Meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Date: Tuesday 5 December 2017
Time: 10.00am
|
Venue:
|
Council Chamber
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
NAPIER
|
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict
of Interest Declarations
3. Confirmation of
Minutes of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee held
on 6 June 2017
4. Actions from
Previous Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee 2
Decision Items
5. Integrating The
Coastal Hazards Strategy Into Council Long Term Plans 2
6. Council Roles And
Responsibilities 2
Information or Performance Monitoring
7. Stage 3 Progress
Update 2
8. Coastal Hazards
Strategy – High Level Cost Estimates 2
9. Coastal Response
Contributory Fund 2
10. Project Manager Update 2
11. Current Coastal Projects
Update 2
12. Other Matters for discussion
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
SUBJECT: Actions from Previous Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
Reason for Report
1. In order to track items raised at previous meetings that require
action, a list of outstanding items is prepared for each meeting. All action
items indicate who is responsible for each, when it is expected to be completed
and a brief status comment.
2. Once the items have been completed and reported
to the Committee they will be removed from the list.
Decision
Making Process
3. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act
2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for
information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
|
Recommendation
That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy
Joint Committee receives and notes the “Actions from previous
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Meetings”
report.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Agreed
Actions from 6 June 2017 Joint Committee Meeting
|
|
|
|
Agreed
Actions from 6 June 2017 Joint Committee Meeting
|
Attachment 1
|
Agreed
actions from 6 June 2017 Joint Committee
|
Task
|
Meeting / Agenda Item
|
Actions
|
Resp.
|
Status/Comment
|
|
1.
|
6 June
2017
Item 8
|
That TAG work with MTT / MAI / HTT
to confirm the appointment of a peer reviewer(s) to confirm Aramanu
Ropiha’s Cultural Values Assessment Report prior to release
|
TAG
|
- Completed.
|
|
2.
|
6 June
2017
Item 6
|
That the Edge report on feedback
received from Workshop 5 is circulated to the Joint Committee when available
|
TAG
|
- Completed. Circulated to the Joint Committee and Panel Members
19 October 2017.
|
|
3.
|
6 June
2017
Item 11
|
That TAG develop a proposal for the
management of a contributory fund and associated decision making for
discussion at the next Joint Committee meeting
|
TAG
|
- Completed, on the agenda 5 December 2017.
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: INTEGRATING THE COASTAL
HAZARDS STRATEGY INTO COUNCIL LONG TERM PLANS
Reason for the Report
1. The
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City
Council (“Partner Councils”) are currently developing draft Long
Term Plans (“LTPs”) for consultation purposes. The draft LTPs are
due to be released for public consultation in March / April 2018.
2. Detailed
costings for physical works under the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy 2120 (“the Strategy”), and a confirmed funding model, will
not be available in time to inform draft LTP’s. However, it is considered
important that each Council’s LTP includes an allocation of funding to
enable the Strategy to advance.
3. This report
sets out the timing matters, and recommended approach for integrating the
Strategy into Partner Council LTPs.
Discussion
4. The Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels (“the
Panels”) are currently expected to deliver their recommendations to the
Joint Committee at their next meeting on 20 February 2018. The Joint Committee
will then make recommendations back to each Partner Council, and it is expected
that planned actions under the Strategy will be confirmed for each priority unit
by March 2018. This will complete Stage 3 of the Strategy.
5. Each Council’s LTP process meanwhile is well underway, with
draft LTPs due to be released for public consultation in March / April 2018.
6. This timing means that there is not sufficient scope to include
detailed planned expenditure for significant physical works programmes in
LTP’s, particularly considering that elements of the funding model for
such expenditure are still in development.
7. However, there are a range of other activities that it will be
important to progress with some urgency under Stage 4 of the Strategy, once an
agreed approach for each priority unit has been determined. These include:
· Implementation planning to establish timing and order of works
programmes in each priority unit;
· Technical studies and detailed design work for prioritised physical
works programmes;
· Consenting costs for prioritised physical works programmes;
· Policy and planning framework review and possible changes; and
· The continued operation and support of the Joint Committee.
8. The Panels have committed to a significant process and there is a
strong sense of urgency and requirement for action once their recommendations
have been delivered. It is important that each Partner Council’s
LTP recognise this, and explicitly provide for work to be initiated under Stage
4 of the Strategy as a matter of priority.
9. At the time of writing, all Council’s have made an allocation
in their draft LTP’s, but these have yet to be workshopped with or
confirmed by Councillors.
10. To
facilitate the expedient commencement of Stage 4, and to achieve consistency
between all Partner Councils, the Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”)
suggests that the Joint Committee make a recommendation to each Partner Council
to allocate at least $100,000 per year for the duration of the LTP period to
Strategy implementation.
11. This
recommendation can be delivered to each Partner Council as part of upcoming LTP
workshops where the content of draft LTPs will be confirmed.
12. It is
further recommended that, once detailed costings have been developed and the
funding model confirmed, a special consultative procedure is initiated under
the Local Government Act. TAG will discuss this matter further with the Joint
Committee as Stage 4 of the Strategy progresses.
|
Recommendations
That :
1. The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the report Integrating the
Coastal Hazards Strategy into Council Long Term Plans.
2. The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee makes the following recommendation to the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City
Council:
a. That each Partner Council
identify in their draft Long Term Plans an allocation of $100,000 each per year for the duration of each Long Term Plan to
commence Stage 4 of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120,
including the following activities:
· Implementation planning to establish timing and order of works
programmes in each priority unit;
· Technical studies and detailed design work for prioritised
physical works programmes;
· Consenting costs for prioritised physical works programmes;
· Policy and planning framework review and possible changes; and
· The continued operation and support of the Joint Committee.
|
Authored and
Approved by:
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: COUNCIL ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of
this paper is to consider options for sharing roles and responsibilities for
funding between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council and
Hastings District Council (“the Partner Councils”) in the
implementation of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (the
Strategy).
2. While the
Assessment Panels are in the process of selecting the preferred options for
each Priority Unit, the final decision and implementation of options must be
made by the Partner Councils. This paper considers the impacts and
options for the share of responsibilities for funding the implementation of
actions identified by the Strategy.
3. The allocation
of responsibilities for other aspects of implementing the Strategy, namely
investigation, consenting implementation, and monitoring, will be considered
and established as part of stage four of the Strategy.
4. A separate
paper has been prepared on the establishment, governance, management and
operation of the proposed Coastal Response Contributory Fund.
Approach
5. This paper has
been prepared in consideration of the requirements of the Local Government Act
2002 (LGA) which requires all local authorities[1]
to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.
6. In addition,
where a local authority has a significant change in a relevant service[2] including
the development of a new activity or extended activity, then that local
authority must consider cost-effective mechanisms for the delivery of that activity.
Included in that assessment is the consideration of responsibility for
governance and funding. Options that are provided in the LGA include a
joint committee or other shared governance arrangements.
7. Furthermore, a
local authority must manage its revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities,
investments and general financial dealings prudently[3].
Background
8. The Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (the Strategy) is to provide a framework
to guide and direct the assessment and implementation of preferred options for
the long term management of the coast between Clifton and Tangoio. The
long term vision for the Strategy is that
“Coastal communities, businesses
and critical infrastructure from Tangoio to Clifton are resilient to the effects
of coastal hazards”.
9. The New Zealand
Coastal Policy Statement requires Local Authorities to consider and plan for
coastal hazards risks. Under Policy 24 (1), Local Authorities are required to:
“Identify areas in the coastal
environment that are potentially affected by coastal hazards (including
tsunami), giving priority to the identification of areas at high risk of being
affected. Hazard risks, over at least 100 years, are to be assessed.”
10. This Strategy is being
developed to provide a framework for assessing coastal hazards risks and
identifying options for the management of those risks out to the year
2120.
11. Currently neither Wairoa
nor Central Hawke’s Bay District Councils are part of the Strategy,
however the intention is to have the ability to expand the Strategy in future
to include further stretches of Hawke’s Bay coastline. The principles
that are considered as part of this report provide for the inclusion of
additional Local Authorities in the future.
Funding
12. The role of the funder
would need to be responsible for the following functions:
12.1. Completion of section
101(3) requirements including assessment of public versus private good and
identifying the different levels of benefits within each of the units.
For example allocating a higher degree of benefit and therefore rates to the
properties that are receiving a direct benefit compared with other properties
that receive a lesser benefit. This would involve modification through a
public consultation process to the local authority’s Revenue &
Financing Policy.
12.2. Raising the appropriate
debt and recovering that debt through rates and any funding that may be
available.
12.3. Setting budgets through
the Long Term and Annual Plans processes to fund both debt repayment and
ongoing operational costs.
12.4. Setting, assessing and
collecting rates.
12.5. Financial reporting.
Overall impact
13. While the costs and
timings of the preferred options are not yet confirmed, there will be
additional costs even if the final option is to do nothing.
14. All local authorities in
the region face fiscal pressures, and any increase in the requirements for
funding will increase this pressure.
15. Based on the 2017/18
Annual Plans set out below is the total revenue[4]
(excluding vested assets and development contributions) and total rate revenue
of the three local authorities. These have been divided by total rating
units to provide a comparison. (Note these are not averages).
16. To demonstrate the impact
on each Council if the total funding required was $3M[5] and payable equally
($1m each) by each Council, the increase for each council is set out below.
17. The following options for
allocating funding responsibilities are available for consideration:
17.1. The Hawke's Bay Regional
Council has the responsibility for the setting and collecting of coastal hazard
rates.
17.2. The territorial local
authorities (Napier City and Hastings District) have the responsibility for the
setting and collecting of coastal hazard rates.
17.3. The Hawke's Bay Regional
Council and the territorial local authorities (Napier City and Hastings
District) share the responsibility for the setting and collecting of coastal
hazard rates.
18. Set out in the table below
is commentary identifying issues and risks associated with these options.
|
1. The Hawke's Bay
Regional Council (HBRC) has the responsibility for the setting and
collecting of coastal hazard rates
|
|
Impacts of options
|
Commentary
|
|
Impacts on current rating levels
|
HBRC currently has a comparatively low level of rating. Any rates
increase of this low base will have a negative effect on the Council’s
ratepayers and could appear as a proportionally large increase.
However, the potential increases for individual properties will be
significant irrespective of the local authority undertaking the rating
activity.
|
|
Impacts of cross boundary funding
|
Eliminates the risk of cross boundary funding issues where
expenditure in one TLA’s jurisdiction benefits properties in another
jurisdiction (e.g. Bayview and Whirinaki).
|
|
Consistency of Rating policies
|
Eliminates the of risk of inconsistent rating policies for the
same perceived benefit/works
|
|
Efficiency
|
Is the most efficient mechanism compared with a shared system
|
|
Regional
ownership
|
Risk that
there would not be support for ongoing projects from the TLAs.
|
|
2. The territorial local
authorities (TLAs) have the responsibility for the setting and collecting of
coastal hazard rates
|
|
Impacts of options
|
Commentary
|
|
Impacts on current rating levels
|
While the initial rate increase will not be perceived as
proportionally large for each TLA, once the full costs of all options
have been included there will be a significant rate increase for individual
ratepayers. However, the potential increases for individual properties
will be significant irrespective of the local authority undertaking the
rating activity.
|
|
Impacts of cross boundary funding
|
With each of the TLAs being responsible for rating within their
own areas, cross-boundary issues may arise where expenditure in one
TLA’s jurisdiction benefits properties in another jurisdiction (e.g.
Bayview and Whirinaki).
|
|
Consistency of Rating policies
|
High degree of risk of inconsistent rating policies for the same
perceived benefit/works between different parts of the coast
|
|
Efficiency
|
Both local authorities would have to set up a similar approach,
presenting risk of duplication and inefficiency
|
|
Regional
ownership
|
If the TLAs
were to be the sole funder then there is a risk that the responses may
significantly differ and it also risks discouraging participation by other
local authorities within the region in the future.
|
19. The majority of risks
identified above can be eliminated if there is a joint approach to
rating. This joint approach will then remove the risks of cross boundary
funding and inconsistent rating policies and increasing efficiency. It is
important to note that if there is a consistent rating approach developed,
there is a higher degree of success due to this consistency between the three
local authorities.
Conclusions
20. It must be remembered that
whether the HBRC or the TLA’s undertake the recovery of costs to
implement works under the Strategy, these will be paid by the same
ratepayers. Regardless, the rationale for rating must be based on
efficiency and transparency.
21. While the Strategy is yet
to deliver a final set of recommendations for the Joint Committee to consider,
we do have some indication of likely costs of options, however more work is
required (once options are confirmed) to develop detailed costings and proposals
for how those costs should be shared between those receiving benefits from
them.
22. All funding options,
including government support and assistance, will be considered as part of the
analysis of strategy affordability.
23. On this basis, it is proposed
that it would be premature to make a determination now on whether or not there
should be a primary funder (and if so, who that is) or if the role should be
shared (and if so, in what proportions). This is, however, an important
conversation to advance at least in an ‘in principle’ manner. A
final agreement on funding roles and responsibilities needs to be determined
prior to any significant physical works programmes commencing.
24. It is noted that the paper
“Integrating the Coastal Hazards Strategy into Council Long Term
Plans” provided with this agenda proposes an interim approach to sharing
costs while this more substantive matter is resolved.
25. It is also noted that the
paper “Coastal Response Contributory Fund options” recommends the
commencement of a Coastal Response Contributory Fund which will be used
initially for recovery of extreme weather events in the coastal environment,
making safe and good areas of abandoned land and district/regional planning
costs relating to possible changes from the Coastal Hazard Strategy.
These are all public good elements. The paper does not recommend how each
Council funds the proportion as this is a decision for each Council.
|
Recommendations
1. The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the “Council Roles and
Responsibilities” report.
2. The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee:
2.1. Explore
options and ideas for the role of funder and seek to make a determination
following confirmation of pathways in each Priority Unit.
2.2. That
in the interim, until final options have been selected and further analysis
undertaken, each local authority contribute equally to the on-going funding
of the strategy and implementation of Stage 4.
2.3. Explore
options to establish and commence contributions to the Coastal Response
Contributory Fund as soon as possible.
|
Authored by:
|
Philip Jones
P J & ASSOCIATES
|
|
Approved by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project
Manager
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: STAGE 3 PROGRESS
UPDATE
Reason for Report
1. This report provides an update to the Joint Committee on progress
made in Stage 3 of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120
(“the Strategy”).
Progress Update
2. Both the Northern and Southern Panels have completed Workshops 1
– 10 of an 11 workshop programme that forms Stage 3 of the Strategy.
3. In summary, the process to date has included the following steps:
· Panel formation and confirmation of Terms of Reference;
· Presentation of information on coastal erosion and coastal
inundation hazards and risks;
· Site visits to the coast;
· Confirmation of priority units that would be the focus for this
iteration of the Strategy;
· Presentation of information on social impact assessment and cultural
values assessment;
· Identification of potential coastal hazards response options;
· First community feedback meeting;
· Confirmation of criteria to apply through Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (“MCDA”);
· A cultural values hikoi along the coast;
· Refining potential hazard response options and combing them into
pathways (short 0 – 20 years, medium 20 – 50 years, long 50 –
100 years);
· Evaluation of pathways through MCDA;
· Application of economic analysis; and
· Confirmation of preferred pathways considering MCDA scores and
economic analysis.
4. The Panels are now in the process of testing their preliminary
findings with their respective communities, ahead of confirming their
recommendations to the Joint Committee.
5. For reference, attached to this report is a summary of the
assessment outcomes for all pathways as developed by the Panels. It outlines
the pathways assessed in each unit, and for each pathway the MCDA results and
the results of economic analysis. The Panel’s preferred pathway for each
priority unit is highlighted.
6. It is stressed that these are interim results only, and may change
following the Panel’s consideration of public feedback and any other
matters Panel Members may raise in their final Workshop 11.
7. In summary, the preliminary preferred pathways for the Southern Cell
are:
|
Unit
|
Preferred Pathway
|
Short Term
(0-20 yrs)
|
→
|
Medium Term
(20 – 50 yrs)
|
→
|
Long Term
(50 – 100 yrs)
|
|
Clifton (L)
|
Pathway 5
|
Sea wall
|
→
|
Sea wall
|
→
|
Managed Retreat
|
|
Te Awanga (K2)
|
Pathway 3
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
|
Haumoana (K1)
|
Pathway 2
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Managed Retreat
|
|
Clive (J)
|
Pathway 1
|
Status Quo
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Retreat the Line / Managed
Retreat
|
8. The preliminary preferred pathways for the Northern Cell are:
|
Unit
|
Preferred Pathway
|
Short Term
(0-20 yrs)
|
→
|
Medium Term
(20 – 50 yrs)
|
→
|
Long Term
(50 – 100 yrs)
|
|
Ahuriri (E1)
|
Pathway 6
|
Status quo
|
→
|
Sea wall
|
→
|
Sea wall
|
|
Pandora (E2)
|
Pathway 3
|
Inundation Protection
|
→
|
Inundation Protection
|
→
|
Inundation Protection
|
|
Westshore (D)
|
Pathway 3
|
Renourishment
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
|
Bayview (C)
|
Pathway 3
|
Status Quo/ Renourishment
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
|
Whirinaki (B)
|
Pathway 4
|
Status quo/ Renourishment
|
→
|
Renourishment + Control
Structures
|
→
|
Sea wall
|
9. At the time of writing, the Southern Panel had held their community
feedback meeting, with the Northern Panel due to hold theirs on 29 November.
10. At
Workshop 11 (on 5 December for Southern and 7 December for Northern) the Panels
will consider a report detailing their process, its outcomes, and their final
recommendations.
11. These
recommendations will be presented to the Joint Committee at the next meeting on
20 February 2018.
12. The Joint
Committee will then form its recommendations back to each Partner Council,
which will conclude Stage 3 of the Strategy.
|
Recommendation
That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the “Stage 3
Progress Update” report.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Northern Cell
- Assessment Results and Recommendations
|
|
|
|
⇩2
|
Southern Cell
- Assessment Results and Recommendations
|
|
|
|
Northern
Cell - Assessment Results and Recommendations
|
Attachment 1
|
|
Southern Cell - Assessment
Results and Recommendations
|
Attachment 2
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: COASTAL HAZARDS
STRATEGY – HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Reason for the Report
1. In support of the reports provided in this agenda relating to the
development of the funding model, this report provides an overview for the
Joint Committee of:
1.1. The economic costs of unmitigated coastal hazards impacts, and
1.2. The construction and maintenance costs of coastal hazard response
options (pathways) as developed by the Assessment Panels.
Potential Economic
Loss (Do Nothing)
2. A coastal hazard and risk assessment has been produced by Tonkin and
Taylor for the Hawkes Bay region for three time epochs; present day, 2065 and
2120.
Figure 1: Examples of
coastal hazard maps for erosion and inundation.
3. Using this information, Tonkin and Taylor have assessed the
potential economic losses associated with these hazards. Note that this
assessment does not include social or cultural losses, which have been considered
by others.
4. For the purposes of attributing economic loss from erosion, any
property, land or asset within the coastal erosion hazard zones was deemed to
be completely lost and 100% of the current value included in the total figure.
5. For economic loss from inundation, it is unlikely that properties
would be completely written off, but they would sustain damage. As such a
fragility curve has been applied that equates the depth of water and asset type
to a repair cost based on a percentage of the asset value.
6. The economic loss figures calculated by Tonkin and Taylor represent
the values of physical assets directly affected by the hazards. They do not
account for any economic impacts to other areas, for example through loss of
road access, or blight on neighbouring property values. Any impact on amenity,
cultural values, tourism and willingness to invest in the area are also
excluded from this analysis.
7. There is uncertainty with regards climate change, sea level rise,
storm frequency and magnitude. These factors are reflected in the figures as a
probability of occurrence.
8. Total loss figures could potentially run into $100’s of
millions over the strategy timeframe (Figures 2& 3), which should be used
to put the cost of defence options in context.
9. Priority units have been assessed as, from North to South, Whirinaki
(B), Bayview (C), Westshore (D), Pandora & Ahuriri (E), Clive (J), Haumoana
& Te Awanga (K) and Clifton (L).
Figure 2: Potential
economic loss resulting from erosion ($ Millions)
Figure 3: Potential
economic loss resulting from inundation ($ Millions)
Cost of Implementing
Pathways
10. For each
priority unit, six coastal defence pathways were developed and evaluated on a
number of criteria by the panels.
11. A range
of options were considered ranging from soft engineering, to harder defence
options such as control structures and seawalls. Managed retreat was also
assessed and at different time epochs.
12. For each
pathway three time epochs were considered, short term (0-20 years), medium term
(20-50 years) and long term (50-100 years). Consideration was given to changing
the strategy option between each epoch.
13. To
simplify the cost estimate process, all options were assumed to commence in
year 1 and be maintained for the duration of each epoch. It is recognised that
in reality a staged approach may be taken.
14. There is
uncertainty with regards the timing and trigger points that would necessitate
moving between short, medium and long term strategies. These include climate
change impacts, material availability and legislative restrictions such as
consenting and political will. For the purposes of high level costs each option
is assessed based on the timeframes defined above.
15. A
presumption is made that each option would be applied to the whole unit, no
work has been done to calculate the costs for a partial implementation or
staged approaches, although this should be assessed as part of the detailed
design process.
High Level Cost
Estimates
16. Cost
estimates were generated for each pathway in each unit after consideration of
the following;
· Similar projects in Hawkes Bay Region
· Council rates for similar work
· Experience elsewhere in NZ
· International Examples
· Proposed work, historic reports and cost estimates
17. Costs
developed for each unit reflect estimates for capital work and maintenance for
the duration of each time epoch. Additional work identified in the pathways,
such as planting and beach maintenance are also included.
18. Cost
estimates are provided as a high to low range, this reflects the uncertainty
which includes, but is not limited to;
· Material rates, sources and transport costs
· Available material size, density and grading curves
· Structure configuration to be confirmed in detailed design
· Contingency and contractor rates
· 100 year planning horizon
· Climate change/sea level rise
· Strategies adopted in neighbouring units
Priority Unit Cost
Estimates
19. As
outlined in the report “Stage 3 Progress Update” provided in
this agenda, the Assessment Panels have identified a preliminary preferred
pathway for each priority unit. While these should not be considered final
recommendations as the Panels have yet to conclude their process, for the
purposes of this paper Table 1 attached summarises the cost
estimates for the preferred pathways as currently identified by the Panels.
20. Attached to this paper are tables providing costs estimate for all pathways
developed by the Assessment Panels.
21. Rough
order costs are provided based on the assumptions outlined in this paper.
22. Cost
estimates are presented as a low to high range, which reflects the uncertainty
detailed in the assumptions.
23. For the
purposes of economic analysis and funding models, the midpoint of the estimates
has been used.
24. Further
work into material sources, availability, consenting feasibility and detailed
scheme design will allow for cost estimates to be refined to a smaller range.
|
Recommendation
That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
receives and notes the “Coastal Hazards Strategy – High Level
Cost Estimates” report.
|
Authored by:
Approved by:
|
Simon Bendall
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Table 1:
Rough order cost estimates for each units chosen pathway.
|
|
|
|
⇩2
|
Costs
estimates for all pathways developed by the Assessment Panels.
|
|
|
|
Table
1: Rough order cost estimates for each units chosen pathway.
|
Attachment 1
|
Table 1: Rough order
cost estimates for each units chosen pathway
1 Timeframes defined as ST: Short Term
(0-20 years), MT: Medium Term (20-50 years), LT: Long Term (50-100 years)
2 Pathway selection process detailed in
accompanying paper
3 Pathway Description Key:
SQ = Status Quo, R = Renourishment,
RCS = Renourishment & control structures, IP = Inundation Protection, SW =
Seawall, MR = Managed Retreat
|
Costs estimates for all
pathways developed by the Assessment Panels.
|
Attachment 2
|
1 Timeframes defined as ST: Short Term
(0-20 years), MT: Medium Term (20-50 years), LT: Long Term (50-100 years)
2 Pathway Description Key: SQ = Status
Quo, R = Renourishment, RCS = Renourishment & control structures, IP =
Inundation Protection, SW = Seawall, MR = Managed Retreat
1 Timeframes defined as ST: Short Term
(0-20 years), MT: Medium Term (20-50 years), LT: Long Term (50-100 years)
2 Pathway Description
Key: SQ = Status Quo, R = Renourishment, RCS = Renourishment & control
structures, IP = Inundation Protection, SW = Seawall, MR = Managed Retreat, RTL
= Retreat the Line, FG = Flood Gate
|
Costs
estimates for all pathways developed by the Assessment Panels.
|
Attachment 2
|
1 Timeframes defined as ST: Short Term
(0-20 years), MT: Medium Term (20-50 years), LT: Long Term (50-100 years)
2 Pathway Description Key: SQ = Status
Quo, R = Renourishment, RCS = Renourishment & control structures, IP =
Inundation Protection, SW = Seawall, MR = Managed Retreat
Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: Coastal Response
Contributory Fund
Reason for Report
1. The Joint Committee has previously supported in principle the
establishment of a Coastal Response Contributory Fund to assist with meeting
the costs of responding to coastal hazards.
2. The Joint Committee further requested that a working paper be
developed to further scope the practicalities and legalities of establishing, operating
and governing such a fund.
3. Attached to this report is a discussion
paper on the contributory fund concept prepared by Philip Jones of PJ &
Associates. Mr Jones has been engaged by TAG to assist with the development of
the funding model and contributory fund concept.
4. A range of recommendations are set out in the discussion paper for
the Joint Committee to consider.
5. Mr Jones will be in attendance at the meeting to talk to his paper
and answer questions from Joint Committee members
|
Recommendation
That the Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the report Coastal Response Contributory Fund.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Coastal
Response Contributory Fund report - P J & Associates
|
|
|
|
⇩2
|
Appendix 1 -
Map of the Northern and Southern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel
|
|
|
|
⇩3
|
Appendix 2 -
Contributory Fund
|
|
|
|
Coastal
Response Contributory Fund report - P J & Associates
|
Attachment 1
|
250 Snodgrass Road, R D 4,
Tauranga 3174 New Zealand
Phone / Fax : 07-552-5564
Mobile: 027-4999-408
|
|
Reason for Report
1. This paper is the first of a series of work on funding in response
to the Coastal Hazard Strategy. The subsequent work will concentrate on
the funding of the response to Northern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel
(Tangoio the Port of Napier) and the Southern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel (Napier
CBD to Clifton) recommendations.
2. The purpose of this report is to consider options in the development
of a Coastal Response Contributory Fund (contributory fund) supporting the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy 2120 (coastal hazard strategy). The
areas of the Coastal Hazard Strategy are set out in appendix 1.
3. The proposal for a contributory fund was first raised in February
2017 at a funding workshop in Wellington. This paper explores the options
in developing such a fund.
4. This report is based on the following principles:
· Establish
a sound methodology for how coastal hazard responses will be funded;
· Funding
that is sought from local authorities is consistent with the requirements of
the Local Government Act 2002;
· Set in
place a framework to provide certainty for the community;
· A
collaborative approach between Councils;
· Survive
political cycles; and
· Be
durable over a very long timeframe (Strategy horizon = 100 years).
5. A pragmatic use of the fund would be to develop a contributory fund
to be able to fund the expenditure resulting from unforeseen circumstances as
well as public good expenditure.
6. In the first instance the funding should come from the following
areas:
· All
rateable properties within the Hawke’s Bay
· All
rateable properties within the two extended zones as set out on appendix 1
· All
rateable properties within the zone A to P as set out on appendix 1
7. As costs are further refined, other funding sources must be sought
including Central Government funding.
Background
8. The proposal is based on a probability scenario analysis for the
timing of expenditure, and relies on funding from general ratepayers and a
contribution from private property owners. An outline of that proposal is
included in appendix 2.
9. One of the possible intentions of the proposed fund was to develop a
fund to assist property owners with the eventual costs of adaptation or
relocation. The fund would accumulate with the specific property
regardless of the owner. This is effectively a self-insurance scheme
managed by the Council. For this to be effective the following needs to
occur:
· Relative certainty as to the likely costs
· Buy in from a sufficient number of ratepayers to enable the fund to
be sustainable
· Relative certainty over when adaptation or relocation is required
· A willingness from the Councils and the ratepayers to contribute to
what is effectively private benefit
· The ability of a Council or other entity to manage such a fund
10. The
principle of a contributory fund has significant merit and therefore this paper
continues to examine how a contributing fund could be developed without the
self-insurance component.
Types of Expenditure
11. Before
any fund can be established, it is essential that the types of expenditure that
the fund will be used for must be clearly identified. At this stage the
Coastal Hazard Strategy is not sufficiently advanced to identify all types of
expenditure that will be necessary over the life of the strategy.
12. There are
two types of expenditure that need to be considered. The first is the
short to medium term in response to known problems/issues. The second is
the response to the longer term impacts of climate change. The longer term
expenditure relating to the effects of climate change are not well known,
however rising sea levels will have a major and increasing impact on the built
environment in the coastal regions within the life of this strategy.
13. It is
likely that over time these two types of expenditure will combine into one.
|
Options
|
Private costs
|
Elements of both private and public
|
Public costs
|
|
Managed
retreat
· Withdrawing; or
· Relocation; or
· Abandonment
|
Existing
house and land value
|
Replacement
existing utility services
|
District/regional
planning costs
|
|
Relocation
costs to higher ground
|
Making safe
& good the areas of managed retreat
|
Replacing
stormwater, roads, park infrastructure, and public amenities.
|
|
|
|
Social impact
-environmental, cultural and social costs
|
|
|
|
Hold-the-line
Defend /
manage natural processes with protection works
|
|
Options
include:
· Hard engineering structures e.g. seawall/groynes
· Soft engineering options e.g. Beach Nourishment
· Inundation protection
· Infrastructure raising
· Land filling/reclamation
|
|
|
|
|
Maintain
status quo
Do nothing /
monitor / private owner’s responsibility
|
Temporary
protection works (may be unconsented)
Repairs and
maintenance
Eventual
relocation
|
Adaptation
costs, over time, of local services including water & sewerage
|
Adaptation
costs, over time, of local services, stormwater, roads and parks, public
amenities.
|
|
|
Making safe
& good the areas of managed retreat
|
Social impact
–environmental, cultural and social costs
|
14. While the
preferred options for the various cells have yet to be fully developed, it is
likely that the public good components of each cell should be recovered by
rating principles and the local government agency setting these would normally
recovered by way of a general rate, using land or capital value.
15. In
addition it is highly likely that there will be unanticipated expenditure and
expenditure relating to recovery from extreme weather events that have not been
adequately predicted or funded for.
16. Therefore
the contributory fund should initially be set up to fund the following types of
expenditure:
· Recovery from extreme weather events relating to the coastal
environment in the region.
· Making safe & good the areas of abandoned and or unmanaged
retreat
· District/regional planning costs relating to possible changes to the
coastal hazard strategy.
17. In
addition territorial local authorities are responsible for the following
activities which will be effected by coastal erosion and inundation:
· Water supply
· Sewerage
· Stormwater
· Roads
· Park infrastructure
· Other public amenities
18. These activities
are funded from a mix of public and private good tools. Therefore the
issue needs to be resolved as to what funding mechanisms will be used to fund
the adaptation costs of these assets. Currently if there was a natural
disaster and these assets needed to be replaced, then the relevant territorial
local authorities have funding arrangements (insurance) to replace these
assets.
19. Therefore
in summary the principles of expense recovery should be based on the following:
· Social impact outcomes arising from different coastal hazard
responses must be clearly understood and measured as part of any decision
making process;
· Collaboration between partner Councils (and as much as possible
other stakeholders) will provide the optimal and most equitable funding model
for coastal hazard responses;
· The apportionment of costs to respond to natural hazards must fairly
reflect the public / private benefit of each response; costs should be borne by
those who benefit (Clause 101 (3) (a) (ii));
· Proportion of cost to be met by current generation, its assessment/
apportionment, and its management. Current generations of ratepayers
should bear a reasonable share of funding responsibility for future coastal
hazard responses. Funding of infrastructure responses to coastal hazards
should be matched as closely as possible to the long term nature of such
expenditure. (Clause 101 (3) (a) (iii));
· Funding opportunities from sources other than local authorities; and
· The approach be must adaptive to include additional areas in the
future.
Management of Coastal
Response Contributory Fund
20. The
decision relating to the operations and administering of the fund must be made
by the Joint Committee.
21. The
expenditure from the fund should be made by the Joint Committee based on the
following criteria:
· Recovery from extreme weather events relating to the coastal
environment in the region.
· Making safe & good the areas of abandoned and or unmanaged
retreat
· District/regional planning costs relating to possible changes to the
coastal hazard strategy.
22. That
funds will be available once the timing and costs of the preferred options and
the confirmation of the public good component are known.
Estimated need for
initial funding
23. While the
specific detail is still being developed for the strategy the principles for a
contributory fund are well founded and it would be prudent to develop the fund
and begin accumulating funds now.
24. The Joint
Committee needs to determine an appropriate annual contribution to the
Contributory Fund from each of the partner Councils.
Recommendation
1. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the “Contributory Fund”
report.
2. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee recommend to the three local authorities
to:
2.1. Establish
a Coastal Response Contributory Fund.
2.2. Determine
an annual contributing amount from each Authority.
2.3. Determine
the administering Authority.
2.4. That
the Joint Committee be given delegated authority to allocate the funds for the
following purposes and conditions:
2.4.1. Recovery
from extreme weather events relating to the coastal environment in the region.
2.4.2. Making
safe & good the areas of abandoned and or unmanaged retreat
2.4.3. District/regional
planning costs relating to possible changes to the coastal hazard strategy.
Authored and
Approved by
Philip Jones
P J & Associates Ltd
|
Appendix 1 - Map of the
Northern and Southern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel
|
Attachment 2
|
Appendix 1
Map of the Northern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel (Tangoio the
Port of Napier) and Southern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel (Napier CBD to
Clifton)
|
Appendix 2 - Contributory
Fund
|
Attachment 3
|
Appendix 2
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: Project Manager Update
Reason for Report
1. In accordance with instructions from the Joint Committee, this
report is provided in place of the written report required from the Project
Manager in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee.
2. It provides an opportunity for the Project Manager to present a
verbal update to the Committee and answer any questions on general project
matters including tracking against timeframes, milestone achievements and
project risks. The Project Manager will provide a verbal update at the meeting.
|
Recommendation
That the Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
receives and notes the Project Manager Update report.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
Tuesday 05 December 2017
Subject: Current Coastal
Projects Update
Reason for the Report
1. This report provides an opportunity for the Technical Advisory Group
(“TAG”) to provide an update on various coastal projects the Joint
Committee have expressed an interest in keeping abreast of, namely:
1.1. Whakarire Ave Revetment Works.
1.2. Port of Napier Capital Works Programme.
1.3. Proposed Revetment Works at Clifton being led by Hastings District
Council.
1.4. Proposed Revetment Works at Haumoana being led by property owners.
2. TAG members will provide a verbal update on each of these projects
at the meeting.
|
Recommendation:
That the Clifton
to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the verbal
Current Coastal Projects Update report.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Graeme Hansen
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
