25 August 2021
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Decisions relating to lakefront and East Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage scheme contracts
Enquiry
Could I please have some more information about this (from previously confidential minutes of July 29 council meeting):
RECOMMENDATION 1 VARIATION OF CONTRACT 18-029 LAKEFRONT REDEVELOPMENT STAGE 1 AND 1A RDC-1145717 Resolved 1. That Council approve Contract Variation No 1 to HEB Construction Limited for up to $844,928.33 which results in a total contract value of up to $15,435,444.30. 2 Note that the overall project budget remains at $41m (including Cultural Foundation) and no further funding is being requested. 3. That this report NOT be made publicly available. 4. That the minutes are made publicly available after practical completion of Stage 1 and 1A has been achieved by the end of July 2021. Moved: Cr Wang Seconded: Cr Yates CARRIED The Chair asked that Cr Macpherson’s comment that the process that contracts be made publicly available once they have been awarded be sustained, be noted.
I'm after more info about this, including:
- What does the contract variation seek to do?
- Why was it needed? What will it buy / what is it paying for?
- I understand from the variation is an increase but the overall budget remains at $41m - that's the budget including external funding isn't it - so this funding is an increase on the council's contribution. Is that correct? Or is this drawing down on the council's already budgeted contribution?
- What is the council's full (budgeted) contribution now? How much of that has been spent to date?
- It says no further funding is being requested - is that referring to external funding or does it just mean no further council funding - beyond the additional $833,928.33 is being requested at this time?
- Why was this decision made in confidential?
- Where is this funding coming from (specifically which council budget line)?
- Was there a division on voting? If so can you please advise me who voted for, against or abstained?
If the council can please provide me the relevant agenda item on this it would be helpful and likely answer a lot of these questions - if possible.
Could I please also have a comment from the mayor on this as to why in her view (if she voted in favour of course) this additional council funding was required and why it's important.
Could I please have some more information on this too please (again, would be helpful to have the agenda item which should fill in the gaps here, if possible):
RECOMMENDATION ROTOITI ROTOMA SEWERAGE RETICULATION SCHEME – PROJECT STATUS AND CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS RDC-1135845 Resolved 1. That Council approve the tender of Fulton Hogan to a total value of $25.7 million noting that the total tender value includes the following parts.1. The supply and installation of the Biolytix Eco Pod option for East Rotoiti in the sum of $12.1m. To be approved for construction. 2. Contingencies for capital works of up to $1.2m which are subject to specific approval of the CEO and the Infrastructure GM. A provisional capital sum of $3m for the Rotoehu/Ngamotu reticulation to be awarded for construction only upon Council’s approval and upon confirmation of that scheme’s funding by the Ministry for the Environment or other sources. 4. The operation, management and maintenance of the East Rotoiti on-property and reticulation systems for a term of 15 years in the sum of $6.6m. To commence post installation. 5. Contingencies sum to a maximum of $1.5m over the 15 year term of the O&M contract with expenditure of this sum subject to specific approval of the CEO and the Infrastructure GM. 6. A provisional sum of $1.3m to be utilised for the installation of new units related to housing growth in the benefit zone of the scheme with costs recovered from the new housing applicants.
Response
Re lakefront contract variation – unless otherwise noted, responses can be attributed to Jocelyn Mikaere, DCE Community Wellbeing:
What does the contract variation seek to do? Why was it needed? What will it buy / what is it paying for?
See below
I understand from the variation is an increase but the overall budget remains at $41m - that's the budget including external funding isn't it - so this funding is an increase on the council's contribution. Is that correct? Or is this drawing down on the council's already budgeted contribution?
This is not an increase on council’s contribution. The overall budget remains $41m (yes the $41m includes RLC and PGF allocations). As the minutes state, no additional funding sought, this is not a budget increase, the variation is covered by contingencies which are included in the overall project budget. See more below.
The total project budget remains unchanged at $41m – both the RLC contribution of $20.1m and the Kanoa the Provincial Development Unit contribution of $20.9m remain unchanged. Within the project budget each stage has an estimated budget which includes a contingency to allow for unknowns at time of design and tender.
This variation draws on the contingency for stage 1 and is less than the allowed contingency. Unspent contingency is reallocated to other stages as in a project of this size, scale and duration there will be unders and overs across the stages.
What is the council's full (budgeted) contribution now? How much of that has been spent to date?
As above, Council and Kanoa – Provincial Development Unit contributions ($20.1m and $20.9m respectively) remain unchanged. Actual spend to date at end July was $23.1m.
It says no further funding is being requested - is that referring to external funding or does it just mean no further council funding - beyond the additional $833,928.33 is being requested at this time?
It means the variation can be covered by the existing project budget of $41m via the contingencies contained within that budget (as explained above).
Why was this decision made in confidential?
See below
Where is this funding coming from (specifically which council budget line)?
The budget for the lakefront project (ie the $41m allocated, which includes contingencies). Contingencies are included to cover any variations that may be required. This is normal for a project like this.
Was there a division on voting? If so can you please advise me who voted for, against or abstained?
*Please note, this is information rather than being attributable to Jocelyn: There was no division called – that would have been noted in the minutes.
If the council can please provide me the relevant agenda item on this it would be helpful and likely answer a lot of these questions - if possible.
As stated in the minutes, the report is not being made publicly available.
Could I please also have a comment from the mayor on this as to why in her view (if she voted in favour of course) this additional council funding was required and why it's important.
From Mayor Chadwick re lakefront contract variation:
This project has to date been progressing well and within budget and it has been great to see people already enjoying the completed stages.
Contract variations are a normal, common part of managing projects like this because things can change during the course of construction and not everything can be known up front – that’s why project budgets include contingencies.
Some general points re contract variations
A ‘variation’ allows a change in the scope of the contract works and it is normal for a standard construction contract to have variations as not everything can be planned for in advance of work starting.
Most variations are covered by project contingencies which are included within project budgets.
Variations mean that the contract value has increased. It does not mean a project has gone over budget.
Awarding of contracts and contract variations are dealt with in confidential due to the commercial sensitivity of the information that is discussed, including contingency amounts.
Re lakefront contract variation:
This contract variation is a net figure over the whole contract, resulting from a total of 23 variations, some cost savings and some additional cost. The largest within that related to ground stabilisation works where the additive mix required for ground stabilisation under the boardwalk was not certain until tested when works were underway. When this was done it was found that more lime was required than specified in the contract. On the flip side an example of a cost saving was revised testing methodology for testing the trial ground anchors under the boardwalk.
Re Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage reticulation scheme:
As stated in the minutes now made public, the report is not being made publicly available but see information below which can be attributed toStavros Michael, DCE Infrastructure and Environment:
The decision now made public relates to the awarding of a contract for the final part of the East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage reticulation project which has been ongoing for a number of years and has been delivered in stages.
You’ll find background and information relating to this project HERE.
Completed so far:
- WWTP constructed and operating;
- 35km of main trunk reticulation and major pump stations constructed and operating;
- Over 200 STEP pre-treatment systems installed and operational at Rotomā;
- Extensive engagement with Maori whenua owners to reach agreements to install infrastructure on their lands;
- Agreement on the type of pre-treatment systems for East Rotoiti following a long procurement process.
The remaining work comprises the installation of pre-treatment systems at Rotoiti, consistent with the scheme scope that was adopted by Council in 2014, the resource consent conditions and the Heads of Agreement with Ngati Pikiao.
A lengthy and robust procurement process to identify the most suitable systems for Rotoiti involved multi-criteria assessment including operational effectiveness, system safety, effluent performance, cultural preference and cost effectiveness.
The minutes now made public relate to the contract awarded for this next phase of the scheme: ie the supply and installation of Biolytix Eco Pod option for East Rotoiti + the operation, management and maintenance of these on-property and reticulation systems for a term of 15 years.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: Possibility of more MIQ for Rotorua
Enquiry
We've just been made aware of something we are following up on re Rotorua's MIQ situation and I'd very much appreciate a response from Steve please. I'd love a response by 5.30pm but can push this out to 6pm at the latest if need be.
This has come from our political team at NZH.
Maori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has asked why MIQ facilities end up concentrated in areas with high Maori and Pacific populations, such as south Auckland and Rotorua.
Hipkins said he understood the concerns being raised in Rotorua. He said there was no more capacity for MIQ or quarantine in South Auckland, and Rotorua was being looked at as a back up. He said it was partly a reflection of where the hotels were: Rotorua had a lot as a tourism centre.
Can we please find out:
- what concerns does this, particularly Rotorua 'being looked at as a back up' raise with you? If any?
- what involvement, if any, have you had regarding Rotorua becoming a 'back up' to Auckland for MIQ facilities?
- do you support this? If so, why? If not, why not?
- Hipkins says Rotorua has a lot of hotels which was a factor in this. So does Queenstown. Do you feel Rotorua is being unfairly targeted?
Please feel free to include any other comment you would like included.
Response
From Mayor Chadwick:
As I said a week or so ago, we gave an emphatic “no more” when MIQ officials were in Rotorua earlier this month and met with Council, Te Arawa and Rotorua Economic Development representatives.
We all feel that Rotorua is already doing its fair share and that our city cannot sustain any more MIQ facilities, and we were very clear with officials about that and about our concerns if it does happen.
Having MIQ here requires resources from our local DHB, police and security staff and that impacts on our community. Imposing more MIQ facilities on our city will increase risks to community safety and health services so that’s a real concern.
We also need to retain accommodation capacity for visitors and we currently still have that.
Rotorua has willingly played it’s part, taking on MIQ at the same time as trying to get our economy going again and addressing our critical housing shortage and other challenges, but I don’t think it would be fair on our community to expect us to take on more.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Pedestrian safety
*NOTE: THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS ENQUIRY REGARDING DATA RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN INJURIES ON ROTORUA ROADS - see HERE
Enquiry
I am seeking comment from mayor Steve Chadwick regarding the story I am writing about pedestrian injuries from crashes in the Rotorua district. She advised me to speak with Stavros Michael first (I received his response yesterday) before approaching her for comment.
My data shows there have been 12 pedestrian injuries from crashes on both Clayton Rd and Fenton St between 2011 and 2021 (3 serious and 9 minor for both roads). For context, SH30 had recorded the next highest with 11 injuries (4 were fatal).
Stavros said the last traffic safety reviews were done in 2003 and 2008 on these roads.
Questions for Steve Chadwick:
Do you think it is time for another traffic safety review to be done on these roads in light of these figures? Why or why not?
What is your response to this data? i.e. why do you think these roads have recorded the highest number of pedestrian injuries from crashes in the Rotorua district?
How will the Inner City Revitalisation project make these roads safer for pedestrians?
Response
From Mayor Chadwick:
As elected members we are guided by council’s expert staff in these operational matters. They determine where and when safety reviews are needed, based on relevant information and assessments.
We do sometimes receive correspondence from members of the community relating to safety matters and these are passed on to the relevant operational staff for consideration and/or action as required.
Details of plans for the CBD are yet to be finalised but movement and safety of pedestrians will be a key factor that will be taken into consideration.