gordon Dryden Dog pound

Dog Pound: it’s essential that animal welfare regulations are met, so I support the Council’s initiative. Has the Council considered a partnership with the SPCA, particularly regarding the rehoming (Pound Pooch) program? This might reduce running costs of the pound.

At the 13 February 2018 Council meeting, Council resolved to approve the Airport Road location and approve proceeding to tender close, subject to Council approving the tender award. Yes Council has considered a partnership with SPCA. No further action required

034 Nobby Bullock Dog pound

Land and buildings next to existing dog pound owned by Mr Spencer (Wanganui Drainage). I understand that Spencer is retiring and selling assets. With the existing site and Spencers and with minor improvements I believe this to be a better option than at the Airport Road. Has the Council spoken to Spencer?

Council made inquiries with the owner of the land which neighbours the existing dog pound. The initial sale price indicated by the neighbour was considered high. It should also be noted that any land purchase price would be added to the total project cost of a redeveloped Dog Pound, be it on the existing site or a greenfields site. No further action required

093 Rod Trott Blue Water Project Port

The key point that needs to be made for planning purposes is this.The recreational use of the port should be a priority in planning. Whanganui needs to provide experiences for people. Getting public access to the port area and public use as visitors /tourists provides immediate benefit for Whanganui at minimal costs. It will also provide a flow on effect to other uses as it is already doing. Recreational use of the Port forms part of the Port Revitalisation Project.


PROJECTS

54

010 Donna Mummery Recycling

Whanganui ought to do the rubbish collection itself. It is duplicating effort to have two collectors of rubbish - each going down the same street as the other. They are obviously making a profit. The Council could offer the same service and it might even be cheaper as no profit would be charged. It would also keep the funds circulating in Whanganui rather than being taken out of Whanganui and out of New Zealand as these are overseas owned companies currently collecting the rubbish.

Council has considered whether it should offer a full rates funded kerbside rubbish collection service and at this stage has agreed to look at those kerbside collection services where the market is failing i.e.1. User pays rubbish bag collection service, and2. Rate funded recycling collection service

This is not to preclude a possible Council foray into collection of other waste receptacles from the kerbside by way of rate funded service. Whilst this may end up saving some users money in collection costs, others may pay more and we also know a good many ratepayers are not the direct user of the service.

Council is also mindful that a fully rate funded kerbside collection service would increase rates by 6 to 8 % which would require greater engagement and consultation before ever being considered seriously. Furthermore the type of service Council could let by way of contract would struggle to meet the variable services (bin sizes) the market providers currently provide. In saying this Council is considering all its options.

Refer to Waste Minimisation Working Party

Recycling

Has the current provider of weekly rubbish collection actually confirmed their intention to withdraw the service? If not, will the council be operating in competition with the current provider?What infrastructure will be needed to set up this proposed service? Will the unit be set up as a section within council or as a CCO, beyond the overview of ratepayers?

With regards to the service of user pays rubbish bag collection services Council is looking at, of the two current providers one has exited and the other is partially withdrawing and looking to withdraw totally. If Council was to enter this space it would simply let a contract for the service with the successful service provider being funded solely through sale of rubbish bags and /or stickers.

No further action required at this time

048 Carlotta Penton Recycling

I would like to see the use of environmentally friendly , recyclable plastic, or strong paper bags for use with unrecyclable rubbish. This must be in conjunction with containers for recyclable rubbish, if necessary. It is very important to keep our recycling Centre going. To that end, a monthly well advertised kerbside collection should be in use as well. Question: are those bins made from recyclable material as well?

Identified issues could be progressed through the Waste Minimisation Working Party. Council is currently investigating the provision of a rate funded kerbside recycling service with a community survey about to be undertaken mid 2018.


056 Jock Lee Recycling

The cost estimates for kerbside recycling appear excessive when compared to other urban schemes. In any event, an economic system should be explored which could involve a community based organisation as the principal operator. It should not be assumed that a rates based scheme is the only option.

The estimates for a rates funded kerbside recycling services have been recently updated and reported to Council. These are based on other TA's experience and estimated to be around $60 -$70 per urban household. Any Council contract will have to be competitively tendered for where community organisations such as the likes of the Whanganui Resource Recovery Centre Trust, may contest. In terms of funding there is only two forms of service funding available - 1. targeted rates funded, and 2. user pays. There are pro's and con's with both funding systems which Council will need to consider in its future decision making on this issue. However at the end of the day, the service needs to be professional, meet relevant industry standards, health and safety requirements and deliver the service the community desire and are wiling to pay for.


91 Jenny SaywoodWhanganui Restorative Practices Trust Restorative Practices

the words “Towards a Restorative City” be added to− the city signage welcoming people to Whanganui (as previously); and− any promotional material produced by the Council.● two District Councillors are nominated to our Advisory Group, which meetsthree times a year.

The Restorative City wording was removed from the Welcome Signs when the signs were rebranded with the new "All You Need and Then Some" branding as it was felt the brand needed to stand on its own. It is recommended that Whanganui Restorative Practices Trust, Whanganui District Council and Whanganui and Partners meet for a wider branding discussion to determine when and where it is appropriate to use the "Towards a Restorative City" branding on Council promotional material.

049 Leigh GrantRegional Velodrome Development Trust Velodrome

We ask that WDC continue to support the Velodrome Development Project and that the $1million contribution is included in the LTP.

Request noted and supported by Council Officers. The $1M was budgeted in the 2017/18 Annaul Plan (not the LTP) and will form part of Council's carry-over process in August/Sept 2018.

Late Peter Horsley Community

Include a provision in the Long Term Plan to establish a community based working group supported by Council officers who will be tasked to prepare a tree planting strategy and action plan, aimed at supporting and co-ordinating tree planting activities in the District.

Preparing a Tree Planting Plan was one of the actions that came out of the Tree Strategy.This document has now been completed. No further action required

065 Desmond WarahiCastlecliff Community Charitable Trust Community

The Trust suggests that any potential economic development and job growth be supported by a plan to improve the health and well-being of the Castlecliff community by ensuring easy access to affordable primary health care services within Castlcliff. The Trust recommends that a health impact assessment is undertaken to establish the potential improvements in access to primary care to match the economic development and job growth. Noted and can be referred to Whangnaui and Partners.

Refer to Whanganaui and Partners

ENVIRONMENT

55

077Healthy Families Whanganui Rangitikei Ruapehu Drinking fountains

At the February 2018 SLG meeting, the group members, including Mayor Hamish McDouall, created a bold goal that this district becomes known as the ‘pro-(drinking)-water capital of Aotearoa NZ’, and there is extremely strong support around the table for increasing the number of settings and environments that ensure water is the easiest choice of drink.• Improve access to affordable healthy food and beverage choices by increasing healthy food andbeverage options through food vendor contracts that operate at sports grounds and markets andevents• Installing more water fountains in parks and sports grounds of high use• Make available council commercial kitchens for community cooking and nutrition literacypurposes to empower the community to make informed choices about their nutrition.• Supporting community gardens, edible landscapes and utilisation of berm gardening;• Consider the location of food outlets, markets, supermarkets and land for food growing indevelopment plans.As part of the long term plan, Healthy Families Whanganui Rangitīkei Ruapehu also stronglyencourages Whanganui District Council to further invest in the health of our population andconsider;• a ‘health in all policies’ approach to guarantee health implications are considered as part ofstatutory decision-making processes,• designing in partnership with the Healthy Families Whanganui Rangitīkei Ruapehu StrategicLeadership Group a pro-water strategy, that links with existing water supply aspects of theinfrastructure strategy and includes allocated funding for drinking water fountains (installation andongoing maintenance),• phasing in a comprehensive healthy food and beverage policy in line with national guidelines(notable support for this shown in the recent on-line community poll).

Over the last two years, a number of drinking fountains have been installed - Mowhanau Beach, Tregenna Street fishing platform, Springvale Park, Women's Rest, Wembley Park. There are two more ready for installation at Majestic Square and Ridgeway Street Park. Another drinking fountain was installed as part of the community bike park development.$10,000 has been allowed for in the first year of the LTP for purchasing more drinking fountains.Parks will look to include drinking fountains as part of Total Project costs, where possible particularly as part of projects including playground developments and new toilet block facilities.

066 Paula GoudieCommunity Fruit Harvest Whanganui Edible gardens

As a founder of Community Fruit Harvest Whanganui and a supporter of Community Fruit Harvest and Healthy Families-Te Oranganui I wish to echo the words of Annette Main in the encouragement for Council to reinstate the edible gardens as public plantings in our community spaces.

The periodic inclusion of edible plants in the roundabouts and street gardens is something that we are likely to repeat, but not every year. We try to appeal to different aesthetic tastes, so vary the plantings each year. In addition, we have a number of parks that have fruit trees planted on them. As these trees require more regular maintenance, we would welcome input from your group to help get communities looking after the plantings that we have so that they get the maintenance they require.

069Felicity Temple and Annette Main Edible gardens

We would love the council to reinstate the edible gardens which were a feature of public plantings previously. We loved this initiative of the council team responsible for the plantings, and encourage council to use the gardens as a means of providing fresh, nutritious edible plants in our public gardens and use your communications team to use social media to highlight where they are and when they are ready to eat to our community. We encourage the planting of more fruit and nut trees in our public spaces as not only do they provide free healthy alternatives for families but encourage social activity at harvest time.

The periodic inclusion of edible plants in the roundabouts and street gardens is something that we are likely to repeat, but not every year. We try to appeal to different aesthetic tastes, so vary the plantings each year.


020Graham and Lyn Pearson Environmental

For many years we have found attending the NZ Coastal Restoration Trust(NZCRT) conferences of great value. We suggest therefore that the WDC andHorizons jointly offer support to NZCRT to hold their 2019 conference inWhanganui. Officers would support this

020Graham and Lyn Pearson Karaka Stream

We request WDC to support the Karaka Stream restoration plan, developed through cooperation with DOC, Museum staff, a native fish expert and community members, plus prevent the Port Bowen reserve turning into a weed infested area.

We continue to perform functions as mutually agreed to by the Karaka Wetland Enhancement Plan of November 2016, as part of the working group. No further action required

004 Peter Healey Heritage

I am deeply concerned at the difficulties experienced by developers wishing to convert heritage buildings to new uses eg residential or commercial. The council employees appear to hamper efforts at every turn and make this process more expensive and time consuming than it should be thereby creating a disincentive for anyone contemplating such a project.

The change of use provisions in the Building Act 2004 are one of the mechanisms used to gradually upgrade existing buildings to current standards. These provisions also ensure a building is appropriate for its proposed use and any consented building work made during a change of use meets current Building Code requirements and does not reduce Building Code compliance for the rest of the building. Council officers are bound by the requirements of both the Building Act and the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 when dealing with possible change of use. Council officers readily attend on site meetings with building owners to discuss the site specific requirements for that particular building and offer advice in line with the relevant legislation and in relation to costs vs benefits assessments. No further action required

006 Albert Barron Heritage

We as ratepayers are expected to contribute to the saving of privately owned heritage buildings. This is private property and not ratepayers responsibility. Instead I would support all efforts to retain our 2-steel, heritage bridges, spend the money on maintenance, paint both Industrial RED. This would complement both the river & the city.

Heritage buildings offer significant public benefits, not only social and wellbeing but most principally their contribution to the tourism economy. No further action required

HERITAGE BUILDINGS

56

046 Trevor Goodwin

Whanganui Earthquake-Prone Building Community Taskforce Heritage

Heritage Incentive Funding – The Taskforce applauds the WDC for this initiative and would like to see the funding increased as built heritage is extremely valuable to Whanganui, both culturally and economically.Verandas as Safe Zones – It has been acknowledged that one of the significant dangers for the public during earthquakes is material falling from the frontages of unreinforced masonry buildings. To this end we have been exploring the opportunity to develop verandas that are strong enough to provide protection to pedestrians and building customers. The Taskforce has now received a presentation from two PhD students who are part of Jason Ingham’s Auckland University School of Engineering updating us on the work that they have been carrying out. These people would ideally like to further this concept and have already identified building owners in Whanganui who would like to be involved in the project. The Taskforce requests that $20,000 be made available to assist with this project as well as other initiatives.

Officers support the principle It furthers Leading Edge innovation, local heritage policy and Town Centre Regeneration Strategy. $20k could be used for detailed design and costings for veranda upgrade/replacement, a benefit to heritage building owners. Council's planning and building departments assist building owners with advice and regulatory processes for veranda upgrade/replacement.

95 Alison Dangerfield Heritage New Zealand Heritage

That Council is aware that archaeological authorities may be required for certain projects outlined in the draft LTP so that any costs and time associated with this are anticipated and understood at an early stage, and included in project budgets. Noted. No further action required

067 Nicola Patrick Economic Development

I'm interested in seeing continued commitment from the council to growing social enterprise within its economic development strategy, given the wider range of sustainable benefits that flow from this approach to business.

This year's SOI has quite a tight focus, in part due to the opportunities brought about by the Provincial Growth Fund. W&P will be looking more closely at social enterprise as an opportunity in 2019. Refer to Committee in 2019

102 Annette Main Economic Development

Have you conveyed your expectations for growth in spend from tourism to Whanganui and Partners for inclusion in their SOI? And, are you clear what the $2.8m you intend to provide to them for economic development will be spent on, and what will be the measures for success? And, are you clear about what was delivered last year for the $2.7m allocated? As we are unable to find this information anywhere.

W&P report July to June. We will report against the 2017/2018 SOI in early July. All Strategic Leads are collecting data as they work on their projects. The SOI for 2018/2019 has clear expectations and measures and we will use qualitative and quantitative data to report on this. Public forum and presentations to council will also clarify how money is being spent.

Refer to Committee. Also public forums.

99 Paige's Book Gallery Economic Development

Whilst we realise it is a costly exercise to continue with the Intelligent Communities process, we would like to suggest that a Think Tank of some kind be formed to keep the Intelligent Community reputation humming. The fact that our community is so highly creative, and that many intelligent people in diverse fields are living here, bodes well for our collective community intelligence. Maybe Whanganui and Partners could develop the concept further?

The W&P Board and WDC have set W&P goals for the next financial year. A Think Tank was not identified in this SOI as a project. W&P is looking at digital capability as part of the bigger picture for all project areas rather than as a discrete entity. If there are people in Whanganui who are passionate about driving this project we would be willing to look at how we could support it.

LATE 118 Beryl Miller Tupoho Funding $15,000 to develop a proactive hapu development plan

Tupoho want to remove this submission: as Ken Mair presented a higher level statement about Council/iwi/central government needing to work on a tripartite agreement to fund the delivery of services to the deprived sector of the community as a whole to address the negative socio-economic issues.

Remove submission at Tupoho request

LATE 120 Beryl Miller Whakawhanake Funding $10,000 to support Waitangi Day celebrations

The delivery of the Waitangi Day celebrations are of regional and national importance – on this basis it should be provided for in Council’s annual budget. Whakawhanake – under the aegis of Tupoho – are seeking to engage community wide involvement in the celebrations. At the moment that is not the case: and this is due to a lack of partnership that a contribution by Council will address by providing a basis for the partnership going forward.

Council to approve/decline funding request

LATE 121 Soraya Peke WMRTO Funding

The WMRTO is seeking support over next ten years in building capability andcapacity of Maori Tourism on Awa o WhanganuiAnd the Whanganui District. We would like to work with council to identify andexplore collaborative opportunities and or partnerships.

Council officers are currently working with WMRTO to develop a strategic plan for the next 10 years. More details will be available for the next Annual Plan. Then it will be clear what it support and resources are required aligned to the plan that Council may contribute. At present its only project is Puanga. Puanga is currently in the budget at $8000 per year. It is a minimal amount for such a project. Consideration is to be given for an increase of this amount to $15000 to account for more coordination. This was not specifically requested, but has been part of the discussions with officers leading up to the submission.


LATE 117 Ngakuira Osborne Tamaupoko Charitable Trust Funding $10,000 requested to contribute to a Community Hub located at the Resource recovery Centre

The Trust seeks to deliver community support and development services to all Maori in the community. Its constituency is led by members of Tamaupoko, originally from the upper Whanganui River, but whose population lives in the city. For this reason the Trust has established itself in Maria Place Extension, in a building at the Waste Recycling Centre. Horizons has already committed $10000 to render the building fit for purpose: in principle, it would be appropriate for Council to match that amount as a partner to iwi in this project. The organisation is already emerging as an important relationship for Council.


NEW FUNDING REQUESTS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

57

Geoffrey Hipango Te Ao Hau Marae Funding$10,000 to fund the production of a marae development plan for the Aramoho community on a marae basis

The importance of this submission is that the Marae is currently delivering a marae based set of programmes to benefit the community as a whole. Resource is required to assist the Marae to upgrade its facilities and mechanisms to continue to effectively deliver services: marae accommodation to world travellers; promoting the iwi narrative; working with Council’s to establish a riverside landing; education, training and employment. At present these services are being delivered but require extra resource to secure these in a strategic Marae/Community Development Plan to inform stakeholders, including Council about what can be done in District Planning to address infrastructure needs.


046 Trevor Goodwin

Whanganui Earthquake-Prone Building Community Taskforce Funding

Heritage Incentive Funding – The Taskforce applauds the WDC for this initiative and would like to see the funding increased as built heritage is extremely valuable to Whanganui, both culturally and economically.Verandas as Safe Zones – The Taskforce requests that $20,000 be made available to assist with this project as well as other initiatives. (See Heritage Building section above)

Officers support the principle It furthers Leading Edge innovation, local heritage policy and Town Centre Regeneration Strategy. $20k could be used for detailed design and costings for veranda upgrade/replacement, a benefit to heritage building owners. Council's planning and building departments assist building owners with advice and regulatory processes for veranda upgrade/replacement.


072 Sian MacGibbonCommunity Education Whanganui Funding

Each year we prepare applications for funding through other grants and contracts, including Whanganui Community Foundation, Lotteries, and Community Organisation Grant Scheme (COGS). However, we are but one organisation seeking to secure funding in a difficult financial climate when not only are the available funds declining, but more agencies and organisations seek financial support. For the future and continuation of our organisation in our community we ask that Council continue to provide not only ongoing support for our organisation, but also assistance with administration costs.

CES has received 15k per year over the past 3 years as line funding. Council has also paid rental for CES to be accommodated in the UCOL building up until 30 June 2018. it is now Council's decision as to whether or not additional line funding is provided or CES is encouraged to apply for funding through Council's Community Contracts fund which opens later in the year.


114 Mary-Ann EwingWhanganui Regional Heritage Trust Funding

The Whanganui Regional Heritage Trust does not want anything to detract from the heritage value of the Durie Hill Elevator and Tunnel. This is why the Whanganui Regional Heritage Trust wishes to make a submission on future funding for improvements to the Durie Hill Elevator and Tunnel Entranceway.3. Possible additional funding for this tourist attraction.• A working group will approach other interested parties to gauge their support for the proposedimprovements to the Durie Hill Elevator and Tower entranceway. These will include: All WhanganuiRotary Clubs, Lions Club, Horizons Whanganui, Four Regions Trust, Whanganui & Partners and localWhanganui iwi.• It is our estimate that the extra costing for these improvements will be in the region of $60 000.This is exclusive of any iwi costings for alterations to the entranceway.

If Council endorse this project the Property team can assist with implementation.


88 Marianne Archibald Chamber of Commerce Funding

That the Chamber is included as a key stakeholder in the economic development strategyand that Whanganui and Partners allocates $40,000 to the Chamber for a comprehensivebusiness training programme, following the receipt and acceptance of a robust businesscase.

The W&P Board and WDC have set W&P goals for the next financial year. One of these goals is to increase the breadth and depth of training opportunities in Whanganui. Applications for funding can be made using the newly created form (Strategic Lead Innovation has this pending new website).


90 Youth Committee Funding

Something the Youth Committee has been investigating for some time is the possibility of a Youth Hub. This has proven to be very challenging as at present there is no one to facilitate the planning involved. One of the key additions to the Long Term Plan the Youth Committee would like to see, is the employment of a facilitator for creating a Youth Hub.

At the 8 May Council meeting there is an item recommending the establishment of a Youth Committee - Review Working Party comprising councillors, key staff and youth councillors. The intention is to consider the structure of the committee, the purpose, funding and whether there is support for the investigation of the Youth Hub proposal.

Consider following 8 May Council meeting

112 Murray Woodhouse Proaxiom Holdings Ltd Funding

We would like to see the establishment of an ICT and Creative Hub for Whanganui. The community identified the need for this project in 2016=5 and the Innovation Quarter (IQ) idea was launched. Since then the IQ has been established but is working only as extra council office space. having a dedicated ICT and creative hub would feed innovation and help grow Whanganui's ICT sector, as well as assisting other sectors to manage the disruption that digital technology poses. Recommendations: - Council hosts a meeting/hui and invites digital leaders from within the District Council's boundaries to brainstorm the establishment of an IT and Creative Hub and that Council sets aside funding to establish the hub in this LTP. - Council fulfils its commitment to being an Intelligent Community and uses the ICF framework to assess the community's position in the changing digital world. - Council works with the community to create a clear digital strategy, based on the ICF framework, and directs its resources towards the areas of need identified by the ICF assessment process.

The W&P Board and WDC have set W&P goals for the next financial year. An ICT hub was not identified in this SOI as a project. W&P is looking at digital capability as part of the bigger picture for all project areas rather than as a discrete entity.

We are happy to offer the IQ to a working group for meetings. If any organisation wishes to see funding from W&P they are able to download a funding application form from our website. We have two – one for events and one for other projects

58

LTP Submissions on new targeted forestry rate

Please also see the Additional information for LTP 2018-2028 deliberations: Summary of community feedback

Forestry submitter comment Managers response

Proposed approach will rate a number of forest owners who do not use Council roads (e.g. access state highways directly).

Rates are a tax – they are levied to all properties or groups of properties. They are not specific to individual properties and they are not a user charge for goods or services. A targeted rate taking into account distance from state highways would be very difficult to implement as it requires identifying properties using a factor set out in Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and charging on a factor from Schedule 3. Schedule 3 of the LGRA does not allow for Council to rate based on distance. We are not aware of any other Council using this approach.

Forestry properties already contribute though current general rating system but do not benefit from services provided e.g. libraries.

Transfer general rate contribution to roading.

Have paid rates without using services for 25 years.

Rates are a tax, not a payment for service. Rates have been collected over time and applied to the activities for which they were levied. Forestry owners have had access to their properties via the roading network since the forests were planted, providing the roads comes at a cost. Forestry exotic properties have paid very low roading rates due to the low capital values of the properties. The 23,000ha of forestry exotic properties in the district paid $90,000 toward roading in 2017/18 (1% of roading rates). The low rates paid by forestry properties was appropriate during the growing period when exacerbator usage was low, however this is now changing as forests are harvested and Council’s roading costs are increasing.

Absentee owners – most forestry blocks do not have a ratepayer living on them and therefore pay the general rate and UAGC but do not use Council services. They may also live in the city and therefore pay general rate and UAGC twice.

Same applies to commercial properties in many cases. Rates are a tax, not a payment for services.

Reference D59

Tonnage peaks are unlikely due to lack of crews, equipment etc to harvest. Likely to be spread out and smoothed in reality.

Rates will be set annually based on expected costs. If harvesting smooths out, we will revise budgets and targeted rate levels accordingly.

The graph [in the Consultation Document] shows Roading expenditure over the next 10 years being $12M, yet the text says $4.8M.

$12M is the total forecast cost. We are expecting these works to attract NZTA subsidy, leaving Council’s share at $4.8M.

Why does roading expenditure increase after the peak harvest? Damages will be remedied retrospectively, so there is a lag between harvest and roading expenditure.

We currently pay much more than the $16/year quoted in the Consultation Document

$16 is the additional average cost per forestry ratepayer of funding the forestry roading impacts (estimated at $225,000 per year for years 1 – 6) via the standard roading rate.

Concern regarding the suggestion that 90% of roading cost is caused by forestry within the district

The 90% indicates the proportion of WDC’s forestry roading issue generated by forests located in our district (not the percentage of WDC’s roading budget incurred due to forestry). The other 10% is expected to occur due to forests located outside the Whanganui district but transported across our roading network. We cannot rate these properties as they are outside of our district, so this 10% will be funded by the roading rate contributed to by all WDC ratepayers.

Will the roading contribution drop in future after the peak harvest in 10 – 15 years time?

Rates are set annually based on budgeted costs for the upcoming year.

Concern regarding impact on next rotation – may cause forestry owners not to replant.

Noted.

Forests have no income for 30 years – all outgoings until harvest Noted.

How is the targeted rate justified – no link to HPMV vehicles to support? (quote/excerpt from RMA fees and charges manual)

We are proposing a targeted rate (tax), not a fee and charge (payment for goods/services). The primary reasons for the new targeted rate are:

The low capital value of forestry land in relation to otherfarming land uses which sees forestry pay a very smallcontribution toward roading via the roading rate

The changing road usage by forestry properties due to theharvest

Highest and best use is crude, not fair and equitable. Woodlots will not be rated if part of a larger pastoral/dairy farm. Larger scale forests continue to subsidise the smaller forest owners who enjoy the pastoral rates category.

Pastoral and dairy properties have a higher value per hectare so are already contributing more toward roads via the roading rate. The average capital values per hectare by farming land use are:

Forestry $2,600/ha

60

Pastoral $6,600/ha (2.5 times forestry)

Dairy $29,000/ha (11 times forestry) Note that trees are not included in a property’s capital value, and many forestry properties do not have improvements (e.g. houses, sheds) either. The land values are low as they are often located on less desirable land with few alternative uses.

Inequitable to target one rural sector (potential “discrimination on usage” argument).

Other land uses contribute more to the roading rate already due to their higher capital values as discussed above – this rate is intended in part to address this inequity.

Two properties in Wanganui’s hinterland side by side, one a forest one a sheep and beef farm will generally have the same land value and pretty much the same rates demand however the forest owner under your proposal is being asked to pay a greater share in terms of roading contribution for the road they will both use, is this fair?

On average pastoral properties have a higher capital value per hectare than forestry properties ($6,600/ha versus $2,600/ha). As a result pastoral properties are, on average, paying 2.5 times as much in their roading rate compared to a forestry property. We have discussed with our valuer the valuations of two neighbouring properties, one forestry and one pastoral. The valuer has confirmed that the pastoral property will be valued more highly because land values per hectare are higher for pastoral land compared to forestry land. Trees are not valued on forestry land, and that fact that a property is currently in forest is considered to forge the future direction of the property as reverting to other uses after a harvest requires substantial investment and in many cases is not practical nor economic. As a result the land is valued at a lower rate. Pastoral properties have more options and are valued more highly per hectare, plus pastoral properties generally have capital improvements which are included in the capital value upon which the rate is to based.

What classifies a property as a forest for the purposes of the rate? We will use the land use category assigned to each property by our valuer to identify forestry exotic properties. Valuers are required to record the land use category for each property under the rating valuation rules. The rules say that the valuer must record the category based on the highest and best use of the property, or the use for which the property would be sold given the economic conditions prevailing at the effective date of the valuation.

Carbon sink forests will not be harvested While at a point in time there may be no intention to harvest, this is no guarantee that the forest won’t be harvested in the future (e.g. if

61

the property was sold) and there is no way we can bind the owner. Rates, once remitted, cannot later be recouped should harvest occur in the future. Additionally postponing rates is also not considered a viable option for such reasons as:

Knowing when the property is harvested

Ensuring there is enough equity in the property

High administration requirements

Less predictability of revenue for Council, increasing loanfunding requirements and interest costs

Clearly limit the definition of exotic forestry to capture short rotation length, or flexibility to exempt or apply lower rate in certain situations

We do not define the forestry exotic category – this is undertaken by our valuer in line with valuation rules. For reasons outlined above both rates remission and rates postponement are not considered viable options.

Not all forests are planted entirely in exotic trees – some has part native regeneration – how will this be rated?

The property will be categorised based on the valuer’s assessment of land use. Only one land use category can be selected by the valuer for each property. If the land use is established by the valuer to be forestry exotic, the targeted rate will be applied to the capital value of the property.

Lack of foresight from Council regarding upgrade/upkeep of roads before harvest commences

Council takes a reactive approach to roading maintenance. Costs of a reactive approach versus a proactive approach are about the same, however Council carries more risk by undertaking works in advance as it may under or over scope the works, increasing the risk of an overspend.

Build a reserve of funds from peak harvest to fund repairs after peak Council rates based on its budgeted expenditure for the year. We believe this is more prudent as we may otherwise under or over collect funding for the issue.

Why does user pays not apply, when Council does for other things such as wastewater? Impacts and costs can be clearly identified.

Wastewater is funded by targeted rates (the “pan tax” and trade waste targeted rates) and trade waste fees and charges. We are proposing a targeted rate for forestry roading. Fees and charges are not able to be utilised as we need a legal mechanism to charge under and a practical way to levy the charge, and we do not have either. Fees and charges must be based on actual and reasonable costs.

62

Pay Council a stumpage fee at time of harvest (or levy per tonne) We have no legal mechanism to implement a fee per tonne/stumpage fee upon, and therefore no enforcement mechanisms to ensure data is provided to Council or to ensure payment. We understand that data is readily available by forest owners as to the harvest tonneage, but we have no mechanism to require that this data is provided to Council for charging upon.

Incentives to reduce load tonnages to smaller loads/trucks to reduce damage

This is a management approach and is more relevant to unsealed roads. The size of the loads does not change the total tonneage carried across the road pavement.

Our industry is seeking to gain approval for larger vehicles in an effort to reduce the number of logging trucks

Larger vehicles won't change the ability of road structures (bridges) to cope with greater loads and/or the form of the road does not permit longer loads, consequently 50Max limits (or greater) apply primarily due to those reasons. The 50Max permitting process is managed via NZTA.

Trucks already pay Road User Charges for road upkeep. Road User Charges are collected by Central Government and distributed by their agent (NZTA). NZTA’s funding prioritisation is outside of our control. We agree that continued lobbying of Central Government on this issue is required.

Account for economic benefits of the industry to the local economy. This is incorporated in the preferred option already - we are suggesting forestry properties fund 60% of the cost of forestry impacts on our district roads, with the other 40% to be funded by all ratepayers via the roading rate. This is in part to account for the forestry industry’s contribution to the district.

Landowner may not own trees (some have sold cutting rights) The specifics of this depend on how the agreement between the landowner and cutting rights holder is structured, which is outside of our control.

Can we work together on unsealed roads? We have the supplies and equipment to be able to undertake this work more cost effectively.

We are anticipating that we will work with foresters on unsealed roads to come up with pragmatic solutions. The costs discussed in the Consultation Document are in relation to impacts on sealed road pavements, which we propose to fund via the targeted rate. Sealed road pavement works will be undertaken by Council.

Lack of consultation The Wanganui Rural Community Board undertook significant consultation a number of years ago (circa 2011) – individual

63

community meetings were held across the district, and there was a large session at Cooks Gardens. Thereafter the issue was taken to a national level via the Road Controlling Authorities Forum special interest group on Low Volume Roads, as many districts were grappling with this issue. Membership of the group includes representatives of affected Councils, as well as the NZ Forest Owners Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Aggregate and Quarry Association of NZ and NZTA. The group commissioned BERL to report on a targeted rate mechanism for roading. This was published in late 2017. Council has sought input from a local forestry expert in working through its options for funding of the issue for the Long term Plan 2018-2028. Council has consulted with forest owners through its Long Term Plan 2018-2028 on its proposed approach to seek feedback.

Can you please provide analysis to support the numbers shown in the Consultation Document?

Yes - we can provide the Moore and Associates report “Review of wood availability and related roading implications on Whanganui District roads 2018-2047”.

64

51/37354//Gerse Street Culvert Memo

4 May 2018

To The Chief Executive of Whanganui District Council

Copy to

From Chris Anderson Tel (06) 353 1851

Subject Gerse Street Culvert Performance Job no. 51/37354/

1 Introduction

GHD has been engaged by Whanganui District Council (WDC) to investigate the performance of the

Gerse Street Culvert using the 1D/2D model of the Wanganui East catchment. The purpose of this memo

is to document the findings made to date and to make recommendations as to any further investigations

required.

1.1 Background

During the June 2015 storm event, significant flooding occurred in Whanganui East. The Whanganui

River overtopped its banks and flooded numerous properties in the vicinity of ANZAC Parade.

Additionally, significant surface flooding occurred upstream of Gerse Street Culvert. The Gerse Street

Culvert crosses the Matarawa Stream.

Directly after this event, WDC engaged an independent surveyor to capture the high water mark left by

the flood water. The results of this survey are provided in Annex A of this Memorandum and shows the

flooding extending upstream from the Gerse culvert. This map combined with anecdotal observations of

elevated water levels on the upstream side of the culvert during peak flow events has led to the

suggestion that the Gerse Street Culvert is not adequately sized.

2 Model Validation

The model was validated using the June 2015 rainfall event (rainfall from the Spriggens Park rain gauge)

and using approximated water levels in the Whanganui River based on information provided for that

event, refer to Annex B for the river level used in the modelling at the Matarawa Stream outlet. The

flooding predicted by the model has been compared to that surveyed as discussed above. Presented in

Annex C is a map that compares the model results to the observed flood levels. The results show that

the model is under predicting the flood depths in the urban area upstream of the Gerse Culvert by

approximately 200 mm. This could be due to a number of reasons as listed below:

1) The rainfall intensity in this catchment was greater than that used in the model.

2) The Gerse Street Culvert and/or urban part of the Matarawa Stream was partially blocked by

debris.

3) The private onsite soakage systems within the urban area were either inundated or are no longer

in service.

Reference E65

251/37354//Gerse Street Culvert Memo

4) The runoff parameters for the rural area used in the model are too low

These are discussed further below.

2.1 Rainfall Intensity

The rainfall used in the model is that obtained from the Spriggens Park rain gauge which is outside of

this catchment and approximately 2.4 km from the Gerse Street Culvert. It is possible that the rainfall

intensity within this catchment was higher than that recorded at the rain gauge. However, this gauge

provides the best data known to be available at the time of modelling.

2.2 Potential for Blockage

The Matarawa Stream was constructed in the model surface using the LIDAR data, which was then

smoothed to minimise any interference from overhanging trees etc. The stream is therefore modelled in a

reasonably clean and well maintained state.

It is understood that the flow in the stream may have been restricted by vegetation during the June 2015

event. This would result in the model under predicting the flood levels. However, on the upstream side of

Gerse, once the water level exceeds the stream banks the overland flow fans out over a relatively large

area, making the flow capacity of the stream bed less significant to the overall flood depth.

The survey results show a relative constant flood depth across the urban area upstream of the Gerse

Culvert of approximately 106.5 m (relative level to Whanganui Datum). This indicates that any stream

obstructions upstream of the Gerse Street Culvert had minimal impact on the overall flood depth.

It is possible that there was a partial obstruction in the Matarawa Stream further downstream and/or that

the Gerse Street Culvert was partially blocked during this event. However, GHD is unaware of any

records of such blockage and therefore it has been assumed that this was not the case.

2.3 Ineffective Private Soakage Systems

Some properties in Whanganui East are known to dispose of their stormwater runoff onsite via private

soakage systems. These are accounted for in the model. It was suggested that some of these soakage

systems could be decommissioned or that they were inundated during the June 2015 event. To

determine if this was the cause of the model discrepancy, the model was re-run with the allowance for

private soakage removed. The results showed that this added less than 50 mm to the flood depth.

From this it was ascertained that, while this may be a contributing factor, it would only affect the results

marginally. Therefore it has been assumed that the private onsite disposal systems are fully operational

in the Gerse Street Culvert analysis discussed further in this memorandum.

2.4 Increased Rural Runoff

The model was initially configured such that the rural runoff parameters equated to a runoff coefficient of

approximately 0.3. As described in Table 1 of the Compliance Document for New Zealand Building Code;

Clause E1; Surface Water, this equates to medium soakage soils with pasture or scrub cover.

This figure was initially selected based on the Stage A (Churton Creek) model validation and assessed

as suitable during the initial validation of the Stage C (Whanganui East) model. The initial validation of

the Stage C model was carried out using the data available at this time, which were lesser events than

the June 2015 event and therefore less sensitive to the effective runoff coefficient.

To determine if this was the cause of the model discrepancy, the model was rerun using an effective

rural runoff coefficient of 0.4. This figure was selected based on the fact that the Matarawa catchment is

much steeper than the Churton Creek catchment. The Compliance Document for New Zealand Building

Code; Clause E1; Surface Water states that up to 0.1 can be added to the runoff coefficient to account

66

3 51/37354//Gerse Street Culvert Memo

for steep catchments. This is the highest value that can reasonably be selected and is therefore likely to

produce conservative results in terms of the amount of runoff in the upstream rural catchment.

The results of this model run are mapped in Annex D and show an improved level of validation compared

to the validation run using the 0.3 runoff coefficient. The model is still under predicting the flood depth by

approximately 100 mm when compared to the survey results.

It should be noted that the survey recorded the high water mark where visible. This would have been

based on sediment and debris lines left after the flood water had subsided. The additional depth to the

high water mark may be a function of wave action caused by traffic travelling through the flood water.

The model does not take this into account and is why a freeboard of up to 500 mm above predicted flood

levels is recommended when setting dwelling floor levels.

2.5 Summary of Validation

A number of factors could have contributed to the discrepancy between the model results and the

surveyed high water mark. It is difficult to determine the exact cause of this after the event. To be

conservative, an effective runoff coefficient of 0.4 has been set for the model runs used in the Gerse

Street Culvert analysis discussed in this report as this produced results within what is considered an

acceptable level of validation.

3 Gerse Street Culvert – Current Performance

The validated Stage C stormwater model was used to assess the performance of the Gerse Street

Culvert. Two model runs were used to assess the performance. The first used the June 2015 rainfall

event and river levels, to show how the culvert performed during that event and to confirm if it was a

contributing factor to the flooding upstream during that event.

The second used the 1 in 200 year nested design storm event which is typically used when sizing

stormwater infrastructure for new subdivisions in Whanganui. It is understood the Horizons Regional

Council One Plan requires that dwelling floor levels are set above the 1 in 200 year flood level inclusive

of a reasonable allowance for freeboard. This is therefore effectively the required level of service for new

subdivisions. A flat 1 in 4 year river level was set as the boundary condition to be consistent with other

system performance modelling carried out by GHD.

3.1 Model Results

Presented in Annex E are maps of the extent of flooding (maximum water level) predicted by the model

for both events. The maps show that for both scenarios significant flooding occurs upstream of the Gerse

Street Culvert. The depth of the flooding indicates that the stormwater system in this catchment is

unlikely to meet the level of service requirements described in the Horizons Regional Council One Plan.

To confirm this, the dwelling floor levels of the properties showing to be flooded would need to be

confirmed / surveyed.

Tabulated below is a summary of how the Gerse Street Culvert is estimated to contribute to flooding in

these two scenarios.

67


Table 1 Performance of the Existing Gerse Street Culvert

Scenario Peak flow through culvert (m³/s)

Maximum Upstream Water Level (RL in m)

Maximum Downstream Water Level (RL in m)

Maximum increase in water depth across the culvert (m)

June 2015 Event

8.6 6.2 5.6 0.6

1 in 200 year design event.

10.7 6.6 4.6 2.0

The results show that under both scenarios the Gerse Street Culvert increases the depth of water by a

noticeable amount relative to the water level on the downstream side. However, such a difference in

water level is not always an indication that a culvert is undersized. Other factors such as the flow

capacity of the Matarawa Stream are also likely to be additional contributing factors to the upstream

flooding.

The water level in the Whanganui River was also very high in the June 2015. The June 2015 scenario

was re-run with a static 1 m river level replacing the dynamic river level used in the scenario discussed

above (where the river level peaked at approximately 5 m as shown in Annex B). The results of this

model run are provided in Annex F and show almost identical flooding to the results using the higher

dynamic river level. This shows that the water level in the Whanganui River had minimal impact to the

extent of flooding upstream of the Gerse Street Culvert.

In summary, the model results show that the Gerse Street Culvert significantly contributes to the

upstream flooding of the urban Whanganui East catchment at the flow rates that it receives under the

current configuration. As such the upstream flooding indicates that the level of service requirements of

the Horizons Regional Council One Plan are not met.

There are two strategies that could be effective in resolving this issue, one is to augment the culvert so

that it has a higher flow capacity; the second is to reduce the peak flow that reaches the culvert. These

options are discussed further below.

4 Options to Resolve Flooding

4.1 Augmentation of the Gerse Street Culvert

The model was used to assess what impact augmenting the Gerse Street Culvert would have on the

flood risk upstream in both the June 2015 and 1 in 200 year scenarios. To be conservative the

augmentation of the culvert was simulated by completely removing the culvert and creating a 6 m wide

channel into the surface. This would be similar to replacing the existing culvert with a bridge.

The resultant flood maps are provided in Annex G and the performance of the upgraded culvert is

presented below.

68


Table 2 Hydraulic Analysis with Gerse Street Culvert Removed

Scenario Maximum Upstream Water Level (RL in m)



June 2015 Event

5.6 5.5 0.1


5.3 5.1 0.2

The flood maps show that for both scenarios, augmenting the Gerse Street Culvert is effective in

reducing the extent of flooding in the urban area upstream. However, under both scenarios flooding of

private property is shown to still occur. For the 1 in 200 year event, flooding in excess of 0.5 m is shown

to occur where dwellings are situated. This indicates that even with the Gerse Street Culvert removed,

the system is unlikely to meet the level of service requirements of the Horizons Regional Council One

Plan. A survey of floor levels would be required to confirm this.

The results also show that properties on the east side of Ikitara Road near the Matarawa Stream are at

risk of flooding and the removal of the Gerse Street Culvert does little to resolve this. This is because the

dual 1500 mm culvert under Ikitara Road is insufficiently sized to cope with the peak incoming flow. If this

culvert was also augmented, it would simply allow more flow to enter the urban area which is most likely

to increase the extent of flooding predicted between the Gerse Street Culvert and Ikitara Road.

4.2 Reducing Flow Arriving at the Gerse Street Culvert

There are a number of ways to reduce peak stormwater flows, the two most common methods used are

flow buffering using a stormwater detention system (e.g. pond) or by diverting flows to another

catchment.

There is an existing diversion in place on the Matarawa Stream in the rural area upstream of the

Whanganui East urban area. This diversion limits the peak flow that can continue along the Matarawa

Stream by using a 1500 mm diameter culvert as a flow restriction. The surplus flow runs via an open

drain to the Mateongaonga Stream which then discharges into the Whanganui River near Number 42

River Bank Road.

It was suggested that decreasing the flow that enters the Whanganui East urban area by decreasing the

amount of flow passing through the 1500 mm diameter flow restriction could be a cost effective solution

to resolve the flooding issues in the urban area. Looking at the flow balance, the model estimates that

during the June 2015 event, a peak flow of 8.6 m³/s passed through the Gerse Street Culvert.

Comparatively the model estimates a peak flow of 7.6 m³/s passing through the Matarawa /

Mateongaonga Diversion. This indicates that flows through the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion are

a significant proportion of the total flows that reach the Gerse Street Culvert. It should be noted that the

peak runoff rate from the catchments between the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion and the Gerse

Street Culvert is greater than 1 m³/s (8.6 – 7.6) as the surplus flow is buffered by the extensive flooding.

The model was used to test this suggestion using both the June 2015 and 1 in 200 year scenarios. This

was done by completely closing the 1500 mm diameter pipe off so that no flow would continue along the

Matarawa Stream. It is acknowledged that permanently closing the diversion pipe is unlikely to be an

acceptable solution from an environmental and cultural prospective, but the model was run this was to

show what could be achieved in the most conservative example of flow diversion.

69


The resultant flood maps are provided in Annex H and the performance of the Gerse Street Culvert is

presented below.

Table 3 Performance of the Gerse Street Culvert with the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion

Pipe Closed

Scenario Peak flow through culvert (m³/s)

Maximum Upstream Water Level (RL in m)



June 2015 Event

3.3 4.9 4.9 0.0


7.3 5.6 3.9 1.7

The results show:

1) That if the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion was closed during the June 2015 event, that no

flooding of significance would have occurred in the urban area upstream of Gerse Street.

2) That the effectiveness of closing the diversion in the 1 in 200 design event is limited due to the

overtopping of the diversion that occurs as discussed below.

For the 1 in 200 year design event scenario the model shows that the diversion is overtopped even when

the diversion pipe is fully open. Once this occurs, the diversion becomes less effective as excess water

flows over the diversion culvert into the Matarawa Stream. This indicates that there is a capacity

constraint in the open drain that connects into the Mateongaonga.

If the open drain between the diversion and the Mateongaonga was augmented, the effectiveness of

closing the diversion would be enhanced for the 1 in 200 year design event. Additional model runs are

required to evaluate this option further, these have not yet been completed due to time constraints. This

would include evaluating what impact the resultant additional flows in the Mateongaonga will have on the

flooding risk of the downstream section of the Mateongaonga Stream.

If this option is to be investigated further, it is recommended that WDC liaise with Horizons Regional

Council to gain an understanding as to how much further flow restriction through the diversion would be

acceptable. Horizons may also have a better understanding of the upstream rural catchment, which will

help improve the accuracy of the model results.

Flow attenuation has not been investigated at this stage, as flow diversion is likely to be a lower cost

solution provided extensive augmentation of the Mateongaonga Stream is not required.

5 Model Limitations

It should be noted that the accuracy of the model is limited to the accuracy of the data available. Iterative

model runs have shown that the model results are sensitive to minor changes, especially to changes to

features in the rural area between the diversion and urban boundary.

The open drains have been burnt into the modelled surface based on the LIDAR data with the drain

invert smoothed to remove any obstructions most likely caused by LIDAR inaccuracies. GHD has not

conducted any site visits to validate the LIDAR data.

Additionally, culverts have been loaded into the model based on the RAMM data. The internal pipe

diameter used in the model has been set as the nominal bore as the actual internal diameter has not

70

7 51/37354//Gerse Street Culvert Memo_v2.docx

been measured on site. Any culverts on private property (with the exception of the flow diversion) have

been excluded from the model as there is no data readily available for these.

To improve the accuracy of the model it is recommended that:

1) WDC liaise with Horizons regional council to gain a better understanding of the upstream rural

system

2) A site walkover be completed of the Matarawa Stream between the Gerse Street Culvert and the

Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion, with any additional feature found on site added to the

model.

6 Conclusions

Following the evaluation of the performance of the Gerse Street Culvert using the 1D/2D model of the

Wanganui East catchment, the following has been concluded:

1) If the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion culvert was completely closed during the June 2015

storm event, any flooding in the urban area upstream of the Gerse Street Culvert would have

been negligible and it is unlikely that any dwellings would have been flooded.

2) If the Gerse Street Culvert was replaced with a bridge prior to the June 2015 event, surface

flooding of private property would have still occurred during this event to a depth where it may

have flooded dwellings.

3) The Gerse Street Culvert significantly contributes to the upstream flooding of the urban

Whanganui East catchment at the peak flow rates that it receives under the current

configuration.

4) Replacing the Gerse Street Culvert with a bridge will be effective in reducing the upstream flood

depths in large storm events. However, even with the Gerse Street Culvert removed, the

Matarawa Stream stormwater system is unlikely to meet the level of service requirements of the

Horizons Regional Council One Plan.

5) The flooding in the urban area upstream of the Gerse Street Culvert is unlikely to meet the level

of service requirements of the Horizons Regional Council One Plan. i.e. it is likely that dwellings

will be flooded in a 1 in 200 year event.

6) For the 1 in 200 design storm event used to test compliance with the Horizons Regional Council

One Plan, the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion culvert is overtopped by stormwater,

allowing more flow to reach the Gerse Street Culvert than passes through the diversion pipe.

This indicates that the open drain between the diversion and the Mateongaonga Stream is

undersized.

7) The option of reducing the flow that reaches the Gerse Street Culvert by restricting the flow that

passes through the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion culvert requires further evaluation.

Augmentation of the open drain between the diversion and Mateongaonga Stream would be

required to make this option more effective in reducing flooding issues in the urban area of the

Matarawa Stream catchment.

7 Recommendations

Following the evaluation of the performance of the Gerse Street Culvert using the 1D/2D model the

following is recommended:

1) WDC liaise with Horizons Regional Council to discuss the results of this Memorandum and to

gain a better understanding of the upstream rural system.

71


2) A site walkover be completed of the Matarawa Stream between the Gerse Street Culvert and the

Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion Culvert to identify any features that need to be added to

the model.

3) The option of reducing the flow that reaches the Gerse Street Culvert by restricting the flow that

passes through the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion Culvert be evaluated further. This

would include augmentation of the open drain between the Matarawa / Mateongaonga Diversion

and the Mateongaonga Stream.

4) WDC engage a surveyor to confirm the floor level of the dwellings most at risk of flooding.

Regards

Chris Anderson Senior Water Engineer

72

1

ANNEX A – June 2015 Event: Surveyed Flood Levels

73

ANNEX B – June 2015 Event: Estimated River Level at Matarawa Stream Outlet

75

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

18/06/2016 12:00 19/06/2016 0:00 19/06/2016 12:00 20/06/2016 0:00 20/06/2016 12:00 21/06/2016 0:00 21/06/2016 12:00 22/06/2016 0:00 22/06/2016 12:00

Wat

er L

evel

(m

)

Date & Time

Model Boundary Conditions - Whanganui River Level at Matarawa Stream Outlet

76

ANNEX C – Model Validation - June 2015 Event: 0.3 Equivalent Runoff Coefficient

77

Level 2, 52 The Square, Palmerston North, 4410 T 64 6 353 1800 F 64 6 353 1801 E [email protected] W www.ghd.comN:\NZ\Palmerston North\Projects\51\37354\GIS\Maps\Working\CA Working_v104.mxd© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Map Projection: New Zealand Map GridHorizontal Datum: New Zealand 1949Grid: GD 1949 New Zealand Map Grid


Stage C Model ValidationJune 2015 Rainfall Event0.3 Runoff Coefficient in Rural Area

Job NumberRevision 0

51-37354

06 May 2018o Date

Data source: GHD: catchment, staging (2016); WDC: wastewater assets. Created by:CJAnderson

Paper Size A3 LEGENDFlood Depth (m)

0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000

SW Mainsdiameter (m)

0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

78

ANNEX D – Model Validation - June 2015 Event: 0.4 Equivalent Runoff Coefficient

79

Level 2, 52 The Square, Palmerston North, 4410 T 64 6 353 1800 F 64 6 353 1801 E [email protected] W www.ghd.comN:\NZ\Palmerston North\Projects\51\37354\GIS\Maps\Working\CA Working_v104.mxd© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.



Stage C Model ValidationJune 2015 Rainfall Event0.4 Runoff Coefficient in Rural Area


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

80

ANNEX E – Gerse Street Culvert Performance – Current Configuration

81

Level 2, 52 The Square, Palmerston North, 4410 T 64 6 353 1800 F 64 6 353 1801 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street

Patapu StreetYoung Street

Gerse StreetKawakawa Street

Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place

Walker PlaceSorrento Court

ACCESSWAY

N:\NZ\Palmerston North\Projects\51\37354\GIS\Maps\Working\CA Working_v104.mxd© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.



Gerse Street Culvert PerformanceJune 2015 Rainfall EventCurrent Configuration


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

82


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert Performance1 in 200 Year Rainfall EventCurrent Configuration


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

83

ANNEX F – Gerse Street Culvert Performance – Current Configuration: June 2015 with 1 m Constant River Level

84


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert PerformanceJune 2015 Rainfall Event - 1 m River LevelCurrent Configuration


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

85

ANNEX G – Gerse Street Culvert Performance – Gerse Street Culvert Removed

86


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert PerformanceJune 2015 Rainfall Event Gerse Street Culvert Removed


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

87


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert Performance1 in 200 Year Rainfall Event Gerse Street Culvert Removed


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

88

ANNEX H – Gerse Street Culvert Performance – Matarawa Diversion Closed

89


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert PerformanceJune 2015 Rainfall Event Matarawa Diversion Closed


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

90


Ikitar

a Roa

d

Wakefield Street

Nile Street

Nixon Street

Moana Street

Raine

Stree

t

Duncan Street

Hackett Street

Millward Street

No 3 Line

Kepa Street

Eastown Road

Turoa Road

Jellicoe Street

Burton Avenue

Tinira

u Stre

et

Boydfield Street

White Street



Jones Street

Sedgebrook Street

Fromont Street

Marshall Avenue

Tang

uru St

reet

Willis Street

Matar

awa S

treet

Helmore Street

Richmond Street

ACCE

SSWA

Y

Clapham Place


ACCESSWAY




Gerse Street Culvert Performance1 in 200 Year Rainfall Event Matarawa Diversion Closed


51-37354

06 May 2018o Date



0.050 - 0.1000.101 - 0.200

0.201 - 0.3000.301 - 0.5000.501 - 30.000


0 - 300

301 - 525526 - 825826 - 10501051 - 1800

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

1:5,000

91

council meeting may 2018 .................................................. council meeting . notice...

Documents