Notice is given that an ordinary meeting of the Full Council will be held on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday 7 August 2014 9.30 am
Tasman Council Chamber 189 Queen Street
Richmond
Full Council AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Mayor Mayor R G Kempthorne
Deputy Mayor Cr T B King
Councillors Cr M L Bouillir Cr M J Greening
Cr S G Bryant Cr M J Higgins
Cr P L Canton Cr J L Inglis
Cr B F Dowler Cr Z S Mirfin
Cr J L Edgar Cr T E Norriss
Cr B W Ensor Cr P F Sangster
(Quorum 7 members)
Contact Telephone: 03 543 8405 Email: [email protected] Website: www.tasman.govt.nz
AGENDA
1 OPENING, WELCOME
2 APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Leave of absence has been granted for Mayor Richard Kempthorne.
Recommendation
THAT apologies be accepted.
3 PUBLIC FORUM
4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 5 LATE ITEMS
6 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
THAT the minutes of the Full Council meeting held on Monday, 30 June 2014, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.
7 PRESENTATIONS Nil
8 REPORTS
8.1 Port Tarakohe Advisory Group ... 5
8.2 Port Tarakohe Issues ... 11
8.3 Rates Remission for Land Occupied by a Dwelling affected by Natural Disaster- 750 Main Riwaka Road, Riwaka ... 27
8.4 Amendment to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits ... 35
8.5 Activity Groupings for Activity Management Plans ... 47
8.6 Joint Community Outcomes ... 61
8.7 Development Contributions Policy ... 67
8.8 2014 Residents Survey Results ... 107
8.9 Mayor's Report ... 113
8.10 Chief Executive's Activity Report ... 117
8.11 Machinery Resolutions Report ... 129
8.12 Action Items - Previous Council meetings ... 131
9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 9.1 Procedural motion to exclude the public ... 135
9.2 Mapua Wharf Precinct Rebuild - Commercial Subcommittee - 27 June 2014 .. 135
Item 8. 1 8 REPORTS
8.1 PORT TARAKOHE ADVISORY GROUP
Decision Required Report To: Full Council
Meeting Date: 7 August 2014
Report Author: Gene Cooper, Commercial Manager Report Number: RCN14-08-01
File Reference:
Summary
1.1 The Commercial Subcommittee met on Friday 27 June 2014 to consider the re- establishment of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group (PTAG).
1.2 The Subcommittee has recommended that the PTAG be re-established with all participants meeting their own costs.
1.3 This matter was brought to Full Council meeting on 30 June 2014 as a supplementary item given its urgency - first PTAG meeting planned the same day. This item included the draft Terms of Reference (TOR).
1.4 Formal approval for the PTAG was given by Council on 30 June 2014.
1.5 The draft TOR were circulated to PTAG members and discussed at the first meeting. No requests for change have been received.
1.6 The first meeting of the PTAG was chaired by Cr Bouillir. Noting the extent of commercial dynamics involved, staff recommend that the Commercial Subcommittee Chairperson, Cr Tim King, should be appointed to chair the meetings. This will alleviate pressure on Golden Bay Councillors; and enable the interests of commercial groups which are being strongly advocated, to be balanced with the other interests.
Draft Resolution
That the Full Council:
1. receives the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group report RCN14-08-01; and 2. approves the Terms of Reference for the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group -
Attachment 1 to this report; and
3. confirms the appointment of the chairperson for the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group as the Chairperson of the Commercial Subcommittee.
Item 8. 1
Purpose of the Report
3.1 To finalise the Terms of Reference of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group.
3.2 To appoint the Commercial Subcommittee Chairperson as the Chair of PTAG.
Background and Discussion
4.1 Historically an Advisory Board existed until March 2006, when it was disbanded in favour of the Enterprise Subcommittee. Via feedback on the 2013 Port Tarakohe Development Plan process, Staff, Councilors and the Mayor made concessions to the various community interests. The re-establishment of an Advisory Group was agreed in principle.
4.2 Governance feedback on the Port Tarakohe Development Plan included 33 comments ranging from external management of the asset to greater community involvement via an advisory group. Council staff, supported by the Councillors and Mayor, recommended the re- establishment of the PTAG - adopted by Council on 30 June 2014.
4.3 Council staff recommend the PTAG is made up of eleven members (11) and will be open to one (1) nominated representative from each of the following stakeholder groups.
Membership is voluntary, but these parties will be encouraged to participate;
Marine Farmers Association;
Fishing industry;
Commercial Port users;
Pohara Marina Association;
Pohara Boat Club;
Golden Bay Community Board;
Adjoining land owners;
plus
Commercial Subcommittee Chairperson;
Golden Bay Councillors (2);
Council’s Commercial Manager.
4.4 It is envisaged PTAG will meet quarterly (or more regularly if required around key events) and provide feedback on critical issues to the Council. The full operation of the PTAG will be on the basis that members cover their own costs and decisions are non-binding. The
Commercial Manager will make regular presentations of operational and strategic issues for the purpose of updating PTAG members on Council activities regarding the Port.
4.5 The draft TOR document was circulated to Councilors and PTAG members on 30 June 2014. Minor feedback was received. Staff have made two amendments to the TOR document, being;
4.5.1 The inclusion of the Commercial Subcommittee Chairperson as the Chair of the PTAG;
Item 8. 1
4.5.2 The amendment to reference of the group to PTAG (i.e. a Group, not a Board)
Options
5.1 Approve, decline or amend the TOR.
On the basis that the document has now been widely exposed, the TOR is in a format that provides direction and guidance for all stakeholders. The need for a clearly set out TOR is self explanatory, and given the extent of buy-in already, it is recommended that Council adopt the TOR in their current form.
5.2 Approve or decline the suggested Chairperson.
Appointment of the Chair of the Commercial Subcommittee as Chair of the PTAG will take the pressure off the local councilors to respond the commercial interests in Golden Bay that may dominate the group. It will also provide consistency in decision-making between the issues which have already been substantively debated within the Commercial Subcommittee environment, and the PTAG. It will also have a secondary effect, allowing Golden Bay Councillors to focus on wider community input. If declined, then the potential for the continued derailment of PTAG forward focus could occur.
Strategic Challenges / Risks
6.1 This proposal is part of addressing Strategic Challenge Two – Financial Stability. Council has determined, as part of its ongoing financial strategy, the need to leverage better commercial returns from its investments. A wider consultation on ideas of how to achieve this from key stakeholders is part of the buy-in process required for a successful delivery of the Council’s strategy.
Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan
7.1 The decision ensures the establishment of PTAG is consistent with other advisory groups established. The TOR provides guidance and clarity to all stakeholders of the PTAG that recommendations can be provided, but are non-binding on Council (i.e. no decision making powers).
Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications
8.1 There are no financial implications from the decision. The costs of the group are met by individual representatives and Councils costs are met from within existing budgets.
Significance and Consultation
9.1 The decision is of low significance, approval of TOR supports Council’s decision to establish the advisory group.
Item 8. 1
9.2 The draft TOR was circulated at first PTAG meeting for comment. Minor requests for changes were received. The establishment of the PTAG was an outcome of consultation with the local community over the ongoing development and use of Port Tarakohe.Conclusion
10.1 Approval of the Terms of Reference will formalise the PTAG structure and is necessary for the ongoing operation of the group.
Next Steps / Timeline
11.1 Once approved, the TOR will be sent to all stakeholders in the PTAG and placed on the Council’s website.
11.2 Next meeting is set for 6 October 2014 at Port Tarakohe. All changes to take effect immediately and be in place for that meeting.
Attachments
1. Port Tarakohe Advisory Group Terms of Reference 9
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 1
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 1
Item 8. 2
8.2 PORT TARAKOHE ISSUES
Decision Required Report To: Full Council
Meeting Date: 7 August 2014
Report Author: Gene Cooper, Commercial Manager Report Number: RCN14-08-02
File Reference:
1 Summary
1.1 The report to the Commercial Subcommittee RFN14-06-09 is attached, covering key issues at Port Tarakohe (the Port) being;
1.1.1 The Port Development Plan feedback;
1.1.2 Re-establishment of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Group (PTAG);
1.1.3 The proposal to introduce an automated weighbridge and billing system.
1.2 The issue of the PTAG has been addressed in a separate report of even date, given it was advanced as a supplementary item to full Council 30 June 2014. That covers the Terms of Reference for operation and the appointment of the Chairperson, proposed as the
Chairperson of the Commercial Subcommittee.
1.3 This report addresses the Development Plan feedback and automated Weighbridge and Systems as recommended by the Commercial Subcommittee on 27 June 2014.
2 Draft Resolution
That the Full Council:
1. receives the Port Tarakohe report RFN14-06-09 referred from the Commercial Subcommittee; and
2. acknowledges the Port Tarakohe Development Plan feedback; and
3. approves the installation of a weighbridge and an automated system for all commercial port users.
Item 8. 2
3 Attachments
1. Report RFN14-06-09 13
2. Extract from Commercial Subcommittee Minutes 27 June 2014 25
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
6.3 PORT TARAKOHE
Decision Required Report To: Commercial Subcommittee
Meeting Date: 27 June 2014
Report Author: Gene Cooper, Commercial Manager Report Number: RFN14-06-09
File Reference:
1 Summary
1.1 This report follows the publishing of the Port Tarakohe (Port) Development plan during 2013.
That report had two components - firstly, the discussion and recommendation on fee
changes for respective Port users. Secondly, the review of possible Port developments and governance models.
1.2 A public feedback process was initiated with feedback closing 31 January 2014.
1.3 Port Tarakohe Fees and Charges Review reports (RCN13-12-07 and RCN13-12-19), were both placed before Council in December 2013. Council adopted the recommendations with fee changes effective from 1 January 2014.
1.4 This report is the final summary of all feedback on the Port Tarakohe Development Plan. It reviews governance, charging and operational issues.
1.5 Based on representations and feedback to Council through the submission process, it is recommended to re-establish an Advisory Board. It is intended the Board representatives meet their own costs, meet quarterly and their feedback will not be binding on Council.
1.6 Review of wharf income shows we have leakage through parties non compliance. A weighbridge system and automated billing system are proposed to support a more
professional and commercial approach. At a cost of $140,000, it is forecast to have a 1 to 1.6 year payback period depending on the scenario adopted. This is based on income recovery from leakage, inappropriate practice and inability to measure volume, plus additional fees for weighbridge use.
2 Draft Resolution
That the Commercial Subcommittee:
1) receives the Port Tarakohe report RFN14-06-09; and 2) acknowledges feedback received; and
3) recommends to Council the re-establishment of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Board;
and
4) recommends to Council that members of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Board meet their own participation expenses; and
5) recommends to Council the installation of a weighbridge and an automated billing system for Port users.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
3 Purpose of the Report
3.1 To provide the subcommittee and council with an update on the assessment of all feedback received. To reaffirm all earlier Port Tarakohe reports and provide final recommendations for changes in governance, operational and financial billing processes, emanating from submissions and events since the new charging regime was implemented.
4 Background and Discussion
4.1 The original Port was developed in 1977 for the export of cement and dolomite and the import of coal and gypsum. The cement works closed in 1988. The Port was purchased by Council in 1994 from the Golden Bay Cement Works. The Port operates as a natural monopoly given its geographical location.
4.2 Council has requested that the Port be run on a fully commercial basis without a ratepayer subsidy. This change in focus has had major financial impacts for the activity and its users. It has been noted that Council has not indicated at any time an intention to divest itself of its investment in the Port.
4.3 Running the Port on a commercial basis requires that the Port produce both a positive cash flow after servicing its debt and moves to an operational surplus to account for depreciation funding. As a part of Council activities the Port is not currently liable for income tax and the Port does not pay a dividend to Council. In the future, Council may determine an internal dividend should be paid. That is a matter for the future, the current focus is to make the Port financially viable over the next four to five years. The subsidisation of the Port from general rates has ceased and it is now operating as a closed account.
4.4 Port Tarakohe has been subject to a full financial review. This commenced early in 2013.
This review included in the 2013 Port Tarakohe Development Plan, tabled to interested groups in August 2013 and released out for public consultation in November 2013. The consultation date was subsequently extended to 31 January 2014.
4.5 There are two main components of the plan:
4.5.1 The first component was a discussion and recommendation on a model to set the fees and charges for respective users of the Port. This was dealt with under separate reports to Council in December 2013 (RCN13-12-07 and RCN13-12-19).
4.5.2 The second component is a review of possible developments at the Port along with alternative governance models, which is the focus of this report.
4.6 The Port Tarakohe Development Plan is not a development strategy for the Port. That strategy will continue to be developed during 2014. The strategy work will be led by the Commercial Manager and tie into the Asset Management Plan (AMP) and 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP) process.
4.7 Copies of the “Tasman District Council Port Tarakohe Development Plan” were sent to all Councillors under separate cover in November 2013 and both subsequent reports “Port Tarakohe – Fees and Charges Review (8.16 and 8.17)” in December 2013. Additional copies are available on request to Valerie Gribble, Executive Assistant to the Corporate
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
Services Manager ([email protected]). They are also available from the Council’s Libraries, Service Centres and via the Council’s website.4.8 The new Port charges were adopted in December 2013 (commencing 1 January 2014) which will see fees increase by up to 100% progressively over five years. The end result remains discounted against theoretical ODRV valuation models at 60% (subsidised by 40%).
The focus is to ensure every party pays their share (not previously the case). This issue was very widely raised in submissions with marine farmers in particular being singled out as parties who “rarely paid their way”. In fact, for the first ten years of the Port’s operation this sector paid no fees.
4.9 Past levels of Port income were insufficient to cover operating costs, depreciation and servicing for the Port’s loans. These loans were utilised to support capital developments at the Port. For some time, the Port income was supplemented by general rates funding. This funding represented around 20% - 40% of the Port’s income. In addition, the overall losses that the Port was making were being written off against Council equity. It was recognised that this approach was not financially sustainable.
4.10 Council determined that from 2013/14 the subsidy from general rates would cease. The Port has received no subsidy from rates income since 30 June 2013. In addition, any deficit or surplus in the Port account will not be cleared at year end. The Port is now operating as a
“closed account”.
4.11 Historically an Advisory Board existed until March 2006, when it was disbanded in favour of the Enterprise panel – made up of staff and Councillors. Through the feedback process around the 2013 Port Tarakohe Development Plan staff, Councillors and the Mayor have made concessions to the various community interests. The re-establishment of the Advisory Board was agreed in principle. This report includes the recommendation to Council for the immediate re-establishment of the board.
4.12 With the recent implementation of the wharfage charges (as opposed to line levy) for the marine farmers group, we have identified several incidences of income leakage.
Freight/crops have been moved across the wharf without appropriate declaration to the Port Manager - resulting in avoidance of charging regimes imposed by Council. These have been detected by reviewing security footage from the upgraded CCTV.
4.13 Council also have scenarios of Port users transferring goods different to agreed description and volume, and therefore we have been unable to accurately weigh goods. It is anticipated the Port is missing substantial income through this process (eg ice, chains, other freight weights and rebates deducted by themselves (double movement of goods over wharf)).
4.14 The only way to avoid leakage, essentially working to lowest common denominator, is to install a weighbridge. Council has looked at and approved this option previously, however decided not to proceed based on information held at that time. We are now aware of further information, concerning practices of some and assumptions that change Council’s viewpoint.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
4.15 The capital costs of the weighbridge project, related ground works and installation costs ($000s) are as follows:
12m x 3m weighbridge, installation and software $ 52.5
Weighbridge installation $ 11.3
Weighbridge software, hardware, shed and training $ 25.4
Sub-total (Atec or similar provider) $ 89.2
Excavation, ground works and concrete $ 26.1
Electricity and lighting $ 6.3
Drainage, gates and fencing changes $ 8.9
Sub-total (Sollys or similar) $ 41.3
Total capital cost as per quotes: $130.5
plus contingency $ 9.5
Total Project estimate $140.0
4.16 Quotes are held for sections above. Second quotes for each sub-total will be secured before proceeding. Combination of best price and technical product will apply when management is assessing which contractors to select.
4.17 Annual income through the Port, directly attributable to the installation of a weighbridge is summarily assessed as follows:
4.17.1 Weighbridge movements income is estimated from information provided by the Port contractor, as:
Vehicle description (Tonne):
Charge per visit (note 1)
Estimated Daily average movements
Estimated daily income
Estimated annual income (note 2).
Trucks > 1.5 T $5 per visit 50 $250 $78,000
Utes < 1.5 T No charge 20 $ Nil $ Nil
Cars No charge 10 $ Nil $ Nil
Note 1. Visit entails movement in and out of wharf.
Note 2. Annual income based on a six day week.
Note 3. Movements are averages estimated from information provided by Port Wharf contractor.
4.17.2 Second avenue of review was lost income - leakage. Based on a sample of one week of inspections in April 2014 via CCTV, three incidents were identified, whereby commercial Port users (all marine farmers) under-reported volumes across the wharf. We have calculated the lost revenue of those events at circa 10 tonne per week and extrapolated this through to annual leakage of 520 tonne.
It is substantial, which at $15/tonne equates to $7,800 of lost income per annum (on the basis of consistent events).
4.17.3 A third avenue of review was lost income - base weights for marine farmers equipment. Weights had been agreed by parties in January 2014 via testing at Solly’s weigh bridge in Takaka. However, upon inspection, most weights, anchors and attachments appear different to those agreed weights. Having one base weight rate is impossible and it appears, the one rate applied for weights, anchors is at the lighter end, and excludes chain length etc. (differing lengths).
With a small sample there was considerable variance and Council believes there is lost revenue in this area. We have no scientific evidence on true weights as
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
we had no ability to weigh on inspection, however this is material. A 10%variation is possible, therefore this could be as high as $5,000.
4.17.4 A fourth avenue of review was lost income - industry self regulation and reporting variances for marine farmers. For instance, freight over the Port is being
reported at net levels, not gross levels. Examples are ropes, anchors, weights which are going out at the start of the day, have the returning volumes deducted and the net position reported to Port management. In most cases, the argument has been around “not used” however, Port management suspects some relate to different jobs and swaps, and should have wharfage paid both on loading in morning and off loading in evening, given the wharf is incurring wear and tear on both events. Port management have estimated these volumes would be between 10 and 30 tonne per week, which suggests at the midpoint (20 tonne per week or 1,040 tonne per annum) Council is missing revenue of circa $15,600. The reality is, once identified individual Port users may tidy up their act in terms of individual efficiency and reduce the wastage. However, this is directly linked to their ability to go unmeasured in the current environment (eg no weighbridge). It also means the wear and tear on the wharf is not being paid for by the parties who are users, which was the very reason for Council adopting the current methodology.
4.17.5 The fifth avenue of review was lost income – fishing industry. The reported volumes are under the control of processing factories and also exclude the weight passed over the wharf, namely the ice and processed volumes after considerable weight loss. This is substantial and could be as high as one third (ice content) of the reported fishing industry catch disclosure. The Port is missing income of $3,000 per annum, or more.
4.18 When assessing the above, the following position is likely to be achieved if a weighbridge was installed, as summarised ($000s);
High: Low (80% or known):
Weighbridge movement income: $ 78.0 per annum $62.4 per annum Lost income - leakage $ 7.5 per annum $ 6.0 per annum Lost income – base weights $ 5.0 per annum $ 2.0 per annum Lost income – self regulation $ 15.6 per annum $12.5 per annum Lost income – fishing industry weight $ 3.0 per annum $ 3.0 per annum Total revenue recovered or available $109.1 per annum $85.9 per annum 4.19 Payback period is between 1 to 1.6 years depending on which scenario is adopted.
4.20 As well as the obvious cost recovery, substantive improvements to reporting from a
weighbridge can deliver the critical operational and management accounting data required to commercially manage the Port. We have no historical data retained around any history of catch for the Port, because of the manual processes currently in place. An automated weighbridge system will deliver weight volumes by industry and product, reporting enhancements for both the Port and its users, automated invoicing and substantive improvements to the cash flow collection cycle for Council. At present the manual system, which was significantly increased in January 2014 has created additional workload for Port management and financial teams. This has been an unnecessary increase which has
resulted in delayed invoicing, delayed debtor management, collection and processing errors.
4.21 Under the automation of the payment system, billing processes will be advanced to seven days to align the process with the cash flow cycle of the industry. It also addresses the
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
current legal issues we currently have – ie some Port users have refused to sign terms of trade and contracts. With the automated system, we will force all Port user payments onto the contractors using the Port (not the marine farmer owner) and under Maritime law we have the ability to charge without contract (ie legally enforceable). Small issue however, the Marine Farmers Association had told Council they would not participate in collection or payment of Invoices of their members, stating “our responsibility to chase owners” (their way of protest vote). The key message here is with automation, the Port charges can be
deducted/charged by the contractor, as they will receive the automated data before crop proceeds are returned to individual farm/line owners. Previously, our manual billing has been over two months after harvest and it is hard to get any leverage for payment after funds have been returned to growers by processors.
5 Feedback and Commentary on the Development Plan 5.1 Council has received 94 items of feedback covering 163 topics.
5.2 71 of the 94 (76%) were from the Golden Bay community, the remaining from throughout New Zealand.
5.3 A summary of the issues raised are highlighted in the table below;
5.4 The largest feedback was attributed to the protection of recreational use/facilities. The WHK report resulted in significant community hostility towards the possibility of removal/
realignment/changes to recreation area. Main comments concerned the possible
encroachment of commercial activities into, or reduction of, the existing recreational area.
The general themes are to leave facilities as currently exists, promote greater community use and no new facilities are warranted.
5.5 General issues are summarised around the Port use, the split of activities (recreational versus commercial) and various development restrictions. Therefore they have a similar theme to recreational and commercial use. Again, the theme was around hold back development and concerns around development plans proposed/raised and not properly scoped within the WHK report.
5.6 A petition with 1245 signatures was produced as feedback requesting greater consultation with Golden Bay Community Board over recreational user fees.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
5.7 Governance feedback consisted of 33 comments ranging from external management to greater community involvement via an Advisory Board. Council staff supported by the Councillors and Mayor have recommended the re-establishment the Port Advisory Board.5.8 Council staff recommend the Advisory Board is made up of ten parties (10) and will be open to one (1) elected representative from each of the following stakeholders. Membership is voluntary but these parties will be encouraged to participate;
Marine Farmers Association;
Fishing industry;
Commercial Port users;
Pohara Marina Association;
Pohara Boat Club;
Golden Bay Community Board;
Adjoining land owners;
plus
Golden Bay Councillors (2);
TDC Commercial Manager.
5.9 It is envisaged this group will meet quarterly (or more regularly if required around key events) and provide feedback on critical issues to the Council. The full operation of the Advisory Board will be on the basis that members cover their own costs and decisions are non-binding. The Commercial Manager will make regular presentations of operational and strategic issues for the purpose of updating Advisory Board members on Council activities regarding the Port.
5.10 Roading feedback (18) comments were almost exclusively around protest against any removal of the “hole in the rock” and they are closely aligned to environmental issues raised.
Two parties identified any road changes were to be dealt with through the Engineering process, not a Port review.
5.11 Environmental feedback (10) comments related to protection, beautification, iconic hole in the rock issues relating to the natural landscape of the region and preventing any
commercial development.
5.12 Wharf feedback (9) comments included support for weighbridge installation, removal of facilities which prevent use of the full wharf facility for all users, its safety and being ‘fit-for- purpose’. Imminent industry expansion for core activities require Council to address expanding operational requirements in the near future. Many of these issues are real and will be addressed in Council’s strategy report later this year. Council needs to be mindful that we need a fit-for-purpose, safe and food export grade wharf to continue these commercial activities long term.
5.13 The top six areas of comment attracted 94% of the issues raised. The remaining issues were around functionality of commercial activities, security, weighbridge installation and costs. Whilst small, many of these areas were also raised as secondary input into main feedback comments.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
6 Options 6.1 Governance:
6.1.1 Option One (preferred) to introduce a Port Tarakohe Advisory Board that consists of ten (10) members as listed above, meets quarterly, covers its own costs and decisions are non-binding on Council; or
6.1.2 Option Two, no Advisory Board.
6.2 Weighbridge:
6.2.1 Option One (preferred and self funding) – construct weighbridge at Port Tarakohe for all commercial users. This option was raised continuously in feedback by stakeholders (in favour of). It remains the only accurate and leakage-free assessment for quantities passed over the wharf. Cost effective with payback in one year. It protects all users and improves Council’s integrity with users through user-pays philosophy, improved professional reporting and processing efficiencies.
6.2.2 Option Two Status Quo – operations continue as is on an uncontrolled and unsubstantiated activity (weight and volume), subject to a number of manual checking procedures and user honesty. Council is forced to accept the lowest common denominator that Port users will continue to mis-disclose volume through the Port. Other users will continue to subsidise these operators/
industries. Council’s manual processes are inefficient, cumbersome and involve substantial time in reviewing camera footage to review volume reporting by users.
6.2.3 Option Three – increase to 24 hour manning of the Port to eliminate leakage and mis-disclosure. Estimation of costs is $120,000 per annum. Not cost-effective, greater than gains, but would protect all users and the Council’s reputation.
6.2.4 Option Four – use Solly’s weighbridge in Takaka. The same leakage is likely to occur as we rely on honesty and accuracy by parties. Port management lose control and ability to verify measurement between Port and Takaka location.
Loss of volume also occurs between wharf weights and measurement some distance and time later. Not an option that addresses the key issues. Would have a nil-dollar cost implication as cost would be met by users.
6.3 Automated payment system – we have reviewed the whole invoicing, payment and cash flow management system, which has identified a number of inefficient processes. Recovery of large amounts of staff time (created by implementing the wharf tonnage system),
elimination of errors, improvement in reporting accuracy and timeliness will be achieved by automating the system. Better long term reporting of unit throughput as well as financial efficiency (7 day debtor billing process) will provide the management information that has been previously missing, to Council staff. The options are:
6.3.1 Option One - Automated billing system (preferred) – no additional cost over weighbridge proposal and substantive operational savings at both the Port and councils accounts department. These gains will allow us to focus on areas which are currently not being achieved (eg wharf management, Health and Safety).
However, we note this option is conditional upon weighbridge automation of weight feed.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
6.3..1 Option Two - do nothing. Currently manual review of cameras is completed daily and this creates conflict for manager on site, when challenging reportedvolumes. We have had three instances in four weeks of volumes mis-disclosed from obvious discrepancies. Manager spends large volumes of time manually writing out invoices which is matched by time spent in the Richmond office, doubling this process.
7 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications 7.1 Advisory Board:
7.1.1 No cost implications, Board representatives to meet their own costs.
7.2 Weighbridge:
7.2.1 Cost $140,000. Income estimated at $101,900. Payback period between 1 and 1.6 years.
7.2.2 No weighbridge, no direct cost but lost revenue through leakage and misreporting, estimated at $31,100pa.
7.3 Automate payment system:
7.3.1 No cost implications, we already have the capability in house as managed through Council but are also looking at more expansive options for better reporting capture and more features (differing products). The cost of not automating has to date been undervalued.
7.3.2 The impact will be solely on commercial users, with no impact on recreational users. The Port’s security of the commercial Port area will be further
protected/enhanced to align to “fit- for-purpose” use.
7.3.3 Automated billing processes and shortening of the cash flow cycle will provide Council with significant cost recovery/enhancement.
7.4 The Weighbridge proposal has not been identified in any current annual or long term plans, however the investment value is low and quickly recovered. It is also considered necessary to protect Ports operational integrity and the fairness of the user pays methodology
implemented December 2013.
7.5 Provision has been made in the fees and charges schedule in the final 2014/15 Annual Plan for weighbridge charges at the port.
8 Significance and Consultation
8.1 The matter is of low significance when measured against Councils Significance policy.
However the proposal will have a significant impact on the commercial users of the wharf facilities.
8.2 In terms of consultation:
Feedback was received from wider community and interest parties. All comments reviewed and appropriate action taken.
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 2
The Advisory Board matter has been discussed, offered and accepted in recent feedback and consultation meetings.
Weighbridge matter has been visual in Port-related matters over recent years.
Interested parties have been made aware of plans and we have relatively strong support from all except the Marine Farmers Association.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Operations and the financial sustainability of the port will be enhanced by : 9.1.1 Forming an advisory board.
9.1.2 Installing an automated weighbridge.
9.1.3 Automating the payment system and changing the billing process/frequency
10 Next Steps / Timeline
10.1 On Council approval forming the Advisory Board and holding its first meeting during July 2014.
10.2 On Council approval finalising weighbridge installation as soon as achievable – August 2014 at latest.
10.3 Automate full debtor invoicing system as soon as possible, in conjunction with the weighbridge installation.
11 Attachments Nil
Att ac hm ent 2 Item 8. 2
Extract from Minutes of Commercial Subcommittee 27 June 2014 6.3 Port Tarakohe
Commercial Manager, Gene Cooper, spoke to the report which provided the Subcommittee with an update on the assessment of all feedback received on the draft development plan. The report also reaffirmed all earlier Port Tarakohe reports and provided final recommendations for changes in governance, operational and financial billing processes, emanating from submissions and events since the new charging regime was implemented.
Discussion was held on the proposed weighbridge and the benefits that would accrue from having one installed.
Moved Mr Dunn/Mr Grover FNCE14-06-4
That the Commercial Subcommittee:
1) receives the Port Tarakohe report RFN14-06-09; and 2) acknowledges feedback received; and
3) recommends to Council the re-establishment of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Board;
and
4) recommends to Council that members of the Port Tarakohe Advisory Board meet their own participation expenses; and
5) recommends to Council the installation of a weighbridge and an automated billing system for Port users.
CARRIED
Item 8. 3
8.3 RATES REMISSION FOR LAND OCCUPIED BY A DWELLING AFFECTED BY NATURAL DISASTER- 750 MAIN RIWAKA ROAD, RIWAKA
Decision Required Report To: Full Council
Meeting Date: 7 August 2014
Report Author: Kelly Kivimaa-Schouten, Revenue Accountant Report Number: RCN14-08-03
File Reference:
1 Summary
1.1 In October 2012, Council passed a resolution adopting a policy that gives the Council the option to provide a rate remission in the event of a natural disaster.
1.2 In June 2013 there was a flood incident impacting 750 Main Riwaka Road. In September 2013 the owners of this property applied for a rates remission under this policy.
1.3 In October 2013, due to a procedural oversight, their application for a rates remission was declined without going to the Corporate Services Committee. It was declined because the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) report for the property contained a note that the property was on the Riwaka River Flood Plain. The remission policy notes that Council is unlikely to grant a remission where the land is in a known hazard prime location, however the policy still permits a remission.
1.4 After queries from the ratepayer on the status of their application, we have recently reviewed their application and recommend that it be considered by Council.
1.5 The status of the property at July 2014 is that the owners still cannot live at the property. Mr Piozin-Belloir, the owner, has indicated that remedial work is underway and has estimated it should be finished by the end of the year. He has noted that both the land and house were not useable over the period from the flood through to present. They seek a remission for the period from 16 June 2013 through to 30 September 2014 and have requested that all rates be remitted.
1.6 Previous successful applications have offered remissions to reflect bare land status. This is the staff suggestion in this case.
1.7 Staff seek Council’s decision whether to grant a rates remission, and if so, at what level.
2 Draft Resolution That the Full Council
1. receives the Rates Remission for Land Occupied by a Dwelling affected by Natural Disaster- 750 Main Riwaka Road, Riwaka report RCN14-08-03; and
2. agrees to provide a remission of $443 under the policy to this ratepayer; and 3. agrees that rates will be remitted as if the rating unit was treated as bare land; and 4. agrees that this remission will apply from 16/6/2013 through to 30/9/14 with any
further period of remission requiring a separate application form.
Item 8. 3
Item 8. 3
3 Purpose of the Report
3.1 To consider the rates remission application under Council’s Policy on Remission of Rates for Land Occupied by a Dwelling that is Affected by Natural Disaster (“Rates Remission
Policy”).
4 Background and Discussion
4.1 The Rates Remission Policy permits Council to remit all or part of a levied rate if the land is detrimentally affected by a natural disaster. The property at 750 Main Riwaka Road was impacted by a natural disaster in the form of flooding.
4.2 The Rates Remission Policy permits Council to make a remission if, as a result, the
dwellings were made uninhabitable. For the purposes of the Policy, uninhabitable is defined as a building with a Section 124 notice; a dwelling that is a total loss; or as determined by Council – contemplating factors such as the extent to which services such as water are not supplied, and whether any part of the building or land remains habitable or available for use.
4.3 The Rates Remission Policy states the period the remission shall be, such as time, as the Council deems reasonable, starting from the date which Council determines the property was made uninhabitable and limited to the time the buildings are deemed to be able to become habitable.
4.4 The original application form states the house was flooded and uninhabitable, the floors and bottoms of walls removed, bathrooms and kitchen removed.
4.5 The house has been uninhabitable from the date of the incident in mid-June 2013 through to present, however has not had a Section 124 notice issued against it. It is expected to be uninhabitable for at least a portion of the 2014-2015 rating year and the ratepayer has requested a rates remission through to the end of September 2014.
4.6 The Rates Remission Policy states the amount to be remitted is at the sole discretion of the Council, and that it is unlikely to grant a remission where the land affected is in a known hazard prime location.
4.7 A 2007 Land Information Memorandum (“LIM”) report identified this property to be “on the flood plain of the Riwaka River”, however the owners advised they were not the people who requested the 2007 LIM report. They were aware the property was in a flood risk area which they understood was generic to the Motueka/Riwaka area.
4.8 The policy states remissions will only be considered following the receipt of an application by the ratepayer within six months of the event.
4.9 This timeframe was met by the ratepayer. It was Council’s procedural issue that is resulting in the delayed timeframe in considering this application.
Item 8. 3
5 OptionsOption 1: Decline the application to provide rates relief
5.1 The application meets a number of the key criteria specified by the Rates Remission Policy.
It was impacted by a natural disaster in 2013 and remains uninhabitable more than a year later.
5.2 The application could be declined because the LIM contained notice the property was in a general flood plain area. Council could consider that this meets the policy definition of “a known hazard prime location”. It is the view of staff that if the LIM reference had been specific, rather than generic to the area, it may have been reasonable to decline the application.
Option 2: Remit all rates
5.3 This option would be attractive to affected ratepayers but could be considered unfair to other ratepayers.
5.4 The ratepayer does seek all rates to be remitted as they have indicated the land and dwelling were not useable during the period.
5.5 Previous decisions under the Rates Remission Policy (21 February 2013 Council, 17 November 2013 Corporate Services and 30 January 2014 Corporate Services) have provided a remission to reflect bare land status rather than remitting all rates.
5.6 While it is accepted that the property may not be inhabitable the ratepayer still has access to a range of Council services and to remit all rates would mean one group of ratepayers was being subsidised by another.
5.7 Total rates for the period from the incident in mid-June 2013 through to September 2014 are
$2,032.
Option 3: Provide a remission to reflect bare land status
5.8 A key criteria in the Rates Remission Policy is that the dwellings are uninhabitable and essential services are unable to be provided. Bare land rating is calculated by applying the rate in the dollar to land value only plus all applicable targeted rates except water and wastewater.
5.9 Previous decisions under the Rates Remission Policy (21 February 2013 Council, 17 November 2013 Corporate Services and 30 January 2014 Corporate Services) have provided a remission to reflect bare land status.
5.10 This option considers that while the property is uninhabitable, the property owner still has access to, and benefits from Council services like refuse/recycling, roads, community facilities and libraries and takes into account that there is no access to direct services like wastewater or water.
5.11 The remission back to bare land status from mid-June 2013 through to September 2014 would total $443.
Item 8. 3
6 Strategic Challenges / Risks
6.1 There is a risk that if this application is approved, it may set a precedent that land known to be in a flood zone or other risk area may expect to receive a remission. However the policy does state that each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan
7.1 The three options above are consistent with the Policy on Remission of Rates for Land Occupied by a Dwelling that is affected by Natural Disaster.
8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications
8.1 The maximum rates to be remitted under this application, if full rates were remitted, is
$2,032 which is not financially significant in the context of Council’s total rating income.
9 Significance and Consultation
9.1 This matter is of relatively low significance in terms of the Council’s Policy on Significance, as it does not involve major financial expenditure, is not likely to have significant public interest and is covered under existing policy.
9.2 The policy on rate relief for natural disasters was consulted on when it was first implemented.
10 Conclusion
10.1 The staff recommendation is to approve a remission back to bare land status totaling $443.
11 Next Steps / Timeline
On approval of this remission, a letter will be sent to the property owners advising them of the decision and, if approved, the credit to their rates account.
12 Attachments
1. Policy on Remission of Rates for Land Occupied by a Dwelling that is Affected by Natural Disaster
33
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 3
Policy on Remission of Rates for Land Occupied by a Dwelling that is Affected by Natural Disaster
Purpose
This Policy is to allow the Council, at its discretion, to remit rates charged on any rating unit used for residential purposes if the land has been detrimentally affected by natural disaster (erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage, inundation, or earthquake) rendering dwellings or buildings uninhabitable and requiring activities carried out on the land to cease. The aim of the Policy is to allow the Council to consider remitting rates for those ratepayers most adversely affected.
Application
This policy applies to properties located in the Tasman District.
Policy Contents:
1. Principles 2. Procedure Policy 1 Principles
1. The Council may remit all or a part of any rate or user charge made and levied in respect of land, if the land is detrimentally affected by natural disaster (such as erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage, inundation, or earthquake) and:
a) as a result dwellings or buildings previously habitable were made uninhabitable; and
b) the activity for which the land and/or buildings were used prior to the disaster is unable to be undertaken or continued.
*For the purposes of this policy – ‘uninhabitable’ shall mean –
• a dwelling or building that cannot be used for the purpose it was intended due to a ‘s124 notice’
being issued under the Building Act 2004 and the residents have been required to move out by the Council or
• a dwelling or building that is a total loss or
• as determined by Council after taking into account the matters specified in Clause 4 of this Policy
‘land used for residential purposes’ shall mean –
• any land including land not zoned for residential purposes on which a dwelling is located and is occupied by the Ratepayer as a principal place of residence
2. The remission may be for such period of time as the Council considers reasonable,
commencing from the date upon which the Council determines that the dwelling, buildings, or land were made uninhabitable and unable to be used for the activity for which they were used prior to the disaster, which shall be no less than 30 days after the event affecting the land in terms of this policy up to and limited to the time that the land and / or buildings are deemed by Council to be able to become habitable and able to be used for the activity carried out prior to the disaster.
3. The decision to remit all or any part of a rate or user charge shall be at the sole discretion of the Council. The Council may refuse to grant a remission even where the conditions set out in clause 1 are met by a ratepayer. The Council is unlikely to grant a remission where the land affected is in a known hazard prime location.
4. In determining whether or not a property is uninhabitable and the period of time for which the rates remission is to apply Council may take into account:
Att ac hm ent 1 Item 8. 3
a) the extent to which essential services such as water, or sewerage to any dwelling or building were interrupted and could not be supplied;b) whether essential services such as water or sewerage to any dwelling or building are able to be provided; and
c) whether any part of the building or land remains habitable or available for use d) any property revaluation undertaken by Council’s valuation provider.
2 Procedure
1. Rates remissions will only be considered following the receipt of an application by the ratepayer and the application must be received within 6 months of the event, or within such further time as Council in its sole discretion might allow.
2. Each application for a rates remission will be considered on a case by case basis following receipt of an application by the ratepayer. The extent and duration of any remission shall be determined on a case by case basis.
3. Council may delegate authority to consider and approve applications to Council officers. In the event of any doubt or dispute arising, the application is to be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for a decision.
Item 8. 4
8.4 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE CONSOLIDATED BYLAW – SPEED LIMITS Decision Required Report To: Full Council
Meeting Date: 7 August 2014
Report Author: Krista Hobday, Road Safety Co-ordinator; Gary Clark, Transportation Manager; Sarah Downs, Activity Planning Advisor
Report Number: RCN14-08-04 File Reference:
1 Summary
1.1 In late 2013 Tasman District Council undertook a review of Chapter 4 of Council’s Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits (Speed Limit Bylaw) to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. This review was done under urgency. Following the Special Consultative Procedure some submissions were deemed to be out of scope because they were significant in terms of change and had not been consulted on.
1.2 Staff now propose an amendment to the Speed Limit Bylaw that allows, in particular, consideration of those submissions considered out of scope for the previous Bylaw review.
1.3 The 2014 Amendment to the Speed Limit Bylaw is taking place in several stages. The first stage, which has been completed, was to obtain feedback from the community on current speed limits on roads in the Tasman District. The second stage is formal community consultation through a Special Consultative Procedure. It should be noted that this Bylaw does not include State Highways as they are managed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
1.4 The feedback period closed on Friday 30 May 2014.
1.5 A total of 150 requests were received during this first phase of the review process. A number of requests were received from individuals, schools and resident associations.
1.6 Staff have considered all the requests which included assessment, surveys and the speed warrants. Following this process, staff recommend that 51 roads be considered for speed limit changes.
1.7 The remaining requests are not recommended. This is because they do not meet the speed warrant, are not consistent with speed management principles or will be considered as part of other work being done by the Council or central government.
1.8 The recommended speed limit changes have been included as an Amendment to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits for the Council’s consideration and approval for release for consultation under the Special Consultative Procedure in Sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Item 8. 4
2 Draft Resolution That the Full Council1. receives this report Amendment to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Limit Bylaw – Speed Limits report RCN14-08-04; and
2. agrees that the proposed amendments to the Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits are the most appropriate way of addressing the problems that arise from vehicle speeds; and
3. notes that the proposed amendments do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and
4. approves the proposed Amendments to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits for consultation as described in Attachment 1; and
5. agrees that the speed limits for the remaining roads in Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits remain unchanged; and
6. notes that there were a number of requests for speed limit changes that are not recommended by staff and as such have not been included in the amendments to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits for consultation; and
7. approves the “Statement of Proposal” contained in Attachment 2 and the ‘Summary of Information” contained in Attachment 3 for public consultation as required under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; and
8. agrees the most appropriate method for distribution of the Summary of Information is through Newsline; and
9. authorises staff to make minor editorial changes to the draft amendment to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits Bylaw as required before public
consultation; and
10. appoints Councillors XX, XX and XX (at least three) to hear submissions to the proposed amendments to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits.
Item 8. 4
3 Purpose of the Report
3.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of feedback received on the current speed limits on roads within the Tasman District during the first stage of the Amendment to the Speed Limit Bylaw. A list of roads is provided along with the feedback received.
3.2 As a result of speed warrants and consideration from Council staff, this report lists roads with proposed changes. For completeness, the list also includes roads that had requests where no changes are proposed.
3.3 The report will also outline further work which considers speed limits on certain roads which are not listed under the proposed changes.
4 Background and Discussion
4.1 The last Speed Limit Bylaw review occurred in 2013. During this review a number of speed limits were changed on roads across the Tasman District. However a number of
submissions were not considered as part of that review. They were “out of scope” of the review as they needed further consultation with the community to ensure a fair process, as set out under the Local Government Act 2002, had been followed.
4.2 The 2013 review sought feedback on a number of proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw - Speed Limits. As part of that process there was no opportunity for new requests to be considered. A number of requests asked for quite significant changes across the District. The Special Consultative Procedure under the Local Government Act does not account for such significant changes that have not been consulted on to be included as part of the decision-making process.
4.3 Accordingly staff conducted a pre-consultation phase which has led to the proposed Amendments of Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits. The proposed
amendments also include requests from the 2013 review and new requests received as part of the most recent consultation.
4.4 NZTA has been working on the issues around safer speed limits and Safer Journeys which have been a concern for road safety practitioners ever since the Setting of Speed Limits Rule was passed by the Government in 2003. The Safer Journeys approach is the central government's focus to address serious and fatal crashes.
4.5 The process around the setting of speed limits does not adequately recognise the road geometry and its importance in the drivability of roads in New Zealand. Most of the roads in Tasman District were historically designed and constructed to an 80 km/hr design speed.
With the old de-restricted speed sign being replaced by the 100 km/hr sign there has been a lack of understanding by road users of this change, particularly on rural roads.
4.6 The use of the Speed Warrant to determine the posted speed limit has shown to have flaws in the outcomes to provide consistent and clear information to road users. A more relevant measure of an appropriate speed limit is the speed environment which is based on the speed drivers actually travel along the road. There are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, this has proved to be fairly accurate in determining a safe speed.
Item 8. 4
4.7 Speed management needs to take into account function, design, safety and the use of the road. NZTA, in recognising these elements of best practice, is developing new guidelines around speed management which will also lead to new ways of setting speed limits. The guidelines are expected to be completed this year.4.8 The main notion around the setting of speed limits relates to the “self-explaining roads”
concept. Drivers will travel at a speed they feel is right for the road they are travelling on. It is therefore important to ensure that the look and feel of the road matches its intended
function. This will in turn lead to speed limits that look and feel right.
4.9 This is summarised in a statement produced by the National Road Safety Committee and the Ministry of Transport in 2005 in the report “Speed change management for New Zealand roads”
‘The emphasis is not just on speed limit enforcement, it includes perceptual measures that influence the speed that a driver feels is appropriate for the section of road upon which they are driving – in effect the 'self-explaining road.'’
5 Considerations
5.1 In the review phase leading up to the amendment of Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits, a comprehensive list was compiled which highlighted all roads or sections of roads on which feedback was received, Attachment 4. The list also detailed roads which had not been included in the 2013 review because they were out of scope.
5.2 Each road or section of road was then considered by Council staff in terms of a speed warrant being carried out on the actual road being driven and assessed.
5.3 A list of proposed changes was then compiled including the alterations in speed limits for the individual roads.
5.4 Staff considered that some sections of road should be left at the current posted speed limit.
5.5 As part of this review, staff have included additional roads. This was to ensure a consistent approach to a cluster of roads and to recognise previous community feedback.
5.6 The following schedule sets out the proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Bylaw – Speed Limits:
Road Speed Limit Location
Mount Heslington Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with River Terrace Road to its intersection with Higgins Road.
Bridge Valley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Higgins Road to its intersection with Gibbs Valley Road
Umukuri Road 60 km/hr From its intersection with Little Sydney Road to the intersection of Old Mill Road
Anderson Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Umukuri Road to its end.
Old Mill Road – from Anderson Road to Umukuri Road
80 km/hr From its intersection with Anderson Road to the intersection of Umukuri Road
Old Mill Road – from Umukuri Road to Brooklyn Valley Road
60 km/hr From its intersection with Umukuri Road to the intersection of Brooklyn Valley Road
Motueka River West Bank Road
60 km/hr From its intersection with Old Mill Road/Brooklyn Valley Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 580
Item 8. 4
Road Speed Limit Location
metres from the intersection of Mickell Road/Motueka River West Bank Road.
Motueka River West Bank Road
80 km/hr From a point 580 metres south of Mickell Road and extending in a westerly direction from a point 200 metres east of the Pearse Valley Road/Motueka River West Bank Road
Brooklyn Valley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Old Mill Road to its end
Gardner Valley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH 60 to its intersection with the Moutere Highway.
Harley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to its intersection with the Moutere Highway
Best Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with George Harvey Road to its intersection with Gardner Valley Road
Tarrant Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Gardner Valley Road to its end.
Nuttall Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Old Coach road to its intersection with Gardner Valley Road
George Harvey Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Old Coach Road to its intersection with Best Road
Dominion Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to the intersection of Old Coach Road/George Harvey Road
Apple Valley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to the intersection of Old Coach Road/School Road
Old Coach Road 80 km/hr From the intersection its intersection with Gardner Valley Road to its intersection with Dominion Road/George Harvey Road/Old Coach Road.
Old Coach Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with the Moutere Highway to a point 1700 metres south of the intersection of Dominion Road/George Harvey Road/Old Coach Road
Old Coach Road 60 km/hr From its intersection with Dominion Road/George Harvey Road/Old Coach Road and extending in a southerly direction for 1700 metres.
School Road (Mahana) 80 km/hr From its intersection with Carlyon Road to a point 220 metres west of the intersection of Old Coach Road/Apple Valley Road/School Road.
Carlyon Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Old Coach Road to its intersection with George Harvey Road.
School Road (Mahana) 60 km/hr From its intersection with Old Coach Road/ Apple Valley Road/School Road and extending in a westerly direction for 220 metres.
Westdale Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to its intersection with SH60.
Redwood Valley Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with the Moutere Highway to its end.
Redwood Valley Lane 30 km/hr From its intersection with the Moutere Highway to its intersection with Redwood Valley Road
Redwood Park Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Redwood Valley Road to its end.
Ridgeview Road 60 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to its end.
Riwaka-Sandy Bay Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with SH60 to its intersection with Riwaka Sandy Bay Road/ Sandy Bay Marahau Road.
Sandy Bay-Marahau Road 80 km/hr From the intersection with Riwaka Sandy Bay
Road/Kaiteriteri Sandy Bay Road in a easterly direction for 1659 metres
Kaiteriteri-Sandy Bay Road 80 km/hr From the intersection with Riwaka Sandy Bay Road/ Sandy Bay-Marahau Road to 280 metres north of the 30km/hr speed restriction
Moss Road 80 km/hr From its intersection with Riwaka Sandy Bay road to its end.
Stafford Drive 80 km/hr From the intersection of Stafford Drive/Pine Hill Road to its intersection with Aporo Road
Aranui Road 40 km/hr From its intersection with Mapua Drive/Stafford Drive to its
Item 8. 4
Road Speed Limit Location end.Higgs Road 40 km/hr From its intersection with Mapua Drive to its intersection with Aranui Road
Lionel Place 40 km/hr From its intersection with Higgs Road to its end Jessie Street 40 km/hr From its intersection with Higgs Road to its end Te Aroha Place 40 km/hr From its intersection with Jessie Street to its end.
Viewlands Place 40 km/hr From its intersection with Higgs Road to its end Citrus Grove 40 km/hr From its intersection with Higgs Road to its end
Toru Street 40 km/hr From its intersection with Aranui Road/Higgs Road to its end Iwa Street 40 km/hr From its intersection with Aranui Road to its end
Moreland Place 40 km/hr From its intersection with Iwa Street to its end.
Langford Drive 40 km/hr From
