KAIKOURA DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT 9.00AM ON WEDNESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2016 AT MEMORIAL HALL SUPPER

ROOM, ESPLANADE, KAIKOURA.

AGENDA 1. Apologies 2. Open Forum – Session for members of the public wishing to comment on items included in this

agenda. The Council meeting will adjourn following this item and will resume following the Environmental Services Committee meeting. 3. Matters of Importance to be raised as Urgent Business

4. Finance Report page 13

5. Civil Defence page 15

6. Civic Building Report page 16

7. Resident and Ratepayer Satisfaction Survey 2016 page 17

8. Continuity of Water Zone Committee following Election page 28

9. Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund Applications page 30

10. Public Forum

TIME NAME SUBJECT

- - -

11. Youth Council

A representative of the Youth Council will be in attendance at 1.30pm to present this item. 12. Committee Updates 13. Mayor’s Report page 57 14. Minutes to be Confirmed:

Council 17/08/2016 page 58 15. Reports to be Adopted:

Works & Services Committee 17/08/2016 page 63 Environmental Services Committee 17/08/2016 page 65 Finance Audit & Risk Committee 18/07/2016 page 67

16. Minutes to be Received

Hearings and Applications Committee 26/07/2016 page 70 Hearings and Applications Committee 28/07/2016 page 73 Kaikoura Zone Water Committee 27/07/2016 page 83

17. Urgent Business 18. Council Public Excluded Session

Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely

a. Confirmation of Minutes of Council Public Excluded meeting on 17/08/2016

b. Adoption of Report Finance, Audit & Risk Public Excluded meeting on 18/07/2016

c. Adoption of Report Works & Services Public Excluded meeting on 17/08/2016

d. Receive Minutes of the Hearings & Applications Public Excluded meeting 29/04/2016

e. Civic Building Report

f. Delegations under the Resource Management Act during Election Period

g. Appointment of New Civil Defence Controller

The general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) and 7(2)(i) of the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds of the Act under which this resolution is made

Minutes of the Council Public Excluded meeting 17/08/2016

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Local Authority to protect information where the making available of that information would likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information.

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)(ii)

Report of Finance, Audit & Risk Public Excluded meeting 18/07/2016

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Local Authority to protect information where the making available of that information would likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information.

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)(ii)

Report of Works & Services Public Excluded meeting 17/08/2016

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)(ii)

necessary to enable the Local Authority to protect information where the making available of that information would likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information.

Minutes Hearings and Applications Public Excluded meeting 29/04/2016

That the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceedings before a local authority where a right of appeal lies to any court or tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings

Section 48(1)(d) and 48(2)(a)(i)

Civic Building Report

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Local Authority to protect information where the making available of that information would likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information.

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(b)(ii)

Delegations under the Resource Management Act during Election Period

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(a)

Appointment of New Civil Defence Controller

The exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons

Section 48(1)(a) and 7(2)(a)

Summarised Finance Report for the period to 31 August 2016

Summary Statement of Comprehensive Revenue & Expense

Budget 31/08/2016

Actual 31/08/2016

Actual 31/08/2015

Rates revenue 1,439,543 1,459,115 876,444

All other revenue 371,083 413,962 587,924

TOTAL REVENUE 1,810,626 1,873,077 1,464,368

Operating expenses 1,470,002 1,232,430 1,243,042

Net surplus/(deficit) 340,624 640,647 221,326

Other comprehensive revenue - - -

Total revenue & expense 340,624 640,647 221,326

The operating surplus is up on forecast, with strong revenues from building consents. Operating

expenses are less than budget due to timing of maintenance and insurance, plus ownership costs of

the Civic Centre (cleaning, electricity, etc).

Summary Statement of Financial Position

Budget 30/06/2017

Actual 31/08/2016

Actual 31/08/2015

Full year Two months Two months

Current assets 4,460,718 3,156,576 10,659,189

Non- current assets 172,122,221 167,100,676 164,186,833

Current liabilities (2,491,400) (5,296,443) (4,671,310)

Non-current liabilities (9,379,376) (5,740,524) (5,461,227)

TOTAL NET ASSETS 164,712,163 159,220,286 164,713,485

Ratepayers equity 80,752,128 86,203,813 92,878,943

Special funds 2,532,347 1,691,301 2,500,979

Asset revaluation reserve 81,427,688 71,325,172 69,333,563

TOTAL EQUITY 164,712,163 159,220,286 164,713,485

The financial statements now include the asset valuations for roads, water, sewer, stormwater, land

and buildings. Those valuations increased our asset base by around $2 million.

Current assets are substantially different to that reported for August 2015 because of the way the

former computer system accounted for rates revenue. Previously the entire year’s rates would be

“struck” in one lump sum; this year using Ozone we only recognise rates revenue when it is invoiced

(quarterly by instalment).

The full financial report is contained within the Finance, Audit & Risk Committee agenda

Financial Dashboard

Top capital projects (by spend $)

Budget

$000’s

Amount Spent $000’s

Within budget

Within time

Civic centre 5,900 6,394 No No

Footpaths 500 301 Yes Yes

Sth Bay watr 300 300 Yes Yes

Stormwater 25 30 No Yes

Harbour rock 300 26 Yes No

CCTV 26 22 Yes Yes

Ozone FBI 20 10 Yes Yes

Drainage 50 9 Yes Yes

Traffic servc 11 9 Yes Yes

Unsealed Rds 60 4 Yes Yes

The Civic Centre should be ready to move

into by the end of October

Substantial footpath work is underway on

Churchill St, Deal St and other areas.

The South Bay water renewal is complete

Rock removal in the harbour is delayed

pending resource consent and assessment

Civil Defence Tourism and Civil Defence The workshop for “Health and Safety Act- Tourism and Emergencies – Your responsibilities and how to meet them” on 24th August on was well attended. The take home points were:

Staff need meaningful training and time, encouragement and equipment to do what they have been trained to do

Make sure your staff know how to use chemicals properly

Buildings need to be maintained as per building code and fire regulations

If you think, that looks dangerous -fix it.

Making sure everyone is staying safe is more important than writing It down-make sure people can speak up if they think something is dangerous

Accidents will happen but negligence is your responsibility

If you are negligent and someone gets hurt or killed at your business, it will have a very negative impact on you emotionally

Know your hazards -fix or mitigate risks

Do your best, don't stress and just chip away at it. A weekly email exercise is underway to help business to get their business continuity plans together. Emergo: Exercise Paikea-17th of August Emergency Management Officers from Kaikoura, Hurunui, and Marlborough participated in the Canterbury District Health Board’s Emergo exercise. This was a mass casualty at sea scenario which involved all the emergency services in Kaikoura and Whale Watch, Dolphin Encounter, Downer and Wings over Whales. This was a great opportunity for cross agency training. Exercise Pandora 31st of August Council staff responsible for Public Information Management participated in the yearly exercise. The scenario involved a regional tsunami. The lessons learned in the exercise were put to good use in the tsunami warning on the 2nd of September. Potential Tsunami Threat 2nd Sept The Emergency Operations Centre partially activated after a potential tsunami threat was issued on the 2nd of September after a 7.1 magnitude earthquake 130km north-east of Te Araroa. Training –Working in a Civil Defence Centre -6th and 7th of September 15 people attended a two-night workshop to be trained to set up and work in a Civil Defence Centre (formally known as Welfare Centres). The training was excellent and the Kaikoura team set up their mock civil defence centre in record time. Thanks to all who participated.

Prepared by Kd Scattergood, Emergency Management Officer

Authorised by Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive Officer

Civic Centre Building Report Purpose: This report provides Council with an update on the timeline and construction of the project. Updated timeline

Services Comment Completion Date

Plumbing Completed

Electrical , security, fire alarms Final fit-off September 2016

Internal Walls

Completed

Partitions Completed

Suspended Ceilings Completed

Interior Painting Completed – with final touch ups/ snags

Reception desks Complete

Kitchen Complete

Bathroom flooring and carpeting Carpeting commencing – 2 weeks to

complete

September 2016

Internal Stair Case Finishing First two flights installed with third flight

to be installed thereafter. Handrails and

balustrades to be installed.

Completed late

September 2016

Exterior works : kerb & channel, block

wall, entrance ramp, concreting,

handrails, fencing & external plastering;

Kerb and channel complete; Chorus

completed fibre connection.

Mid October 2016

Exterior Stairs Rear Ramp concreted and constructed;

council to build ramp, finalise

landscaping and path adjacent to rear

ramp.

September 2016

Steel bracing bracing - craypots To be confirmed

Commissioning of lift 3 October

CPU In the process of collating documents

required for CPU with inspection

scheduled in early October

Mid October

Recommendation: That this report be received for information.

Prepared by Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive Officer

Resident & Ratepayer Satisfaction Survey 2016 As per the last five years, the survey form was sent out as an insert with the rates instalment invoices. There were 234 respondents, up from 180 in 2015 and similar to 236 in 2014.

Demographic of respondents

Over 99% of respondents were ratepayers, which is probably a reflection of the way in which the survey form was distributed.

Over half of respondents (134 in total) were aged over 60, and 80% of respondents were over 50. Only six respondents stated they were in the 18-29 year age group (although this is up from two last years. Given the high proportion of respondents who were over 60 years old, there were a proportionately high number of respondents who stated that they were not looking for work.

48%

52%

Respondents by gender

M F

3%

8%9%

24%

34%

23%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+

Respondents by age groups

The greatest majority of respondents lived in the Kaikoura Township, Kaikoura flats or South Bay, and only 3% of the respondents who were ratepayers lived outside the district.

19%

8%

4%2%

27%

41%

Full-time Part-time Casual Unemployed Self-employed Not lookingfor work

Respondents by Employment status

2% 1%

10%

44%

13%

3% 3%0%

3%

14%

5% 3%

Respondents by Location

Levels of Satisfaction with Council Services

The actual levels of satisfaction with urban streets recovered slightly, but falls short of target. Urban Very satisfied 5.29% Satisfied 69.23% Dissatisfied 22.6% Very dissatisfied 2.88%

Satisfaction with rural roads continues to decline, with only 46% overall satisfied or very satisfied with the condition of rural roads. Rural Very satisfied 0.93% Satisfied 45.37% Dissatisfied 27.31% Very dissatisfied 26.39%

Satisfaction with footpaths has recovered slightly in 2016 with 51% satisfied (up from 47% last year). Residents commented about South Bay and Beach Rd specifically. Footpaths are number one in the top three things that residents want Council to focus on, and have been in the top three things for the last five years.

The level of satisfaction with cycleways dropped slightly compared to that of 2015, but at 76% was still higher than the target satisfaction level of 70%. Comments ranged from “we need more” to “overkill, waste of money”. Beach Rd was mentioned as an area of safety concern for cyclists.

Satisfaction with street lights dropped from a peak 88% in 2015 to 80% in 2016. Some respondents expressed a preference for less lighting, or low level lighting, for night sky viewing and to avoid confusing the Hutton’s Shearwater during migrations.

Satisfaction is up on last year, at 88% total satisfied. Some respondents on the Kaikoura township supply commented that the water has a chlorine taste.

Satisfaction with sewerage remained steady at 94% in 2015 and 2016.

Satisfaction with stormwater improved from 79% in 2015 to 83% in 2016.

The Resource Recovery Centre continues to achieve high levels of satisfaction, at 87%. Of those satisfied, nearly 40% respondents stated they were very satisfied – which is consistently the highest proportion of very satisfied responses from all sections of this survey.

Playgrounds continue to achieve high levels of satisfaction, with 94% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied. One respondent suggested shade cloths, one wanted more public toilets at playgrounds, and another requested more play equipment at Beach Road.

The cemetery was the star performer of this year’s survey; this year 98% of respondents said that they were satisfied. No respondent said they were very dissatisfied with the cemetery, and only four people said they were dissatisfied.

There was a big increase in the level of satisfaction with public toilets this year, from 78% in 2014 to 86% in 2015. Several respondents suggested more toilets are needed north of town and in the surfing areas, and a few people expressed concern with cleanliness.

97% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with Sports Fields; the second highest performer in terms of satisfaction from this year’s survey.

The levels of satisfaction have recovered since 2013 (when the library relocated to Harakeke Mall). This year the levels of satisfaction with the Library dropped slightly to 92%. Several respondents commented on the location of the Library, but preference was fairly evenly split between staying at Harakeke Mall and moving to the West End.

Satisfaction with Marina and Wharf is constant at 82%. Comments included the need for more parking spaces, and lack of maintenance on the slipway.

The State Highway only achieved 66% satisfaction, with 13.5% of respondents very dissatisfied with

SH1, particularly Beach Road and the Churchill Street cutting under the rail bridge. Respondents also

commented on slow broadband and poor cellphone coverage in certain areas (telecommunications).

Coastal erosion and foreshore protection This year the survey included the following: Some areas of our coast have been eroded by storm

surges, and we want to know how important you feel it is for these areas to be protected. Are you

prepared to pay more in rates so that the Council can do more to protect the foreshore from

erosion?

Yes 69 31.5%

No 116 53.0%

Don’t know 34 15.5%

Several respondents commented on a perceived waste of spending rates revenue that should be spent on more worthy projects (such as foreshore protection), some gave suggested solutions for what might work (such as rocks or planting), and others criticised the Council’s current approach of using pea gravel as a short term fix.

Civil Defence emergency preparedness Last year we introduced three new questions to the survey, asking the extent to which households were prepared for a civil defence emergency. The responses are encouraging, but show slightly less than last year.

Last year This year

My household is prepared to look after ourselves for three days in a disaster

98% 95%

My household has an emergency plan in place

88% 85%

My household has an emergency supplies kit (water, torches, medications, candles, radio, batteries, etc)

91% 85%

Top 10 concerns for the Council to focus on

1 Footpaths 35

2 Rural roads 34

3 Indoor swimming pool 20

4 Freedom camping 19

5 Foreshore erosion 16

6 Town beautification 16

7 Roading maintenance 16

8 Transparency & communication 13

9 Council building 12

10 Cycleways 10

The state of footpaths is top of the list of resident concerns for the second year in a row; footpaths and rural roads have been in the top ten since surveys began over ten years ago. Freedom camping appears on the list for the first time in a while, coming in at number four.

Satisfaction with the Mayor, Councillors and Staff This question asks people to add their score only if they have contacted the Mayor or Councillors within the last twelve months. There were 103 responses to the question, of which 63 people (or 61%) said they were satisfied or very satisfied with that contact. This is a drop from 76% in 2015.

The next question is for all survey respondents to complete, regardless of whether they have contacted the members of the Council or not. The percentage of respondents who agree that the council takes notice of residents views remains static at 34%, up from only 29% the year before, and well short of the target of 67%.

69% of respondents were satisfied with the CEO, up from 60% last year. This measure was distorted, though, with some respondents referring to the new chief executive, and some to the former, in the comments that were given.

Customer services achieved 91% satisfaction with 28% very satisfied, and only 3% very dissatisfied.

Statutory functions (resource and building consents) both received similar levels of satisfaction, with 73% and 67% respectively, and both achieved 17% of respondents very satisfied.

Overall, 54% of respondents were satisfied with their contact with the engineer.

This is the first year that we have asked satisfaction about Innovative Waste as our water and sewer contractor. IWK has achieved 93% satisfaction, compared with 81% satisfaction for the former contractor last year.

All survey respondents who gave their name and phone number went into a draw for a $100 gift card at the New World supermarket. This year’s winner was Michele Thorn.

Prepared by Sheryl Poulsen, Finance Manager

Authorised by Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive Officer

Continuity of Water Zone Committee Following Election Purpose To ensure that the Kaikoura Zone Water Committee is not be discharged on the coming into office of the new Members of Council following the 2016 triennial election and that the individuals currently appointed to the Committees continue until the date the new Council resolves to make any new appointments.

Value proposition Council has appointed a joint committee that has ongoing operations and work programmes. Unless Council resolves otherwise, the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”) deems that this Committees will be discharged, which is likely to impede its ongoing function.

Proposal Background

1. Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 to the LGA states that: “A committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body is, unless the local authority resolves otherwise, deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the local authority elected or appointed at, or following, the triennial general election of members next after the appointment of the committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body.”

2. Under the LGA the Council can resolve that a Committee is not to be discharged following the election. If such a resolution is not passed, then the committee is deemed discharged and would have to be reappointed by the new Council.

3. The Kaikoura Zone Water Committees’ work will need to continue beyond the election date:

(a) The Kaikoura Zone Water Committee is a joint committee of Environment

Canterbury and the Kaikoura District Council. The Zone Committee’s Terms of

Reference contemplate the need for a review of the Committees’ membership

following the triennial election. However neither the Terms of Reference, the Joint

Committee Agreement nor the Council resolutions establishing the Zone

Committees provides the necessary resolution under the LGA.

4. There are meetings of the Committees scheduled throughout October, November and December 2016 and they will be continuing their work programmes throughout that period. In addition, it is possible (as a result of the timing requirements for the appointment of members to Environment Canterbury under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016) that the first meeting of the Environment Canterbury Council might not be until mid-November and therefore that replacement appointments to those committees would not be made until late 2016.

5. For continuity purposes and to allow the Committee to keep working, it would therefore be prudent for Council to resolve that the Committee is not discharged following the election, and further that the individuals who have been appointed to the Committee remain appointed until the date the new Council resolves to make any new appointments.

6. This is consistent with clause 31(5) of Schedule 7 to the LGA which provides that if a local authority resolves that a Committee is not to be discharged, the local authority may

nonetheless replace the members of that Committee after the election. By implication therefore, the existing members of the Committees would remain in office until any replacements were made.

Legal compliance and risk assessment Other than outlined above there are no legal implications from this proposal.

Significance and engagement It is anticipated that Environment Canterbury will also pass a similar resolution similar to this one.

Recommendations That pursuant to clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council resolves that the Kaikoura Zone Water Committee shall not be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the Council elected or appointed at, or following, the next triennial general election, and that the individuals currently appointed to the Committee by Council continue until the date the new Council resolves to make any new appointments.

Prepared by Suzanne Syme, Executive Officer

Authorised by Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive Officer

Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund Applications

The recently announced Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund has provided Council with

an opportunity to seek funding for visitor-related infrastructure in communities facing funding

constraints and high visitor growth.

The fund is managed by Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE). It is intended to

cover visitor-related facilities like toilets, carparks, waste disposal and minor water management

projects. The fund is open to proposals from territorial authorities, or other entities that have

received support from Council. The fund focuses four areas for assessing applications:

1. Identified needs and direct tourism benefits: (40 points), priority given to projects which

immediately improve the region’s offering in response to visitor growth

2. Project readiness and detailed programme (25 Points), project should demonstrate they are

“shovel ready” can be completed by reputable construction contractor and have all

necessary consents in place, funding is not provided for consents.

3. Extent of co-funding (25 Points), applicants should co-fund projects to the maximum extent

possible.

4. Wider tourism and regional growth benefits: (10 Points) projects should enhance the

location’s overall tourism potential and deliver positive impacts to the community.

From Round 1 funding for two strategic projects is being sought:

1. Harbour Safety Improvement - the project involves removal of rock from the sea channel to

improve the only harbour between Lyttelton and Picton. This would provide improved

safety for all commercial and recreational users including cruise ship tenders.

2. Ohau Waterfall Stream and Seals Pups - the project involves improving the safety and

amenities offered in this extremely popular location which offers iconic interactions with fur

seal pups.

Applications closed at 4pm on 15th September 2016, MBIE have advised extensions will not be given.

The applications (excluding supporting information and technical reports, due to size) are attached.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the two applications made to the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant

Fund.

Prepared by Matt Hoggard, District Planner

Authorised by Angela Oosthuizen, Chief Executive Officer

Section 1: Proposal and applicant key details

Please enter answers in the right-hand column.

1.1 Proposal key details

Name of project Kaikoura Harbour Safety Improvements

Short description of proposed project Removal of rock to provide a safe channel for visiting vessels. This will improve the safety of the only harbour between Lyttelton and Picton. Providing improved safety for all users including cruise ship tenders.

Estimated total monetary cost of project

$230,000.00

Amount of MFF funding sought – this must exceed $100,000 (excl. GST)

$115,000.00

1.2 Lead applicant key details

Lead applicant details

Applicant name Kaikoura District Council

Applicant address, including postcode

PO Box 6

Kaikoura 7340

1.3 Contact person details This will be the only person who receives the correspondence relating to the proposal.

Fill out all fields unless otherwise indicated

Contact person details

Full name

Matt Hoggard

Job title or Role

District Planner – Team Leader Development

Contact phone 03 3195026

Contact email address matt.hoggard@kaikoura.govt.nz

Contact postal address (if different to lead applicant address), including postcode

Section 2: Eligibility Criteria

NOTE: Any proposals which do not meet all of the eligibility criteria will not be funded.

2.1 Creation of new facility or enhancement of existing facility

a. Is your project for the creation of a new facility, or enhancement of an existing facility required to meet visitor expectations?

☐ New facility

☒ Enhancement of existing facility

☒ Facility required to meet visitor expectations

2.2 Co-funding

a. Are you proposing co-funding that… - Is to the maximum extent of your ability? - Is in monetary form only? - Does not include any other central government funding?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Are you seeking a one-off, project-specific grant for creating or enhancing facilities for visitors?

☒ Yes

☐ No

c. Do you have a plan and confirmed funding for ongoing maintenance of the facility?

☒ Yes

☐ No

d. Does your application seek funding to only cover the actual construction costs of building or enhancing facilities?

☒ Yes

☐ No

2.3 Project readiness and timeframes

a. Has all other required financing been confirmed?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Will your project be completed within six months of the grant being approved?

☒ Yes

☐ No

2.4 Project meets identified need

a. Is your project a mid-sized facility?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Is your project included in existing Council planning or strategic documents?

☒ Yes

☐ No

c. Are you proposing the most cost-effective design sufficient to meet visitor expectations and projected visitor numbers?

☒ Yes

☐ No

d. Will your completed facility meet all relevant local and national regulatory requirements?

☒ Yes

☐ No

2.5 Other factors

a. Has your project already been approved and fully funded?

☒ Yes – See section 3.3(d)

☐ No

b. Will your project compete with a comparable facility planned or offered by a private business in the district?

☐ Yes

☒ No

Section 3: Project Description

3.1 Facility design and construction

a. Describe the facility you propose to construct and the key steps that now have to be taken prior to starting construction

The facility is the construction of a channel to allow improved safety for vessels. The safety works ensure a minimum harbour entry depth of 2.0m below chart datum, in the channel entry of the Kaikoura Harbour. Works are undertaken in two distinct areas:

1) Close to the harbour breakwater, where drilling and explosive blasting is required to fracture rock. The fractured rock will be excavated from a temporary causeway. Approximately 500m3 of rock will be removed.

2) Seaward of the existing starboard maker buoy, where drilling and explosive blasting is required to fracture and lower rock. The fractured rock will not be removed. Approximately 100m3 of rock will be redistributed.

The proposed works are supported by the Canterbury Harbour Master, who on completion, will install navigational safety markers. The costs of installing navigational safety markers has been excluded from the application and will be met by the Canterbury Regional Council.

Steps taken to date include:

1. Extensive discussion with Environment Canterbury both from harbour safety and consenting point of view. Resulting in attached design, Appendix 1

2. Survey of the harbour to identify specific areas additional depth is required, survey undertaken by Eliot Sinclair, Appendix 2

3. Discussions with Cruise New Zealand and Inchcape Shipping Services McKay (ISS-McKay) to ensure the site is feasible

4. Benthic Assessment of the area commissioned from School of Biological Sciences University of Canterbury, Appendix 3

5. Discussions with Ministry of Primary Industries, Appendix 4 6. Discussions with Te Korowai (Kaikoura Coastal Guardians) 7. Discussions with Local Tourist Operators (Whale Watch, Dolphin Encounter,

charter operators and fishermen), Appendix 5 8. Discussion with Kaikoura Coastguard, Appendix 5 9. Written Approval from the Department of Conservation, Appendix 5 10. Cultural Impact Assessment from Te Runanga O Kaikoura currently work in

progress due 18th September 2016.

b. Describe the alternative designs you considered for this facility and the advantages and disadvantages of each, including why you settled on the current design

No alternative exists to address harbour safety issues. Alternative methods have been discussed within the resource consent presently being processed by Environment Canterbury. These alternatives relate to the methods to remove rock, no alternative design has been considered. The current design has been approved by the Harbourmaster and is the most efficient design for the safest outcome.

c. Describe how you are going to maintain and service the facility once it is constructed, and how the on-going functioning of the facility will be funded

Council has a harbour rate and fees and charges for visiting vessels.

d. Construction timeline: complete table in section 4. If your project will take more than six months to complete, explain here why that is the case

The construction period is limited to ensure that no adverse effects result for the proposed work. The construction period will be limited by consent from 1st September until 31 January 2016. This is to ensure no adverse effects exist on the blue penguins that nest within the area and to minimise the spread of the seaweed Undaria.

3.2 Demand for the facility

a. Why does your community/region need this facility? What evidence do you have of visitor demand for a facility of this kind?

Kaikoura has become an increasing popular tourist destination for both the domestic and international market. This is due to the natural resource at our doorstep and our genuine care for the environment and the warmth of our welcome. As a location we showcase nature, and are ambassadors of the 100% Pure New Zealand brand.

The increase in tourism has seen greater pressure for marine mammal interaction and charter fisher operators. Marine mammal interactions are controlled by the Department of Conservation and permits are strictly limited. This has seen an increase in vessel size and a greater number of vessels using the South Bay Harbour. Unfortunately, Council does not have a vessel count but does have details on the revenue which is received;

In addition to the growth of local operators, Kaikoura is becoming a popular destination for the increasing number of cruise ships which New Zealand is receiving. Kaikoura has seen a number of high end vessels such as MS The World which is the largest privately owned residential yacht, with 196m long with 165 residences.

Vessels safely anchor in the deeper waters and use the ships tenders to transport passengers into Kaikoura. Unfortunately, this has not been without incident and a tender vessel of a visiting ship struck rock. Fortunately, no parties received injuries and no structural damage occurred. If a tender vessel is damaged this can prevent the sailing of the cruise ship as the tenders are also the lifeboats.

MBIE’s publication Tourism infrastructure – August 2016 addresses some of the critical limitations of the Cruise Infrastructure Supply. Two critical aspects are:

“The number of cruise ships able to be in port at any one time is restricted by the number of berths. Scheduling cruise ships on different days within the season can alleviate this problem, to a point.” Page 31 “Occupancy is over 100 per cent for all seasons analysed, which suggests that all cruise ships are full. This means that the only real method of increasing overall capacity is through an increase in the number or size of cruise ships.” Page 33

Kaikoura can help New Zealand, as it is a place cruise ship passengers wish to visit and while visiting Kaikoura, other infrastructure within New Zealand is freed up.

Cruise New Zealand forecast continuing growth within the cruise sector as seen with the table below:

More specifically for Canterbury, Cruise New Zealand projections for 2016-17 is a 21% increase in unique passenger visits, bringing numbers to 147,200. This results in a 21% increase in added value, which is projected at $57m.

The demand for the works have been based on the increase in pressure that the area is seeing and Cruise New Zealand Forecasts.

Cruise New Zealand have stated “New Zealand is currently at a critical point where infrastructure in some areas is not catering to demand - New Zealand cruise regions need to provide safe berths that can accommodate the ships that are coming, and many of them are getting bigger.1” This application seeks to improve the safety of the area and provide key tourism facilities necessary for the growing cruise ship industry.

b. Provide evidence of links between your Territorial Authority’s strategic plans and other planning or strategic documents and this project

At a national level, Tourism Industry Aotearoa has the aspiration goal of $41 billion total tourism revenue in 2025. The estimated total expenditure for the year to March 2016

is expected to be in the region of $32.5 billion. This expenditure is well ahead of the growth rate required to reach $41 billion in 2025. The Tourism 2025 vision places emphasis on the need to address:

Seasonality

Dispersal

Capacity Development and Infrastructure

Sustainability

Seasonality – Improving the safety of the channel increases the period it can be operated

Dispersal – The harbour safety works allows increase confidence within the cruise ship industry and allows for better dispersal of vessels around New Zealand

Capacity Development and Infrastructure – The work proposed although largely unseen is core tourist infrastructure and funding ensures that the physical works will occur.

Sustainability– A number of detailed assessment have occurred to ensure that nature of the work is sustainable.

At the regional level The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013 recognises the importance of this infrastructure and defines it to be “regionally significant infrastructure”. The works are also supported by the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy which seeks to:

Improve the range of available visitor experiences

Increase the number and spend of visitors to Canterbury

Keep visitors in Canterbury (and the South Island) longer.

At the Territorial Authority level, the project is identified within the annual plan and has been through the special consultation procedure of the Local Government Act.

Deepening of the channel will also increase the drought to increase the range of vessel which can visit the Kaikoura Harbour. Kaikoura Coastguard support the initiative as it will allow vessels to be towed into the harbour for safety purposes.

1 http://www.tourism2025.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Cruise-NZ-2015-2016-SUMMARY-Economic-Impact-Report-FINAL.pdf

c. What other evidence do you have of community support for the construction of this facility?

See attached letters

d. List all the benefits you believe this facility will bring to your community and region, How will this project contribute to enhancing regional economic growth?

The Kaikoura Harbour was officially opened on 10th May 1997 by Hon. Doug Kidd, M.P. for Kaikoura and Speaker of the House. The opening of the harbour was a significant milestone for the Kaikoura Community. The harbour opening was a cornerstone in the success of our marine tourism industry. The proposed works expand on the existing facilities.

The benefits include:

Improved safety, for all users of the area

Allowing a greater range of vessels to visit

Removal of any stigmata of Kaikoura harbour being unsafe

Better port facilities between Lyttelton and Picton

Providing greater alternatives for cruise vessels visiting New Zealand

The project will enhance regional economic growth by:

Improving the range of visitor experience by allowing a wider range of vessel to safely visit Kaikoura.

Providing the opportunity for larger tourist vessels allowing for more tourist within peak periods while still meeting concession requirements

Allowing increase use of the area in a variety of sea conditions

It is anticipated that the number of visiting tourist vessels will increase to 36 per year, once the harbour is deepened and better docking facilities are provided. Additional vessels will create opportunities for tourist operators within the District.

It is noted that docking facilities to speed the transfer by tender will require additional consents and given these facilities are not ‘shovel ready’ the docking facilities for tenders have been excluded from this application.

In essence the project adds to the strategic importance of the site which was recognised with the original harbour construction and open by the Hon. Doug Kidd.

3.3 Funding the project

a. Provide the detailed budget for the total project (including construction). Indicate where co-funding is being sought from the MFF and the amount being sought (excl. GST)

Kaikoura District Council has scheduled raising in a loan for the full costs of the works within the Annual Plan. The combination of the successful rebuild of the Kaikoura Hospital has seen Council agreeing to underwrite the hospital up to $3.4m and have currently paid $2.03m towards the Hospital. Doing so, has placed pressure on Council ability to further raise finance, while still operating within approved borrowing caps. This has restricted our ability to fund other key tourism infrastructure. The amount being sought is based on a 50/50 split of the actual costs of construction only. The full costs of all technical reports, consultation and resource consents have been met by the Kaikoura District Council.

It is noted the total costs of the project have been included within the 2016/2017 Annual Plan and this decision was made after 13 May 2016. All work has to be completed before 31st January 2017 given environmental constraints.

b. Will the co-funding being sought from the MFF be sufficient to complete the project? List the other confirmed sources of financing for this project

Co-funding will be sufficient to complete the project. The remainder of the funds will be raised by loan.

c. Describe what alternative sources of funding were explored before this co-funding request was made. Has the Territorial Authority committed the maximum amount of funding that it can?

In March 2014, the Kaikoura District Council sought $250,000.00 from the tourism partnership fund. This funding was to enable the construction of a cruise ship tender berth jetty at South Bay Marina and increase the depth of the channel entrance to enable tenders from larger cruise vessels to navigate into the Marina. At the time of the application, the proposal was in an early stage of development and the application was unsuccessful.

For the Kaikoura District Council, every $56,000.00 of capital spend, represents a 1% increase in rates. Given this, loan funding is the only way Kaikoura District Council can realistically achieve key infrastructure projects. Funding the full amount of the project pushes council near our debt affordability benchmark. It is considered that, given our debt levels, the maximum amount of funding has been committed.

d. If your proposed project has already been approved and fully funded and/or construction has already commenced, can you provide evidence that:

the decision to fund and/or to proceed with a project that qualifies for support under the Fund was made after 13 May 2016; and

the decision was made with the expectation that some support from the newly announced Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund would be likely; and

the project will be completed within six months of the decision to proceed being made or by 31 December 2016 at the latest

The annual plan was adopted on 22 June 2016

Since the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund was announced the project was seen as a strong contender for funding given the range of benefit which it provides to the Kaikoura community and New Zealand as a whole.

The project needs to be completed by 31 January 2016 due to environmental considerations

Actual construction time is intended to be 8 weeks, however, given the possibility of unfavourable sea conditions, 15 weeks for construction has been allowed for.

3.4 Regulatory and other matters

a. Provide evidence that your completed facility will meet all relevant local and national regulatory requirements

A resource consent is currently being processed by Environment Canterbury for the harbour safety improvements. Kaikoura District Council are currently awaiting a Cultural Impact Assessment from Te Runanga o Kaikoura, which is due on 18th September 2016. Initial discussion with Environment Canterbury have indicated that given the limited area

of rock to be removed, difficulties are not anticipated with obtaining consent. Resource consent for the work is expected to be obtained late September.

All contractors will be required to comply with Health and Safety legislation and well as meet all conditions of the resource consent.

b. If your main construction contractor has already been appointed, provide evidence of the experience and reliability of that contractor and that the contractor has a strong health and safety record.

Main construction contractor is yet to be appointed, as we are awaiting the conditions of the resource consent before we issue tender documents.

c. Provide evidence that land access and any other necessary permissions required for the project (if any) have been obtained

The access to the land is controlled by the Kaikoura District Council. The resource consent for the work is currently in process and expected late September.

Section 4: Construction Timeline

Component costs of project

This table must be completed for all submitted proposals. You may add more rows if required. Note: Funding will be paid in arrears, on production of receipts.

Activity description Estimated start date Estimated end date Total estimated costs (excl. GST)

Example Pouring of concrete for foundation February 2017 March 2017 $20,000

1 Mobilisation, fabricate small jack up platform October 2016 October 2016 $10,000

2 Drill & blast seamount features offshore breakwater October 2016 October 2016 $40,000

3 Drill a& blast channel area close to breakwater October 2016 November 2016 $80,000

4 Construct causeway for excavator access November 2016 November 2016 $25,000

5 Excavate blasted rock and dispose of onshore December 2016 December 2016 $50,000

6 Remove causeway reinstate area December 2016 December 2016 $25,000

It is noted that all consenting, survey and resurvey costs have not been included within projects costs, nor as remaking of the channel

TOTAL [add up all components] 230,000.00

Co-funding sought from MFF 115,000.00

Other timing issues

What are the areas of risk in the construction process that might cause you not to meet this timeline, and what mitigations do you have in place?

Risk Mitigation

Example Timeline is longer than six months due to extreme cold in August-September months Added in one month buffer to project to ensure completion

Rough sea conditions. The mitigation for this is to start works as soon as possible, consent conditions will require that work do not continue beyond 31 January 2017. The summer period will be used to minimise impact from storm swells and almost half of the project timeframe has been allocated as standby/unworkable

Section 5: Declaration I declare on behalf of the applicants, including the lead applicant:

that I have read this form, and the Guidelines for Applicants Form, and fully understand the

procedures, terms, conditions and criteria.

that this application form and the Guidelines for Applicants Form together outline the basis on

which this application is made and the procedures, terms, conditions and criteria for the

Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund.

that I have read and understand MBIE’s standard form contract including the attached terms

and conditions, a copy of which is attached as Schedule 1 in the Guidelines for Applicants Form.

that the statements in this application are true and the information provided is complete and

correct and there have been no misleading statements, omission of any relevant facts nor any

misrepresentation made.

that MBIE and its advisers may disclose to or obtain from any government department or

agency, private person or organisation, any information about the applicant or project for the

purposes of gaining or providing information related to the processing and assessment of this

application.

that the applicant will, if requested by MBIE or its advisers in connection with this funding

process, provide any additional information sought and provide access to its records and

suitable personnel.

that I consent to the public release, including publishing on the Internet, of the name of the

applicant, the amount of grant sought, contact details of the applicant and a general statement

of the nature of the activity/project, and undertake to cooperate with MBIE on communications

relating to this application.

that I understand MBIE’s obligations under the Official Information Act 1982 and that,

notwithstanding any relationship of confidence created as a result of this application, the

provisions of this Act apply to all of the information provided in this application.

the application involves an activity/project that is a lawful activity that will be carried out

lawfully.

the applicant is not in receivership or liquidation nor will the project be managed by an

undischarged bankrupt or someone prohibited from managing a business.

where external providers are being employed as part of the project/activity, the relevant

providers are not employees or directors of the applicant, and nor do they have any other direct

or indirect interest in the applicant, whether financial or personal unless specifically stated in the

application.

that MBIE has sole discretion to determine which proposals (if any) will receive MFF investment

and that I understand that there is no agreement for MBIE to provide MFF funding until both

parties have signed a contract.

I am authorised to make this application on behalf of the applicant/s (including the lead

applicant) identified in section 1.

that the MBIE standard contract is acceptable to the applicant(s).

Signature

This acknowledgment must be signed by a person with the legal authority to commit your organisation to a transaction (e.g. Chief Executive or Mayor)

Name

Title

Organisation

Signature

Date

Section 1: Proposal and applicant key details

Please enter answers in the right-hand column.

1.1 Proposal key details

Name of project Ohau Waterfall Stream and Seals Pups, Public Toilets and Parking

Short description of proposed project Ohau Waterfall Stream is the location of seal pups and has become a very popular new tourist destination.

Rankers – New Zealand Travel Reviews has rated it:

Free Animal Experience Supreme Winner 2013

Seal Watching Winner 2013

Top Free Seal Watching Winner 2012.

Track counter data shows that between 50,000 to 75,000 people visit the site every year.

Despite the sites high ranking it contains limited public amenities. The proposal is to install toilets which can cater for visitors to the area.

Estimated total monetary cost of project

$ 502,335.00

Amount of MFF funding sought – this must exceed $100,000 (excl. GST)

$ 482,335.00

1.2 Lead applicant key details

Lead applicant details

Applicant name Kaikoura District Council

Applicant address, including postcode

PO Box 6

Kaikoura 7340

1.3 Contact person details This will be the only person who receives the correspondence relating to the proposal.

Fill out all fields unless otherwise indicated

Contact person details

Full name

Matt Hoggard

Job title or Role

District Planner – Team Leader Development

Contact phone 03 3195026

Contact email address Matt.hoggard@kaikoura.govt.nz

Contact postal address (if different to lead applicant address), including postcode

Section 2: Eligibility Criteria

NOTE: Any proposals which do not meet all of the eligibility criteria will not be funded.

2.1 Creation of new facility or enhancement of existing facility

a. Is your project for the creation of a new facility, or enhancement of an existing facility required to meet visitor expectations?

☒ New facility

☐ Enhancement of existing facility

☐ Facility required to meet visitor expectations

2.2 Co-funding

a. Are you proposing co-funding that… - Is to the maximum extent of your ability? - Is in monetary form only? - Does not include any other central government funding?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Are you seeking a one-off, project-specific grant for creating or enhancing facilities for visitors?

☒ Yes

☐ No

c. Do you have a plan and confirmed funding for ongoing maintenance of the facility?

☒ Yes

☐ No

d. Does your application seek funding to only cover the actual construction costs of building or enhancing facilities?

☒ Yes

☐ No

2.3 Project readiness and timeframes

a. Has all other required financing been confirmed?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Will your project be completed within six months of the grant being approved?

☒ Yesx

☐ No

2.4 Project meets identified need

a. Is your project a mid-sized facility?

☒ Yes

☐ No

b. Is your project included in existing Council planning or strategic documents?

☒ Yes

☐ No

c. Are you proposing the most cost-effective design sufficient to meet visitor expectations and projected visitor numbers?

☒ Yes

☐ No

d. Will your completed facility meet all relevant local and national regulatory requirements?

☒ Yes

☐ No

2.5 Other factors

a. Has your project already been approved and fully funded?

☐ Yes – See section 3.3(d)

☒ No

b. Will your project compete with a comparable facility planned or offered by a private business in the district?

☐ Yes

☒ No

Section 3: Project Description

3.1 Facility design and construction

a. Describe the facility you propose to construct and the key steps that now have to be taken prior to starting construction

With increase in seal numbers along the Kaikoura Coastline, Ohau Waterfall Stream has become a nursery for seal pups. The presence of seal pups has transformed the waterfall from a local recreational walk to an internationally recognised tourist destination. The overnight success now requires critical infrastructure to address the increasing demand and ensure that domestic and international visitors needs are met.

The improvements sought for the area are simple:

1) Improved traffic management and safety to the site from State Highway 1, refer Opus design.

2) Provision of public toilets for the average 65,0002 visitors who use the walking track per year, refer Exeloo and Smartalliances Design

The site involves multiple landowners:

parking areas are located on New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) designated road reserve.

The public then walk under the Main North Railway Line and over Kiwi Rail and Department of Conservation Land before reaching the Waterfall

The waterfall where the seal pup play is located on Maori land controlled by Mangamaunu 4a of 2 Ahu Whenua Trust (The Trust).

The Kaikoura District Council has no land within the area but is aware of the significant demand for a toilet north of Kaikoura. Comments from ratepayers have expressed disappointment about the level of human excrement along the Kaikoura coastline and the lack of public facilities north or Kaikoura. The Council with limited resources are doing what we can to resolve the publics concerns.

The steps which we have taken to date include:

1. Recognising the problems of lack of infrastructure in the 2013/14 Annual Plan, “Council allocated $30,000.00 to install a new public toilet somewhere along the

2 Annual visitor numbers are based on the Department of Conservation track counter for the period 2009 to 2015. Current visitors peak at around 11,000 per month in winter and holiday periods.

state highway route north, for example in or near the Clarence village, to cater for travellers.” A combination of opposition from Clarence residents and increasing demand at Ohau resulted in the coast line north of Kaikoura being explored.

2. In 2014 Council began discussions with NZTA and DOC to see if commercial use of the site or rezoning could result in the provision of facilities.

3. In July 2015, discussion and consultation with The Trust, DOC, NZTA, University of Canterbury, Te Runanga o Kaikoura and Council began. To date, the view of the Trust has been that they do not wish to see the site commercialised.

4. A DOC volunteer project was established to assist with increased pressure of visitor numbers.

5. Pre-site warning traffic signs have been installed by NZTA. 6. Ongoing discussion and support from the Canterbury Regional Council both in

recognising significance of the site to tourism within Canterbury and provision of information in regard to consent requirements.

7. Detailed analysis of DOC volunteer surveys, and track counter numbers to gauge parking and toilet demand.

8. Discussions with Kiwi Rail about the use of Kiwi Rail Land and what likely annual land rentals will be for the use of this land.

9. Technical reports commissioned to ensure planned works are both safe and feasible. See reports by Opus and Smartalliances.

10. Exploring funding options for the ongoing maintenance of the facilities.

Kaikoura District Council desire has been for a safe quality tourist experience which will have minimal impact on annual rates for our district and minimum disruption to the environment.

Given the limited rating basis of our Council, Council is yet to seek resource consent and building consents for the required surface water take and discharge. It is noted that the toilets and parking safety improvements are provided for under the District Plan. Necessary consents will be dependent on the success of the funding for the project. These costs have not been included within in the funding application - as such costs do not meet the funding criteria.

b. Describe the alternative designs you considered for this facility and the advantages and disadvantages of each, including why you settled on the current design

The parking design has been based on suitability and safety of the site. The design has been undertaken by experienced traffic engineers. Additional information can be found within the Opus report attached to this application.

A key consideration of the toilet has been based on expectation of users. Ohau stream waterfall has received the following awards from Rankers.co.nz

Free Animal Experience Supreme Winner 2013

Seal Watching Winner 2013

Top Free Seal Watching Winner 2012 Over all the site has been given a ranking of 92% based on 54 reviews and comments such as:

“GORGEOUS! Adorable seal pups, unreal flora, well maintained path and beautiful

waterfall. Downside - trail was very crowded and at points, too narrow to

accomodate the crowds.”

“This was by far one of the best free activities we did on out 2 week tour of the

South Island. The kids fully enjoyed this and we spend at least 30 min just watching

well over 100 seal pups playing in the pools and on the rock. Be aware that they will

come up to you to investigate to treat them with respect and don't feed them because

they don't need it and we could make them sick. A MUST DO......for all driving the

Kaikura highway.”

“Unbelievable, pristine.”

“Best thing Ive seen for free in NZ.”

Based on those visiting the site, the activity is a quality experience which will remain embedded in visitor’s memories. The provision of a sealed vault system has been considered. The benefit to a sealed vault system is they are cost effective to install, require no water supply (ideally avoid water supplies to prevent tanks filling too quickly) and are simple to operate. The disadvantage of such as system is they do not meet visitor expectations. Feedback on other sealed vault systems has not been favourable due to odour, and lack of water, and the “short drop” which is created. An additional disadvantage is that they must be pumped out and waste trucked to Kaikoura to be disposed of, which adds to the ongoing operational cost of the site.

The chosen design has been based on the level of amenity expected when visiting a “MUST DO SITE” which exists only metres away from State Highway 1 and the comfort of modern motor vehicles. Details of the design are reflected within the attached reports by Exeloo, Smartalliances and Opus.

c. Describe how you are going to maintain and service the facility once it is constructed, and how the on-going functioning of the facility will be funded

Kaikoura District Council have an extremely limited ratepayer base with 3385 rateable properties. Based on population, we are ranked as New Zealand’s smallest mainland local authority with 3555 people (Census 2013). In round figures our rates revenue is $5.8m, so every $58,000.00 spent represents 1% of rates.

Full financial details can be found at http://www.kaikoura.govt.nz/assets/Docs/Council/Publications/Annual-Plans/Annual-Plan-2016-2017-FINAL-WEB.pdf

Although Ohau Waterfall Stream has the potential to exceed 75,000 visitors per year additional pressure exists on the site from the presence of State Highway 1 and NZTA rest areas used by freedom campers.

State Highway 1 has seen a steady increase in the Annual average daily traffic (AADT)3

YEAR 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

AADT 3464 3262 3307 3453 3519

It is noted the effluent disposal system has been designed for 300 people per day which includes 85 bathroom visits per day from people not using the track.

Based on this use the following cleaning costs have been estimated:

3 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/state-highway-traffic-volumes/docs/2011-2015-AADT-Booklet2.pdf

Travel to and from the site 53kms @72c/km =$38.16 1 hour at $40 per hour = $40.00 Material per trip =$10.00 Per trip cost =$88.16 Two trips per day peak season (6 months) 183days =$32,266.56 One trip per day off peak season (6 months) 182days =$16045.12 Total Annual Costs =$48,311.68

Given the limited resource of our Council, a pay as you go system is the only fair way to reduce costs to ratepayers. Discussion with Exeloo have confirmed that even with a coin operated system not everyone will pay. In busy periods the door will be held open for the next inline. A coin operated $2 charge has been suggested (eftpos is not possible as the site has no telecommunications facilities or coverage). Estimated revenue is based at $40,000.00 per year. The Trust with the support of the DOC have installed an iron ranger donations box. The Trust are offering 11% of these donations to be paid towards maintenance.

Annual Income

Pay as you go toilet 20,000 visits per year =$40,000.00

Iron Ranger =$ 1,300.00

Shortfall required to be funded =$ 7,011.68

Kaikoura District Council are still working with NZTA and DOC to determine if they could assist with meeting some of the shortfall required to fund the ongoing operation of the toilet. Any assistance from NZTA or DOC could result in the charge being reduced.

Council is also considering use of a cleaner who does not have to travel from Kaikoura to clean the toilets. Advertising at the site may provide an opportunity to further offset operational costs.

It is recognised, if operational costs to Council cannot be met by the facility an increase in rates will be required to meet any remaining shortfall.

d. Construction timeline: complete table in section 4. If your project will take more than six months to complete, explain here why that is the case

The project is not anticipated to take more than 6 months to complete see Section 4. A constraining factor is that sealing must occur within the summer period. Decisions on the fund are expected mid October to early November which still provides sufficient time for sealing of the area within the summer period.

3.2 Demand for the facility

a. Why does your community/region need this facility? What evidence do you have of visitor demand for a facility of this kind?

Kaikoura has become an increasing popular tourist destination for both the domestic and international market. This is due to the natural resource at our doorstep and our genuine care for the environment and the warmth of our welcome. As a location we showcase nature and are ambassadors of the 100% Pure New Zealand brand.

More recent comments on rankers include:

Too many tourists

Seal pups playing in the waterfall was stunning, quite busy, some tourists were poking pups with sticks which was concerning

It is a shame some of the tourist are not more respectful of the area.

With the increases in tourist numbers both domestic and international Councils ratepayer satisfaction survey sees requests for the follow actions:

More toilets for major surf areas and at seal stream (Ohau)

Addressing human waste between Oaro and Peketa

An extra public toilet in Kiwa Rd with a much larger holding tank than the existing one.

Toilet facilities for tourists - eg seal waterfall

Toilets for tourists

Public demand exists for toilets north of Kaikoura. Presently only the following toilets are on offer:

1. Kiwa Road – KDC Single Toilet Seal Vault, no water, 1km off State Highway 1, 15km north of Kaikoura.

2. Okiwi Bay – DOC Single Toilet Seal Vault, no water, across restricted length railway crossing and Kiwi Rail concerned about promotion of area, location not well known, 31km north of Kaikoura.

3. Lake Elterwater – MDC Single Toilet Seal Vault, no water, 88km north of Kaikoura. It is evident that no public flush toilets exist until Seddon is reached 104km north of Kaikoura. Increasing popularity exists for freedom camping along the Kaikoura coastline. This is road reserve controlled by NZTA and Council has no ability to impose restrictions on this land. Within the peak of summer holidays, all usable flat land along the Kaikoura Coastline becomes iconic coastal camping spots for freedom campers.

In terms of comparable demand, the site sees similar numbers to the South Bay end of the iconic Kaikoura Peninsula walkway, see graph below. It is noted that Ohau Stream peaks more in the winter months when tourism is lower in Kaikoura. These off peak activities need to be encouraged.

In addition to DOC track counter number, DOC have also provided Council with a copy of their volunteer surveys for this area. An excel summary sheet has been attached, highlights include having over 50 vehicles parked at the site a number of times.

Sunday 15th May 2016 View South – State Highway 1- Ohau Stream – 26 vehicles

b. Provide evidence of links between your Territorial Authority’s strategic plans and other planning or strategic documents and this project

At a national level Tourism Industry Aotearoa has the aspiration goal of $41 billion total tourism revenue in 2025. The estimated total expenditure for the year to March 2016

is expected to be in the region of $32.5 billion, well ahead of the growth rate required to reach $41 billion in 2025. The Tourism 2025 vision places emphasis on the need to address:

Seasonality

Dispersal

Capacity Development and Infrastructure

Sustainability

Seasonality – As seen in the graph in Section 3.2 above the site is unique for Kaikoura as the popularity increases with the presence of seal pups which occurs in Kaikoura’s off season.

Dispersal – Recent publications have recognised the strong strategic link which has been formed between Auckland International Airport and Queenstown Airport. Kaikoura remains largely out of the Queenstown loop reliant on Christchurch International Airport and travellers heading south from Wellington. Being out of the Queenstown loop, allows for dispersal of visitors from Christchurch International Airport north and Marlborough south.

Capacity Development and Infrastructure – Ohau Stream with its mixed landownership makes it easy for parties to walk away from the issues. It is easy to shift responsibility to other organisations and save budget for easy to fix problems. Over the years since the increase of popularity investment has seen infrastructure lagging behind demand. A clear opportunity now exists to align this project with the Tourism 2025 growth aspiration and provide core infrastructure at the site.

Sustainability– A number of detailed assessment have occurred to ensure that nature of the work is sustainable. The provision of quality infrastructure shows we are genuinely underpinning our tourism industry with core infrastructure necessary for Kaikoura, and New Zealand to uphold its 100% Pure reputation.

The works are also supported by the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy which seeks to:

Improve the range of available visitor experiences

Increase the number and spend of visitors to Canterbury

Keep visitors in Canterbury (and the South Island) longer.

At the Territorial Authority level, the project (toilet north of Kaikoura) is identified within the annual plan and has been through the special consultation procedure of the Local Government Act.

c. What other evidence do you have of community support for the construction of this facility?

The lack of toiles along the Kaikoura Coast Line has become a political issue. Attached in Appendix 1 are copies of newspaper articles and social media comments which show the communities concerns for our coast line which have been more evident since 2010.

d. List all the benefits you believe this facility will bring to your community and region, How will this project contribute to enhancing regional economic growth?

A fundamental benefit of the toilets and roading layout is improved reputation; it provides for Kaikoura to “walk the environmental talk”. Quality infrastructure upholds Kaikoura and New Zealand reputation of being connected and close to nature.

The Canterbury Economic Development Strategy seeks to co-ordinate and align activities and organisations in order to

improve the range of available visitor experiences

increase the number and spend of visitors to Canterbury

keep visitors in Canterbury (and the South Island) longer

Improving the amenity of the area allows people to stay comfortably in the area longer.

The provision of amenities helps with improving the range of available visitor experiences. Increasing the spend of visitors is more complex although a café or well managed food cart may increase the visitors spend NZTA have advised this is not possible within road reserve at Ohau. Well planned signage will be key to the success of the site. Options exist to promote activities within Kaikoura, Marlborough and Canterbury to over 65,000 people who visit the site. Careful promotion will allow visitors to be drawn to other attractions within Kaikoura, Marlborough and Canterbury.

3.3 Funding the project

a. Provide the detailed budget for the total project (including construction). Indicate where co-funding is being sought from the MFF and the amount being sought (excl. GST)

Further details are contained within the attached Opus, Smartalliances and Exeloo reports by way of quick summary:

Parking and Safety Improvements $ 146,135.00

Toilet Block Construction $ 109,800.00

Power Supply Off Grid Mix $ 50,000.00

Effluent Disposal Fields $ 111, 600.00

Untreated water supply $ 34,800.00

Contingency $ 50,000.00

TOTAL COSTS $502,335.00

b. Will the co-funding being sought from the MFF be sufficient to complete the project? List the other confirmed sources of financing for this project

Kaikoura District Council has budgeted over 0.5% of its rates take, this $30,000 has partly been used for obtaining technical reports and some of this funding will be required for regional consents. A minimum of $20,000.00 will be provided for this project by Kaikoura District Council. Discussion have also occurred with New Zealand Transport Agency who are very supportive of the project given the safety improvements which will result. Unfortunately, NZTA do not have sufficient budget to fund roading works and have advised that although the project is ready to proceed from their point of view they simply cannot commit to funding, simply they have no excess. A piece meal approach, has been suggested by NZTA e.g. funding for guard rail, funding for sealing entrances ways and funding for marking parking areas etc. Such an approach will increase the setup costs for the project.

The required funding to complete the project is $482,335.00

c. Describe what alternative sources of funding were explored before this co-funding request was made. Has the Territorial Authority committed the maximum amount of funding that it can?

Discussions have occurred with the multiple parties interested in this site. No suitable alternative sources of funding have been identified. If funding is unsuccessful, the applicant welcomes suggestions for alternative funding for this project.

As a Territorial Authority, we have committed the maximum amount of funding that it can. The true cost of this project for ratepayers is however not the build costs, but the ongoing operational costs of the project, over the life of the facility.

Excluding the operational and consenting costs the Council commitment to the capital expenditure for this project equates to over 0.5% of our annual rates take. This is a significant contribution. In comparison, Auckland’s total rates take is $1.64 billion, 0.5% contribution equates to $8,200,000.00.

A cash contribution of $20,000.00 is a significant contribution for our district with its limited rating basis.

d. If your proposed project has already been approved and fully funded and/or construction has already commenced, can you provide evidence that:

the decision to fund and/or to proceed with a project that qualifies for support under the Fund was made after 13 May 2016; and

the decision was made with the expectation that some support from the newly announced Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund would be likely; and

the project will be completed within six months of the decision to proceed being made or by 31 December 2016 at the latest

Project not fully funded

3.4 Regulatory and other matters

a. Provide evidence that your completed facility will meet all relevant local and national regulatory requirements

As discussed within Section 3.1 of this application, given the limited rating basis for our Council, Council is yet to seek resource consent and building consents for the required surface water take, discharges and building consents. Discussions have occurred with the Canterbury Regional Council and the Building Department of the Kaikoura District Council. Based on the content of these discussions obtaining the required consents will largely be a formality.

NZTA have advised the safety improvements suggested for the site are “shovel ready”. No consents are required for the proposed NZTA safety works.

b. If your main construction contractor has already been appointed, provide evidence of the experience and reliability of that contractor and that the contractor has a strong health and safety record.

Key contractors are yet to be appointed to this project. The toilet design has been based on information provided by Exeloo (given their track record of delivering public toilets). Exeloo have provided information which outlines their expertise. A formal contract has not been entered into with Exeloo given the project is dependent on MBIE MFF funding.

c. Provide evidence that land access and any other necessary permissions required for the project (if any) have been obtained

Formal discussion has occurred by way of email to the four parties who control land within this area.

Parking areas and toilets will be located on NZTA controlled land and approval by way of emails has been given.

Effluent disposal field and treatment systems will be located on DOC land who have agreed to these works occurring.

Water supply will be required across The Trust land the trustees are supportive of improvements to the site, some additional approvals will be required to formalise agreements.

Access under the railway line and possibilities of use of KiwiRail land to extended disposal fields have been discussed with Kiwi Rail a formal lease is required. By paying a Documentation Fee of $750.00 plus GST, plus a $5/m2 occupation fee (subject to a 2% rental increase and market review every 5 years) a formal lease will be given. A formal agreement has not been entered into with KiwiRail as the project is dependent on funding.

Section 4: Construction Timeline

Component costs of project

This table must be completed for all submitted proposals. You may add more rows if required. Note: Funding will be paid in arrears, on production of receipts.

Activity description Estimated start date Estimated end date Total estimated costs (excl. GST)

Example Pouring of concrete for foundation February 2017 March 2017 $20,000

1 Obtaining MIBE funding Mid October 2016

2 Clearing of parking site and sealing January 2017 February 2017 $ 62,935.00

3 Steel Guardrail January 2017 February 2017 $ 56,900.00

4 Pedestrian Islands and signage January 2017 February 2017 $ 26,300.00

5 KDC obtain formal easements from trustees Mid October 2016 November 2016 No costs sought from fund

6 Formal lease obtained from KiwiRail Mid October 2016 November 2016 No costs sought from fund

7 KDC obtain discharge consent from Environment Canterbury Mid October 2016 November 2016 No costs sought from fund

8 KDC obtain water take from Environment Canterbury Mid October 2016 November 2016 No costs sought from fund

9 Install Effluent disposal system November 2016 February 2017 $ 111,600.00

10 Install off grid power supply January 2017 February 2017 $ 50,000

11 Install Exeloo Toilet February 2017 February 2017 $ 109,800.00

12 Contingency October 2016 March 2017 $ 50,000.00

13 Official opening March 2017 March 2017 No costs sought from fund

TOTAL [add up all components] $502,335.00

Co-funding sought from MFF $482,335.00

Other timing issues

What are the areas of risk in the construction process that might cause you not to meet this timeline, and what mitigations do you have in place?

Risk Mitigation

Example Timeline is longer than six months due to extreme cold in August-September months Added in one month buffer to project to ensure completion

1. Seal pups visit the stream May to October (winter), resulting in the summer period being the preferred period to undertake the works. Completion on parking and safety works is likely to take 3 week and works will only occur Monday to Friday avoiding weekends. Risk: bad weather prevents works. Mitigation: two months have been allowed to undertaken the physical works.

2. Parties involved (Trustees) change views on concept for the area. The mitigation is ongoing discussion has been occurring since 2015 with key stakeholders. Ongoing work will continue to ensure all parties are fully aware of how works will progress on site. A hui is being held on 19th October 2016 to allow discussions about the site to continue.

3. Council is unable to obtain consent from Environment Canterbury for necessary resource consents, water take and effluent disposal. Mitigation, discussions have occurred with Environment Canterbury and even if consents are publicly notified sufficient time still exists for the project to be completed by late February.

4. Poor weather delays construction of effluent disposal fields, contractors have advised physical works should take 5 weeks, allowing for delays from bad weather 2 months has been provided.

Section 5: Declaration

I declare on behalf of the applicants, including the lead applicant:

that I have read this form, and the Guidelines for Applicants Form, and fully understand the

procedures, terms, conditions and criteria.

that this application form and the Guidelines for Applicants Form together outline the basis on

which this application is made and the procedures, terms, conditions and criteria for the

Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund.

that I have read and understand MBIE’s standard form contract including the attached terms

and conditions, a copy of which is attached as Schedule 1 in the Guidelines for Applicants Form.

that the statements in this application are true and the information provided is complete and

correct and there have been no misleading statements, omission of any relevant facts nor any

misrepresentation made.

that MBIE and its advisers may disclose to or obtain from any government department or

agency, private person or organisation, any information about the applicant or project for the

purposes of gaining or providing information related to the processing and assessment of this

application.

that the applicant will, if requested by MBIE or its advisers in connection with this funding

process, provide any additional information sought and provide access to its records and

suitable personnel.

that I consent to the public release, including publishing on the Internet, of the name of the

applicant, the amount of grant sought, contact details of the applicant and a general statement

of the nature of the activity/project, and undertake to cooperate with MBIE on communications

relating to this application.

that I understand MBIE’s obligations under the Official Information Act 1982 and that,

notwithstanding any relationship of confidence created as a result of this application, the

provisions of this Act apply to all of the information provided in this application.

the application involves an activity/project that is a lawful activity that will be carried out

lawfully.

the applicant is not in receivership or liquidation nor will the project be managed by an

undischarged bankrupt or someone prohibited from managing a business.

where external providers are being employed as part of the project/activity, the relevant

providers are not employees or directors of the applicant, and nor do they have any other direct

or indirect interest in the applicant, whether financial or personal unless specifically stated in the

application.

that MBIE has sole discretion to determine which proposals (if any) will receive MFF investment

and that I understand that there is no agreement for MBIE to provide MFF funding until both

parties have signed a contract.

I am authorised to make this application on behalf of the applicant/s (including the lead

applicant) identified in section 1.

that the MBIE standard contract is acceptable to the applicant(s).

Signature

This acknowledgment must be signed by a person with the legal authority to commit your organisation to a transaction (e.g. Chief Executive or Mayor)

Name

Title

Organisation

Signature

Date

Attached to Ohau Application:

Newspaper Articles

Exeloo Toilet Costs

Smartalliances Effluent Disposal Proposal

Opus Safety Improvements Proposal

DOC Volunteers Data

Mayor’s Report

I chaired a Data Forum on 28th of August on behalf of the Mayoral Forum. It was well attended with representation from across the visitor industry. The discussion was around getting better data and aligning data so that industry, including Councils can make better investment calls.

Attendees indicated interest in;

Identifying and understanding pinch points, along the New Zealand journey

capacity issues like NZ / Australia school holiday timing

Understand how demand shifts and why

Data to help property investments

Understand tourism experience

Sharing what we are doing, analysing and gathering data, learn what other data insights can be gained,

Time space flow

Identifying tourist hotspots e.g. Wi Fi hot spots, photograph spots.

Tourism has to fit in with New Zealander e.g. User pays. New Zealand currently provides many things for free or little cost e.g. parking, entry to DOC sites. We need to know where people are and make sure they pay. Our region wants to grow tourism for value not just numbers.

Some tourism car companies are able to isolate freedom camping information data and are working in tandem with credit card spend to see where freedom campers travel and what they do. This information can be packaged to provide a fairly reliable route of freedom campers. This is valuable information to assist in discussions around regional economic impact.

Action point 1. Avenue for data gathering and filtering. Private sector providers are now charging for the same data that was previously available from the Govt.

Action point 2. What can we do in the area /region to gather more information through phones, vehicles, cards, surveys? This Data work stream will be ongoing through the Mayoral forum.