1.1 At its meeting on 11 December 2014, Council resolved to (9.3): 1.3 This report also seeks the Council s approval to:

Transcription

1 DUDLEY CREEK FLOOD REMEDIATION UPDATE Executive Leadership Team Member responsible: Officer responsible: Author: Director, Council Facilities and Infrastructure Unit Manager, Stormwater and Land Drainage Rebuild Marc Palmer, Project Manager Land Drainage Recovery Programme Contact Contact Details N Y DDI N 1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT 1.1 At its meeting on 11 December 2014, Council resolved to (9.3): Undertake further analysis of two options downstream of Petrie Street, being: Option A Warden Street Bypass and Banks Avenue Channel works, and Option B Warden Street Bypass, Marian College, Richmond Park and Residential Red Zone Bypass, by: the Technical analysis and comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of two options Further engagement and consultation on both options with the community including the Banks Avenue residents, Marian College, and other affected landowners Ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Education, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Christchurch and any other Landowners on options for an open channel bypass along varied alignments. 1.2 This report seeks the Council s retrospective approval for the appointment of Beca as the design consultant for the Dudley Creek Remediation Project in the sum of $5,022, This report also seeks the Council s approval to: Make a formal request to Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority s (CERA) CEO asking him to exercise his power under s53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act for the Dudley Creek Remediation Project, because that power will need to be exercised no matter which option is chosen for the remediation works, as all of the options require an easement, or widening of an existing easement, across residential red zone land; and Significance and Engagement 1.4 Whilst this is a high significance project, in relation to the Christchurch City Council s Significance and Engagement Policy, the decisions to be made are of relatively low significance. On balance the significance of the decisions are as follows: The decision to discuss RRZ easements with CERA, is low as it marks the commencement of a process which will be concluded by formal agreement subject to later approval The report on progress of the options analysis and consultation is provided by way of a briefing and no decision is required.

2 1.4.3 The decision to retrospectively approve the appointment of the project design consultant is of low significance. 1.5 In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report contains: Sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decision; and A process of community engagement to determine and consider the views and preferences of affected and interested parties keeping in mind the significance of the decision. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 CERA were requested in writing on 22 December 2014 to give their agreement in principle to ensure future access to the RRZ to construct and operate a stormwater bypass channel or pipe. In response CERA CEO wrote 29 January to say that agreement in principle would need to be granted under section 53 of the CER Act 2011 and to do so he would need to see an analysis of the proposal that satisfies the statutory tests in Section 3 (purposes) and Section 10 (powers to be exercised for purposes of the Act). The Council is advised that a resolution should be sought to formally request the CEO exercise his powers a meeting with CERA, as all of the options being considered will require the CERA CEO to exercise powers under s Engagement and consultation has continued with the community and affected landowners on the alternative bypass Option A. Discussions have also been held with CERA to investigate the comparative benefits of the two options (the other being the existing channel remediation along Banks Avenue) and how to jointly engage and consult with the interested parties. This will continue as the mix of technical solutions is developed by the appointed consultant and conclude in a recommendation to the Council, which is anticipated in early July. 2.3 Following an open market tender invitation and a comprehensive evaluation and negotiation, a contract was agreed with Beca to provide consultancy services for the design, consenting, procurement and client s agent services for the Dudley Creek Remediation Project. This contract was awarded on 9 March in the sum of $5,022, and the consultant s team started work immediately thereafter. The Council s retrospective approval is sought for this contract action. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, land settlement, lateral spreading, liquefaction and siltation in Dudley Creek and tributary streams has resulted in a large reduction in hydraulic capacity and a significant increase in the frequency and severity of flood events within the Dudley catchment. 3.2 The Dudley catchment contains a large number of houses where flood risk has risen significantly since the earthquake events. Given this situation, the Council has prioritised the investigation of damage and options for remedial works, including the potential timeframes for their delivery. 3.3 The Council has been investigating capacity upgrade options since The Mayoral Flood Taskforce triggered works within the catchment, including the Tay Street Drain pump station (PS202) and some widening and in channel works to remove potential restrictions. PS202 works are nearing completion and will become operational in April 2015.

3 3.4 Optimisation of the options following the taskforce concluded with one option being presented to the community in November The feedback identified a community preference for an alternative bypass route. 3.5 On 11 December 2014 the Council resolved to proceed with the works upstream to Hills Road and undertake further analysis and consultation of two options downstream of Petrie Street. 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 CERA Residential Red Zone Approvals Process At the Council meeting on 11 December 2014 (carried over to 12 December) agreement was given to investigate alternative alignments for the Dudley Creek Remediation Project. This includes the main Banks Avenue existing channel and the alternative bypass option passing through Marian College, Richmond Park and the RRZ CERA were requested in writing on 22 December 2014 to give their agreement in principle to ensure future access to the RRZ to construct and operate a stormwater bypass channel or pipe. In response the CEO John Ombler wrote 29 January to say that granting agreement in principle would be a decision under section 53 of the CER Act Before he could make such a decision and to do so he would need to see an analysis of the proposal that satisfies the statutory tests in section 3 (purposes) and section 10 (powers to be exercised for purposes of the Act) Meetings have subsequently been held with Council and CERA technical and legal staff to better understand the issue and the tests required Due to the sensitivities involved, the test for providing easements for new infrastructure through the RRZ is very high and consenting has not been delegated down by the CERA CEO. It should be noted that even the widening of the existing Dudley Creek to improve capacity should the Banks Avenue option be selected will require RRZ easements, although the bar for this is not so high, as the existing function of this land includes the passage of floodwater and the impact of the required access is less We understand that the decision on whether Crown land can be used will involve assessing what is necessary to achieve the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of greater Christchurch communities. That means weighing up factors such as the efficacy of the proposal, any adverse effects which might affect other residents or communities, the relative benefit of the proposal compared with other options, etc. In essence, the Council must not only make a sound case for RRZ access, but demonstrate to CERA s CEO that they have considered alternatives and that they have selected the best option Officers from the Council and CERA have recommended that a meeting (Council and CERA CEOs) be held prior to the Council s decision, to attempt to reach a consensus on how the best option is to be determined. If agreement can be reached in principle then this should significantly reduce the risk of RRZ easements not being approved, due to CERA being unable or unwilling to grant consent. Officers from the Council and CERA will work towards providing an appropriate multi-criteria analysis assessment to this meeting Legal advice is to seek a resolution from the Council that the Council formally requests the CERA CEO exercise his section 53 powers, even though a final decision cannot yet be made by him at this stage (until he has received further

4 information). This will minimise the risk of any delays at a later stage, as it is clear that for all of the options being considered by the Council the CERA CEO will need to exercise powers under s Although the Council wished to make a decision on the downstream options in March, this has had to be deferred to early July to enable investigations and public consultation to be completed, although the overall works completion date remains unchanged Note that a joint meeting between CEOs may also provide an opportunity to establish agreement in principle for other priority projects requiring RRZ easements such as Knights Drain channel and stormwater pumping station, and the Northern Relief Wastewater Project. 4.2 Alternative Bypass Options A number of alternative bypass options were proposed during and prior to the consultation period late last year. These alternative alignments are generally intended at minimising the works required in-stream, particularly in the Banks Avenue Reach The alternative alignments did have considerable merits but at increased costs. The next highest scoring was the extension to the Warden Street Bypass. This came at an additional cost of approximately $5 million. This option negates the works along Banks Avenue and would avoid the need to remove a significant number of trees along Banks Avenue but would require greater land acquisition and would impact on existing parks, some trees and recreational facilities Engagement has progressed with Richmond Park Sports clubs and the Anglican Diocese regarding Marian College. Feedback from these initial meetings indicates a clear preference for an alternative bypass to be constructed below ground (rather than an open channel). The Diocese also indicated alignment preferences. Ongoing work on the alternative bypass may present modifications to the form or alignment of this option. 4.3 Award of the Consultancy Contract It was identified that there would be significant overall project efficiencies to procuring design consultancy services and construction supervision services in a single contract, albeit at the cost an initial delay in investigations due to procurement processes. The Council Procurement Policy necessitated an engagement with the open market for the estimated fee for this contract through a Request for Proposal (RFP). It was not possible to direct appoint the previous consultant, Jacobs, as the contract greatly exceeded existing delegations for direct appointment. Jacobs were open to bid on the RFP which was released on 21 January On the 11 February 2015 four proposals were received and assessed for nonprice attributes. The Beca proposal was assessed as being of the highest quality. Price negotiations with Beca and their primary sub-consultant Opus concluded with an Evaluation Report recommending the acceptance of a contract sum of $5,022,147. On 9 March a letter of award was sent to Beca Programme delivery risks have been reduced with the award of the contract and the consultant will focus on two initial tasks: progressing the options assessment for the downstream portion of the works and developing the design of the upstream works. During these initial tasks the consultant will be identifying works packages which could be rapidly progressed to construction in accordance with the Council s desire to deliver early wins.

5 4.4 Targeted Rates Targeted rates were the subject of formal and informal feedback from the community (Facebook, Press articles, Stuff commentary) which highlighted that this is a contentious and potentially misunderstood issue that is not supported by submitters The merits of applying a targeted rate to fund the Proposed Option have been considered and have been reported to the Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Strategy and Finance Committee in accordance with resolution 14.6 from the 23 October 2014 Report The advice provided is that a targeted rate is not recommended and that payment should continue by way of the existing Land Drainage and General rates. The full reasons are set out in the report. 5. PROGRAMME 5.1 The procurement approach adopted for the consultancy services will minimise ongoing programme risks. The consultant will be tasked with preparing material to support a report to Council on the downstream works in early July They will also develop a physical works contract for award prior to August The four month delay in the downstream work reported to the Council, from the intended March to July should not threaten the final works completion date. 5.3 The following key dates have been identified and will be part of an integrated programme to be developed with the design consultant. Commencement of Design Consultant 9 March 2015 Approval of Optimised Procurement Plan 24 April 2015 Alternative Bypass Options Report 5 May 2015 Bypass Options Workshop 3 June 2015 Full Council Approval Bypass Option Early July 2015 Commence Upstream Works August / September 2015 Commence Downstream Works Early 2016 Complete All Work Autumn There are a number of assumptions in developing this programme, including: favourable weather conditions, a smooth consenting process and positive responses to access agreements from affected land owners. 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The financial implications of the scheme were outlined in the 11 December report. As described in that report the Proposed Option is provisionally within the Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild programme but is yet to be approved. The scope of the Proposal and eligibility within the Funding Agreement between the Crown and the Council ( Cost Share Agreement ) will need to be confirmed during the next design stage. These discussions will confirm any funding split.

6 6.2 The Earthquake Commission has been considering the appropriate compensation for damages related to increased flood risk associated with ground settlement. It is currently assessing properties that are potentially affected by increased flood vulnerability (IFV). EQC have indicated that they will not be providing payments direct to the Council. 6.3 The Council may need to fully fund the Proposed Option should other avenues for funding not be available. 6.4 The current cost estimate for the Proposed Option is up to $48 million which includes an allowance for design consultancy sufficient to fund the Beca Consultancy Contract. 6.5 Progressing the Proposed Option as a matter of high priority may limit the funds available within the current budgetary allowance to progress other lower priority schemes elsewhere within the city. These other schemes are being, or will be, developed within the LDRP within the overall planned funding constraints. 6.6 Given the level of uncertainty with the funding for the Proposed Option it is recommended that further work be undertaken prior to awarding any construction contracts. In awarding the consultancy services contract council is at risk of having to fully fund these activities should the Proposed Option be ineligible within the Cost Share Agreement. 7. NEXT STEPS 7.1 Develop, consult and report on downstream options. 7.2 Detailed design and procurement of upstream scheme.