NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone:  (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

 

 

 

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

 

 

Open

Agenda

 

 

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 30 August 2017

Time:

3pm

Venue:

Taradale Town Hall
Lee Road

Taradale

 

 

Council Members

The Mayor, Councillor Price (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine, Wise and Wright

Officer Responsible

Director Infrastructure Services and Director City Strategy

Administrator

Governance Team

 

 

Next Strategy and Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Wednesday 11 October 2017


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Apologies

Deputy Mayor Faye White and Councillor Taylor.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Public forum

Amelia Otto, speaking about roading outside Atawhai Retirement Village.

Announcements by the Mayor

Announcements by the Chairperson

Announcements by the Management

Confirmation of Minutes (page 211 refers)

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 be taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Notification and Justification of Matters of Extraordinary Business

(Strictly for information and/or referral purposes only).

Agenda Items

1       Pedestrian safety on Gloucester Street adjacent to Atawhai Retirement Village......................................................................................................... 3

2       Revocation of Meeanee Quay - Declaration of Prebensen Drive................. 9

3       Electoral Systems for Election 2019..................................................... 14

4       Representation Review....................................................................... 25

5       National Aquarium of New Zealand Expansion Project........................... 65

6       Multi-Use Sports Facility Business Case.............................................. 199

7       Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee - draft minutes 28 July 2017 203

Public Excluded

Nil 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1.     Pedestrian safety on Gloucester Street adjacent to Atawhai Retirement Village

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

380677

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Tony Mills, Senior Roading Engineer

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to identify the different options considered for the provision of a safe pedestrian crossing facility on Gloucester Street adjacent to Atawhai Retirement Village, and to obtain a decision supporting the provision of a central refuge and additional road markings and signage.

 

This proposal arises from the community concern around the safety of the existing crossing facility.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a.     Approve the installation of an upgrade to the existing crossing facility to include a central pedestrian refuge.

 

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

1.2   Background Summary

The original request for the provision of a pedestrian crossing to be installed adjacent to the Atawhai retirement village dates back to 2010; since then there have been numerous requests and subsequent reports discussing the matter.  The topic has most recently come to Council in 2015, and at that time, it was decided to retain the status quo. 

 

Since then submissions have been received as part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan process from the Atawhai retirement village, Grey Power, Taradale Community and Development Association and the Otto family, requesting that the crossing facility be evaluated again.

 

1.3   Issues

Since 2006, there have been five recorded crashes at this location, of which only one was involving a pedestrian.  This crash occurred in 2012 where the pedestrian stepped in to the road without looking for approaching vehicles and was not paying attention to their surroundings.  This resulted in minor injuries.

 

To ensure that the crossing facility is as safe as possible a number of options have been investigated, as detailed below.

 

 

Pedestrian Crossing

 

The previous reports have detailed why the provision of a formal pedestrian crossing is not the preferred solution for this location and this position is still supported by Council officers. 

 

Previous investigations into formalising the pedestrian crossing have found that the pedestrian and vehicular counts do not meet either the superseded warrant process or the latest NZTA Guideline for the Selection of Pedestrian Facilities.  As there has been no change in land use or notable increase in traffic on Gloucester Street, there would not be a significant change to the outcome of those investigations at present.

 

NZTA guidelines and international studies show that “zebra crossings” are not considered a safe option in the majority of circumstances, and where they are not entirely justified or inappropriately located they may actually increase the risk of accidents.

 

Pedestrian Island

 

The provision of a central pedestrian island will reduce exposure time for people crossing the road. 

 

With some alterations to the existing kerb buildouts, and by adjusting the kerb line at the bus stop, it is possible to install a central island without affecting the traffic lane widths or the provision of the on-road cycle lane.  The flush median will allow traffic to be able to wait for space to turn right in to Hinton Road without blocking through traffic.  There would only be space available for two cars within the flush median, however this is in fact an increase to the existing provision, where a right turner would block through traffic unless they merge into the cycle lane, which creates a more significant risk.

 

The narrowing effect of the additional road marking proposed with this solution has been shown to slow traffic speeds at other sites as it increases awareness that the traffic environment has changed.

 

Changing the existing Give Way on Hinton Road to a STOP will also increase safety for people crossing at this location, as vehicles will no longer be able to enter Gloucester Street freely and therefore will travel more slowly through the crossing location.

 

Signalised pedestrian crossing facility

 

A standalone signalised pedestrian crossing facility can be installed if there is a known safety problem. 

 

Signals would also delay both pedestrian and vehicles, which would lower benefits if calculated for a benefit cost ratio.

 

The cost to construct a signalised pedestrian crossing facility is estimated to be in the order of $100,000 which is a significant disincentive.

 

Due to the low crash history, cost, and delays it is not deemed the most appropriate facility, though it would provide a safe crossing facility for pedestrians.

 

Raised platform

 

A raised platform would reduce speed at this location but it is not a suitable location given Gloucester Street is a major arterial road.

 

The increased noise and vibration would also be a significant issue for the adjacent properties, due to the large number of vehicles using this road.

 

It is generally considered that vertical deflection devices should not be used in isolation, but should be part of an area wide treatment with clear entry and exit points (gateways).

 

Relocation of the crossing facility

 

This was investigated but no suitable location was found that would still have the benefits required for the children and retirement village.

 

This location would continue to be used to cross due to the schoolchildren using the bus stop on the opposite side of Gloucester Street and proximity to Atawhai Village.

1.4   Significance and Consultation

This project does not constitute a significant project and the upgrade of the crossing facility does not affect any residential dwellings.

1.5   Implications

Financial

The recommended option is estimated to cost approximately $30,000 and will be funded from the minor improvements budget for 2017/18. This project would qualify for NZTA funding assistance of 51%.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

With the provision of any pedestrian crossing facility, there is risk of conflict between a pedestrian and motor vehicle resulting in serious injury.  This is mitigated by the upgrade as detailed above which will improve safety.


The public may still request a formal pedestrian crossing after the proposed improvement. 

 

 

 

 

 

1.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:                   

1.   Install a pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing).

2.   Improve road markings and signage, provide a central refuge pedestrian island and reduce the width of the existing kerb build outs

3.   Provide a traffic signal controlled crossing

4.   Install a raised platform on Gloucester Street

5.   Relocate the crossing facility

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

Option 1 – Zebra Crossing

This is not a feasible option as it has been assessed as being unsafe.

Option 2 – Central refuge and associated marking and signs

Preferred option due to safety considerations and costs

Option 3 – Signal Controlled Crossing

Second option due to safety considerations but costs are estimated at 3-4 times higher than option 2

Option 4 – Raised platform

This is not preferred due to Gloucester Street being a major arterial and the issues with noise and vibration.

Option 5 – Relocate the crossing

This is not preferred, as the need for a crossing facility at this location would still exist.

 

The preferred option is Option 2 – approve the upgrade and allow for the installation of all relevant signage and lining.

With the reasons for this decision being that, the objective of the decision will contribute to the provision of a facility that is safe for walking and cycling.

 

 

1.8   Attachments

a     Schematic   


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda



Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

2.     Revocation of Meeanee Quay - Declaration of Prebensen Drive

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

380678

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Tony Mills, Senior Roading Engineer

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is:

·    To update Council on the intended declaration of Prebensen Drive from the expressway to Hyderabad Road as State Highway and the revocation of SH2 from Watchman Road to Hyderabad Road to Napier City Council control.

·    To seek delegated authority for the Director of Infrastructure to negotiate a final agreement with NZTA.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a.     receives this report for information; and

b.     Delegates authority to the Director of Infrastructure to finalise an agreement with NZTA in relation to the State Highway declaration and revocation processes identified in this report.

 

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

2.2   Background Summary

 

NZTA have identified the route to the Port of Napier as regionally strategic and notified Council of their intention to declare Prebensen Drive a State Highway and concurrently revoke Pandora Road and Meeanee Quay to local authority ownership.

 

This intention was signalled to Council a number of years ago but was not actioned at that time. The current NZTA network team are now keen to complete this process, partly driven by the recent revisions to the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass (VDAM) Rule which has enabled the use of heavier trucks on the network. Limits on the carrying capacity of the Pandora Bridge have resulted in most freight from the north using Prebensen Drive to access the port. The widening undertaken by Napier City Council on Prebensen Drive has also contributed to it being favoured by freight from the south.

 

NZTA have stated:

 

At present, the ownership of the link to the Port is confusing for customers and not well aligned with how the region sees freight movements in future. Given that the Napier City Council (NCC) prefers to see the majority of freight using Prebensen Drive, it makes strategic sense to include the four lane section within the state highway network.

 

Declaration and revocation of State Highways is legislated by the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA). The legislation requires NZTA to consult with the affected road controlling authority (RCA), but does not compel the agreement of said authority. If the RCA does not agree with the revocation, NZTA may still recommend the revocation to the Ministry of Transport, with the onus on demonstration that the road is ‘fit for purpose’.

 

Pursuant of Section 103 of the LTMA it is NZTA’s intention to revoke the section of existing State Highway 2 between the Watchman Road intersection and Hyderabad Road (Meeanee Quay & Pandora Road). As a result of this revocation, management and control will be returned to Council as the relevant RCA.

 

In exchange, Prebensen Drive (from the Expressway to Hyderabad Roundabout), will be declared as State Highway, and management and control will be transfer to NZTA as the relevant road controlling authority. The plan appended to this report identifies the affected lengths of road.

 

In September 2014, Council considered a report from the Roading Manager relating to the Four Laning of Prebensen Drive and transfer of assets between NZTA and Napier City Council (Report S60-0171). That meeting resolved to seek the best possible advantage in the negotiations with NZTA for the long term maintenance and renewal of the sections of road revoked as State Highways and returned to Council ownership.

 

The construction of the Prebensen Drive four-laning between Hyderabad Road and Hawke’s Bay Expressway was completed in 2016 for a total of $6.9m and was primarily funded from financial contributions.

 

There are opportunities for Council if it were to take over ownership of these roads to improve the environment around Pandora Pond and to reduce the truck traffic particularly through Meeanee Quay and across the Pandora Bridge. Becoming the road controlling authority for Meeanee Quay and Pandora Road will increase the ease with which improvements can be made, particularly with regard to implementing the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan

 

2.3   Issues

 

The relative lane lengths of the roads to be declared are similar (6.4km on Prebensen Drive: 6.05km on Pandora Road and Meeanee Quay).

 

However, due to the age difference between the two sections of road there is a significant disparity between the book values of each section of road. This matter, together with the issue of differing annual depreciation allowances and cost of intended maintenance and renewal of each section of road will need to be considered in reaching a final agreement. Both organisations have identified some programmed maintenance interventions for the 17/18 financial year on their respective roads that will be completed prior to handover.

 

Pandora Bridge is well into its design life.  It was seismically strengthened approximately 8 years ago, but is at the limit of its structural capacity when in use.

 

Reducing the truck traffic across the bridge may help to increase the service life of the bridge however the harsh marine environment will have a greater impact on its deterioration than loading.

 

 

Pandora Road is known to be have some maintenance issues with several sections having subsided over time. Meeanee Quay is in relatively good condition and should only require normal maintenance for the remainder of its life. 

 

The legislation does allow for maintenance deficiencies to be brought to the attention of NZTA after handover and there is also an expectation that known deficiencies will be addressed by NZTA prior to handover.

 

2.4   Significance and Consultation

This does not constitute a significant process and it is deemed that consultation is not required.

2.5   Implications

Financial

There is no significant impact on operational budgets. Future maintenance costs will be managed within existing budgets, partially offset by the declaration of Prebensen Drive, which has greater lane length and traffic loadings.

 

NZTA have agreed in principle to retain the bridge on their current inspection schedule, with any findings reported to Napier City Council. Once their current inspection contract ends, then Council will add this asset to their existing inspection programme. This offer will be reciprocated by Napier City Council in respect of the culverts under Prebensen Drive.

 

There will be a minor change in the annual asset valuation once the handovers are finalised.

 

The greatest risk to Council is future bridge renewal, which has not been included in depreciation and renewal forecasts. Unlike Council, NZTA do not depreciate assets and there is therefore no ‘accumulated depreciation’ held or calculated against the bridge. Council needs to consider the likely value of depreciation which would have generated against the asset had it always been under Napier’s control.  This issue has been the focus of much of the discussion with NZTA to date, where they have indicated that they will either provide a financial contribution on handover, provide a ‘guarantee’ for a period following handover, or offer an increased financial subsidy when Council has to renew the bridge or some of its components.

 

Social & Policy

In accepting the change in road ownership, it will enable Council to realise the projects associated with the road network in the Pandora Masterplan to be realised.

Risk

NZTA may not guarantee Pandora Bridge or agree to undertake maintenance of the State Highway before the handover takes place which results in a financial burden on Council’s existing maintenance budget.

2.6   Options

There are two options available;

 

1.  Agree to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 process and continue to engage proactively with NZTA.

2.  Object to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 process.

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

 

Option 1– Agree to the LTMA process

 

This is the preferred option. Maintaining a collaborative engagement with this process will enable Council to maintain the positive working relationship with NZTA and benefit from completing negotiations in good faith. There has been no indication from NZTA that they will not cover any reasonable funding shortfalls to Council as a result of this process.

 

Participating and supporting the process will enable a timely resolution for both parties and greater confidence in our future assets and associated maintenance obligations. Furthermore, it will provide Council with the control of those sections of road where community benefits can be achieved through the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan.

 

Option 2 – Object to the LTMA process

 

The potential for meaningful objection is limited under the LTMA processes. The required consultation processes do not have a requirement for agreement and there is therefore no effective leverage for Council.

 

Should Council object to the process NZTA would only need to demonstrate that the assets it is transferring are ‘fit for purpose’.

 

Objection to the process would appear to be a risk to the good relationship between NZTA and NCC with little or nothing to be gained.

 

 

 

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Plan showing extents of Declaration and Revocation   


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

 

 



Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

3.     Electoral Systems for Election 2019

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Local Electoral Act 1991

Document ID:

378902

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

To outline the feedback received from the community consultation on the electoral systems and seek a decision from Council on which electoral system to use for the 2019 election. 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.  Retain First Past the Post as the electoral system for the 2019 elections.

 

OR

 

b.  Change the electoral system to Single Transferable Vote (STV) for the electoral system for the 2019 and 2022 elections.

c.  Note that a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required to meet the 12 September 2017 deadline to make a decision on the electoral system and notify the public by 19 September 2017. This will require the following resolution to be passed before the decision of Council is taken:

Agree that, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles of consultation set out in that section have been observed in such manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

 

 

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

3.2   Background Summary

At the Finance Committee meeting on 2 August 2017, Council was provided with a background paper on electoral systems that contained detailed information on First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) (Attachment A).  Since that time, Officers have undertaken engagement with the public through an education campaign and consultation process.  Outlined below is a summary of the data collected during this engagement to inform Council on the public’s view of the electoral system.

 

Engagement summary 3 August to 23 August:

·    Media release announcing that we are getting ready to take a paper to our Councils and we need the public to have their say.

·    A Talk To Us page on the Napier City Council website educating community on the two possible systems and what they mean – the public will be able to nominate which they choose.

·    2 x adverts in Napier Mail –9 August/16 August. 

·    Various social media (Facebook) engagement across the two weeks.

·    Electoral systems poster and cards at Civic Building reception.

 

Overview of results

 

·    52% of public feedback was in support of FPP

·    41% of public feedback was in support of STV

·    7% of public feedback had no preference/or not relevant to topic.

 

Key themes from comments included:

 

For STV:

·    Fairer and democratic

·    Achieves representative with the broadest support

 

For FPP:

·    Simple and straightforward

·    Your vote counts for the person you want to win only

 

The tables below outline the data collected and verbatim feedback received.

 

Data collected

 

Means

Number of data collected

In support of STV

In support of FPP

No preference/not relevant to topic

Council’s Talk to us page

40 comments (excluding duplicate posts)

14 likes/dislikes on comments

19 comments plus 8 likes

21 comments plus 6 likes

N/A

Council’s Facebook page

24 comments and 15 likes

6 comments and 3 likes

11 comments and 8 likes

5 (4 likes)

Electoral Systems card and poster at Civic Building reception

6 comments and 29 stickers placed on posters

4 comments and 12 likes

2 comments and

19 likes

N/A

Total

128

52

67

9

 

 

 

       

 

Single Transferable Vote

 

Council’s Talk to us page

As a country we now support MMP which is an alternative to FPP. In a similar way STV is the system where we get representatives with the broadest support. I support a change to STV

We already have this system for voting for the Health Board. Most people are familiar with it, even if, as one of your commentators says, it requires more thought and time. It is fairer. it is more democratic. FFP is a very blunt instrument and does not always reflect what was hoped for. A bit more education on the STV system would be helpful. When it is used more often people will get used to it. (2 likes)

fairer system

Need change

This is the fairest voting system and ensures that fewer votes are wasted.

Gives voters a better option in my opinion to have a broader say in elections, rather than just the one choice.

Better system by far

I only want to vote

This is far more democratic, in the views of the public actually standing for something rather than a straight lottery of FFP where only one view is applied the vote. This allows the council to better apply the wishes and views of the voting public.

A fairer and more democratic system.

STV is by far the most democratic and fair means of electing. We ditched FPP nationally for MMP and that has been a disaster for NZ with Governments being held to ransom by tiny support parties. (1like)

This voting system gives a fairer result, because it more accurately captures the range of voters' preferences. We already use this system for the health board and it would be easier for voters if we used just one system for Napier City council and the Regional Council as well. (2 likes) (1 dislike)

STV (2 likes)

Far more democratic.

I believe Single Transferable Vote is a more democratic system

A fairer system.  As it better represents ratepayers views v

STV as it gives your 2nd, 3rd choices a chance. It also stops people from not voting for someone that they support yet they think there is no chance of them being elected (as under FPTP). However I do think FPTP is simpler which is important - a lot of people will give up on voting if it is too complicated! Especially young people.

I also wish that we had been given this option at a Central Government level, instead of MMP. MMP gives way too much power to the minority parties, out of kilter with their actual level of support. STV is more complex but offers the most fair & TRUE representation of what the Electorate (voters) truly want.

I like the way Napier City has a mixture of ward and at large councilors. It gives us the best of both worlds. I would support this continuing. To my mind STV offers the best opportunity for elected representatives to reflect the wishes of the voters i.e if your first choice doesn't make the cut then your second might. Note: This comment reflects my personal view only.

Electoral Systems card at Civic Reception

STV

Flow down effect gives people more of a chance

So much better!

STV is a more fair system

 

Facebook

STV, more representative of the votes people make. Many councils and countries are using it successfully

STV would be my preference

STV all the way! Better than FPP in many ways.  Also way more democratic than MMP which totally sucks!  If National lose in Sept we’ll end up with a Labour, Green, NZ first fiasco.  But I live in Havelock so looks like I don’t get to participate.  (2 likes)

STV, the fairest of them all. 

STV (1 like)

Scotland introduced STV for local elections some time ago.  Look at the Scottish government website to see how its been working. 

 

        First Past the Post

 

Council’s Talk to us page

Voting needs to be simple and straight forward. We shouldn't be paying people to spend more time counting votes for most liked candidate to the least liked. Also voters don't want to be thinking about other candidates who they DON'T WANT to win. It's just down right confusing. (1 like)

You vote for the person(s) you want and if you don't get it, tough.

Agree with comments already made in support of FFP.

STV is too time consuming for both the voter and those counting the votes. Also more chance of mistakes being made

This system is easier for people to understand, consequently they are more likely to place a vote.

you know who you are getting

i prefer 1st past the post

FPP is the easiest, quickest and understandable voting system for the majority of voters to use. More people would probably vote using this system instead of having to try to rank the candidates which takes a lot more time and thought and is more complicated.

Candidate with the most votes is the choice of the majority of the voters

With the number of voters per election this is the simplest option.

FPP the most democratic way to vote

That way I know my vote counts for the person I want, rather than it being transferred to someone I don't want

STV is so confusing and feels like a diluted vote. I want to vote for my preferred candidates rather than ranking them. Stick with FPP it's simpler, people understand it. I think a change to STV may reduce voter turnout as it's not as simpler system.

The winner wins! With STV a person or party who poles less than the winner can coddle some other persons or party and end up with a casting vote! This does not show the will of the people! So let's be sensible and stick to FPP. (2 likes)

Much better than any other system.  (2 likes) (1 dislike)

FPP.  One vote done..not wrapping 2nd and third choices in cotton wool

Too many folk don’t understand STV & end up voting for people they don’t even know.  FPP much simpler. 

Keep it simple.  It’s hard enough getting people to vote already.  Let’s not complicate things with rankings and system changes.

In the first flag referendum with STV the flag with the most votes came second.

Challenging enough to get people to vote and FPP is far simpler for people to understand and accept if their chosen candidates don't win. STV confuses voters, people are less satisfied with the convoluted ranking process and the DHB should revert to FPP again too.

The Flag Referendum demonstrated that voters don't understand the weighing of ranking in the STV system, or that it's optional to indicate secondary ranking.

Electoral Systems card at Civic Reception

STV is too complicated. FPP you know who you have voted for. (Electoral Systems Card)

Because its easier.

Facebook

FPP seems a lot simpler and requires less man power to record results AND less thinking for voter.  I’ve used STV and find it confusing because I have to think about choosing other people who I don’t want to win?   (1 like)

First past the post is the easiest!  Not 1, 2, 3.  (3 likes)

It’s FPP.    (2 likes)

FPP, look where STV got us with the first flag referendum, the flag with the most votes came second.  Thank heavens for the second referendum. 

FPP (1 like)

FPP  (1 like)

FPP…but are we being asked to vote on it, or just offer comments? The post is not really very clear in its aims.

FPP 

FPP 

FPP 

FPP seems pretty loud n clear

 

 

No preference/other

 

Facebook

I don’t think it matters. If it is about motivating a greater voter turnout, only engaging with the people will help. I commend the proactive stance though (2 likes).

Whatever it will be we should abolish the wards.  Napier is not big enough for our current system and we have seen in the past that we couldn’t even find enough candidates. (1 like)

Voters have never been foolish enough to offer free information!   Figure it out if in doubt.

Crikey.  The Napier City Council has finally discovered public consultation.  Over this issue anyway.

Clean water (1 like)

 

3.3   Issues

N/A

3.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

3.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

3.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1.   Change the electoral system from FPP to STV for 2019 and 2022 Elections (any change in the electoral system must apply to the next two general elections). 

2.   Retain the FPP system for the 2019 election (this does not technically need a resolution, the electoral system continues until it is changed).

3.   Hold a poll on the electoral system to apply for the 2019/22 elections by
21 February 2018. A poll is likely to cost up to $100,000.  

3.7   Development of Preferred Option

Options 1 or 2 are preferred as Council.  Option 3 is not a preferred option due to the cost (a poll could cost up to $100,000), which may not be considered a prudent use of Council funds.

 

3.8   Attachments

a     Electoral Systems information paper   


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

4.     Representation Review

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

Local Electoral Act 2001

Document ID:

383447

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To introduce the key legislative requirements for undertaking a representation review and outline the process for the review of Napier City’s representation arrangements for 2018.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a.     Receive the report titled Representation Review.

b.     Note that pre-consultation will be undertaken with the public to help inform the Council of local issues and needs.  Pre-consultation will occur prior to a representation model being developed, and then formal consultation will occur with the public on the model.

c.     Note that Council will be asked to make a decision on the representation model in March 2018, which is then put through the statutory process of consultation.  

 

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

4.2   Background Summary

Overview

Quality democratic processes are important and foster a richer form of citizenship and civic engagement.  Electoral arrangements need to be fair so that communities feel that they have influence and can effect change.

Under the Local Electoral Act 200[1], a Local Authority must review its representation arrangements every six years.  Napier City Council last reviewed its representation in 2012, and is now due to review its representation arrangements.  The review must be completed and publicly notified by
8 September 2018. 

Representation arrangements are the way representation of the public is configured for elections for a Local Authority such as Napier City Council, including:

·    Whether the election of members (also known as councillors) (other than the Mayor) is by the entire electoral district (called ‘at large’), whether the district is divided into wards for electoral purposes, or whether there will be a mix of ‘at large’ and ward representation,

·    The boundaries of wards, the names of the wards, and the number of members that will represent each ward, if wards are used,

·    The total number of members that are elected to the governing body of Napier City Council (the legal requirement is no less than 6 and no more than 30 members, including the Mayor), and

·    Whether to have community boards, and if so, how many, and what their boundaries and membership will look like. 

The aim of the review is to ensure fair and effective representation:

·    Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per member (must be within +/-10% of the ratio for the district as a whole so each person has a vote of equal value).

 

·    Effective representation relates to representation for identified communities of interest.  This needs to take account of the nature and locality of those communities and the size, nature and diversity of the district as a whole.

 

How a representation review works

 

The process for undertaking a representation review is largely prescriptive and outlined in legislation (Local Electoral Act 2001) and guidelines produced by the Local Government Commission.  Councils do however have discretion on the level of investment in pre-consultation before the statutory process starts.

 

Investing in pre-consultation is considered best practice, as this will help inform the Council of local issues and needs, prior to developing a proposal and undertaking formal consultation on it (see Attachment A for the engagement summary). 

 

The review will follow the following key steps and broad timeframes:

 

1)  Data-gathering and pre-consultation (August 2017 - November 2017)

2)  Analysis (November 2017 – February 2018)

3)  Statutory Process: Council decision, submissions, appeals process (commencing in March 2018)

 

An indicative timeline based on the statutory process is outlined below (see Attachment B for more detail):

 

March 2018

Decision of Council.

April 2018

Notify public of Council’s resolution including reasons and method of making submissions (at least 1 month for submissions).

May 2018

Submissions considered by Council and original proposal amended as decided (notify public of final proposal including reasons why submissions were incorporated or not).

June-December 2018

Appeals from those who submitted on the original proposal and fresh objections to any amendments received no later than 20 Dec 2018.

January 2019

Appeals and objections forwarded to Local Government Commission by 15 Jan 2019.

April 2019

Appeals and objections considered and a determination set by the Local Government Commission (no later than 11 April 2019).

April-June 2019

Council implements determination to take effect for the 2019 elections. 

October 2019

Elections.

       

 

Overview of Napier City’s representation arrangements

 

Current arrangements

 

Napier’s current representation arrangements have been in place for a decade and are:

·    12 elected members and a Mayor

·    Mixed system of “at large” and wards.

There are six elected members voted in “at large” and six elected members voted in to wards.

There are four wards including:

§ Ahuriri (one elected member);

§ Onekawa/Tamatea (one elected member);

§ Nelson Park (two elected members); and

§ Taradale (two elected members).

·    There are no Community Boards.

 

Based on the Local Government Commission electoral statistics produced on 26 January 2017 (See Attachment C for more detail), Napier City with a population of 61,050, currently has one elected member for every 5,088 people based on 12 elected members (excluded the Mayor).

 

The following tables provides Napier City’s electoral statistics.  Up to date population statistics will be available later in 2017.

 

 

Population represented

Elected Members

Population-Member ratio

Wards

61,050

6

10,175

At large

61,050

6

10,175

Total

61,050

12

5,088

 

Ward

Population represented

Elected Members

Population-Member ratio

Difference from quota

% Difference from quota

Ahuriri Ward

10,050

1

10,050

-125

-1.23

Onekawa-Tamatea Ward

10,250

1

10,250

75

0.74

Nelson Park Ward

18,450

2

9,225

-950

-9.34

Taradale Ward

22,300

2

11,150

975

9.58

Subtotal

61,050

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Only five out of 67 territorial authorities have a mixed system (e.g. Napier City, Tauranga City, Kapiti Coast District, Masterton District and Gore District), with most territorial authorities (50) having a ward system and 12 with an ‘at large’ system.

 

The table below outlines current population/member ratio; basis of election; and whether there are community or local boards for similar-sized cities to Napier City.  Napier City has a higher number of elected members per population compared with most other cities of a similar size. 

 

District

Population

Population/Member ratio

No. of elected members

At large/mix

/Wards

Community Boards/

Local Board Area and Subdivision

Nelson City

50,600

4,217

12

At large

No

Upper Hutt City

42,600

4,260

10

At large

No

Invercargill City

54,700

4,558

12

At large

2

Napier City

61,050

5,088

12

Mix at Large & (4 Wards)

No

Porirua City

55,350

5,535

10

Wards (3)

No

Palmerston North City

86,300

5,733

15

At large

No

Lower Hutt City

103,350

8,613

12

Wards (6)

4

Dunedin City

127,000

9,071

14

At large

7

Tauranga City

128,300

12,830

10

Mix at Large & 3 Wards

No

Hamilton City

161,200

13,433

12

Wards (2)

No

 

History of Napier’s arrangements

 

The Local Electoral Act 2001 was updated through the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 which introduced the option for Councils to review their arrangements every six years rather than having to review them every three years.  Since that time, Napier City has undertaken a representation review every six years and since 2006 Napier City Council’s review is on the same timeline as other councils in Hawke’s Bay. 

 

Over the last 27 years, Napier City has:

 

-    experienced different bases of election including ward-only system; an ‘at large’ system; and is one of a handful of Councils to have experienced a ‘mixed system’, based on ‘at large’ and wards.

-    mostly had 12 elected members excluding the Mayor except for 3 years between 1995-1998 where there were 13 elected members excluded the Mayor. 

-    no Community Boards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview of representation arrangements include:

 

1989-1998

 

-    Ward-only structure comprising of 3 wards including Ahuriri, Onekawa and Taradale.  Each ward had 4 elected members except for between 1995-1998 where Taradale had 5 elected members.  (The decision to increase Taradale to 5 made by the Local Government Commission due to the principle of fairness for the member/population ratio).

 

-    1993 NRB Survey responses indicated slightly more of the population preferred wards (45%) to ‘at large’ (42%), no preference (11%), don’t know (8%).

 

-    1994 NRB Survey responses indicated slightly more of the population preferred wards (47%) to ‘at large’ (34%), no preference (3%), don’t know (10%).

 

-    In 1995, as part of the Triennial Election, a referendum was held with the majority of public preferring ‘at large’ representation (60%); Ward (33%), Informal (7%). 

 

 

1998-2007

 

-    ‘At large’ structure for 9 years comprising of 12 elected members.

 

-    2005 NRB Survey responses indicated the majority of public preferred ‘at large’ representation (70%); Ward (28%); no preference (1%); don’t know (1%).

 

-    Council survey undertaken just immediately prior to Local Government Determination indicated the majority of the public preferred ‘at large (70%); versus Wards (28%).  

 

2007-2017

 

-    ‘Mixed system’ for 10 years comprising of 6 elected members elected ‘at large’, and 4 wards including Ahuriri (1 elected member), Onekawa-Tamatea (1 elected member), Nelson Park (2 elected members), and Taradale (2 elected members).

 

-    2009 NRB Survey responses indicated that the majority of public preferred the current mixed system (44%), ‘at large’ (28%), Wards (20%); no preference (3%); don’t know (5%). 

 

-    2011 NRB Survey responses indicated that the majority of public preferred the current mixed system (51%); ‘at large’ (25%); Wards (21%); no preference (1%); don’t know (2%). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following chart outlines the percentage of public preferences on the basis of election on Napier City’s representation arrangements from 1993 to 2011.

 

 

 

4.3   Issues

Over the last 27 years, voter turnout has declined nationwide including in Napier City.  Engaging the public through the representation review process and ensuring fair and effective representation is one way to encourage people to vote.  The following chart outlines the declining rates voter turnout for Napier City since the early 1990s. 

 

  

 

 

4.4   Significance and Consultation

Representation arrangements are relevant for the entire population of Napier, and may extend to those people that use services and facilities in Napier but reside outside of Napier boundaries.


Officers have prepared an engagement plan to undertake pre-consultation including providing background information on the representation review to the public; and asking the public to share their ideas on - where they identify their community of interest; what they think of the current arrangements; and how they should be represented in the future.

 

4.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

 

4.6   Attachments

a     Engagement Summary for pre-consultation

b      Representation Review Statutory Timeline

c     Statistics on Napier City's electoral area, Local Government Commission   


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

 

Engagement Plan Summary – Representation Review

 

Introduction:

As part of the review of representation arrangements, a pre-consultation engagement process will be undertaken between 24 September – 8 November.  The community feedback will help inform Council of local issues and needs, prior to developing a representation proposal and undertaking formal consultation on it, i.e. seeking public submissions.

 

Approach:

 

The pre-consultation engagement will target the general public and key stakeholders including Maori, youth, seniors and the disability community. 

 

Quantitative feedback will be gained through an online survey, which will be promoted via newspaper, social media and will be provided on tablets at events around the city.  A hardcopy will be made available at the libraries and the customer service areas – people will be encouraged to participate online where possible.

 

As this engagement is about part of civic participation, staff from the library will be asked to participate in the engagement.  In addition, customer service staff will be briefed and asked to encourage customers to participate.

 

Tools and Tactics:

 

Activity

Who

Date

Survey

Engagement team

From 25 September

Customer engagement

Library and customer service staff

From 25 September

Events

Locations: CBD, Taradale, Maraenui, Tamatea

Mayor, Councillors and Engagement team

2 October – 13 October

Focus Group

(interested submitters, Youth Council, sample of peoples panel[2]

Engagement team

6 October

Advertising and promotion

Comms

From 20 September

 

Reporting:

A summary report will be provided to Council after the consultation period.


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

Representation Review timeline:

(Excerpt from Local Government Commission Guidelines 2017)

 

Procedure

Deadline

Relevant section

Local authority determines proposed representation arrangements

Initial proposals must be made:

·  no earlier than 1 March in the year before election year

·  by 31 August in the year before election year, if establishing Māori wards/constituencies

·  in any other case, in time for the deadline for public notice (i.e. by 7 September)

·  19H (territorial authorities)

·  19I (regional councils)

·  19J (community boards)

·  Schedule 1A for Māori wards or constituencies

Local authority gives public notice of “initial” proposal and invites submissions

Within 14 days of resolution, and not later than 8 September in the year before election year

19M(1)

Submissions close

Not less than one month after public notice

19M(2)(d)

If no submissions then proposal becomes final1

Public notice to be given when there are no submissions but no date fixed for doing this

19Y(1)

Local authority considers submissions and may make resolution to amend proposal

Within 6 weeks of closing date for submissions

19N(1)(a)

Local authority gives public notice of its "final" proposal

Within 6 weeks of closing date for submissions

19N(1)(b)

Appeals and objections close

Must be lodged:

·  not less than 1 month after the date of the public notice issued under section 19N(1)(b)

·  not later than 20 December in the year before election year

19O

19P

If no appeals or objections then proposal becomes final1

Public notice to be given when there are no appeals/objections, but no date fixed for doing this

19Y(1)

Local authority forwards appeals, objections and other relevant information to the Commission2

As soon as practicable, but not later than 15 January in election year

19Q

19V(4)

Commission considers resolutions, submissions, appeals and objections and makes determination

Before 11 April in election year

19R

Determination subject to appeal to High Court on a point of law3

Appeals to be lodged within 1 month of determination

Clause 2,

Schedule 5,Local Government Act 2002

 

1 Under section 19V(4) proposals that do not comply with the +/-10% fair representation requirement are subject to confirmation by the Commission.

2 Includes any proposal that does not comply with the +/-10% fair representation requirement.

3 Commission determinations may also be subject to judicial review.


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

5.     National Aquarium of New Zealand Expansion Project

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

383013

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Sally Jackson, Manager Visitor Experience

 

5.1   Purpose of Report

To request that Council accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project of the National Aquarium of New Zealand and to instruct Council officers to proceed with the next steps of the project.  

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

 

a.     Accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project for the National Aquarium of New Zealand.

b.     Instruct officers to proceed with the next steps of the project, specifically

i.      Present the final indicative business case to Central Government agencies and seek their feedback and endorsement.

ii.     Include funding in the draft Long Term Plan of $3,500,000 within the 2019/20 financial year; and $3,500,000 with the 2020/21 financial year.

iii.    Report back to Council on the development of the next stage of the business case following endorsement from Central Government. 

 

 

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

5.2   Background Summary

Introducing the National Aquarium of New Zealand

 

“Napier is uniquely placed to showcase a little understood yet highly productive region of New Zealand’s marine estate. The East Coast is a vibrant marine ecosystem influenced by the sub-Antarctic oceanic current, yet with evidence of pulses of warmer northern currents, remnants of the East Auckland current. The result is a rich and varied biodiversity… The marine aquarium at Napier therefore constitutes an enormously valuable portal …into the functioning of a marine ecosystem that is resilient, biodiverse and productive.” – Professor Chris Battershill, Chair Coastal Science, University of Waikato

 

Napier was the site of New Zealand's first aquarium when, in 1956, a local fish-keeping club, began gathering some of their favourite specimens in the basement of Napier’s War Memorial Hall. Twenty years later the fish-keeping club moved to a purpose-built site at the southern end of Marine Parade, where the aquarium is located today.

In the early 2000s, with a $1 million grant from the Central Government Lotteries Fund, the aquarium underwent an $8 million redevelopment and with the support from the Prime Minister’s office at the time, was renamed the National Aquarium of New Zealand.

The current facility showcases New Zealand native species including a 1.5 million litre "Oceanarium" exhibiting the diversity of the local Hawke Bay aquatic environment alongside species from the different continents of the world.

Matariki – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS)

The National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project is a part of the Government's Regional Growth Programme, which has identified potential growth opportunities in selected regions, to help increase jobs, income and investment in regional New Zealand. 

This project is included in Matariki – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan 2016, which has a vision of "Every household and every whānau is actively engaged in, contributing to and benefiting from a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy". This is to be achieved by making Hawke’s Bay the most innovative region in New Zealand, the leading exporter of premium primary produce, and a hub for business growth.

The project has been commissioned jointly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), working in partnership with other Central Government agencies and regional stakeholders, such as businesses, iwi and Māori, economic development agencies and local government.

One action under the strategic direction of Promote greater innovation, productivity and agility is to "Support the expansion of the National Aquarium of New Zealand, including the development of marine research, to create high-skilled science-based employment."

The National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project is being led by Napier City Council, in partnership with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the University of Waikato along with the support of several other public and research organisations.

 

 

 

Development of the Indicative Business Case and Revenue Generation Strategy

 

In November 2016, Napier City Council commissioned Giblin Group to develop an indicative business case and revenue generation strategy for the expansion project. These are attached as Appendix One and Two.

 

In the development phase of the indicative business case, key stakeholders identified four investment objectives for the expansion project:

 

§ To increase opportunities for education, training, research and employment in the natural sciences and aquarium management for New Zealanders and particularly Hawke’s Bay residents.

 

§ To tell the stories of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand and their relationship with the land and sea, encouraging kaitiakitanga of the natural environment contributing to its conservation and sustainability.

 

§ To create a unique destination which will draw people from far and near to visit Hawke’s Bay, to engage with the natural world, and to return again and again because the experience is so unforgettable.

 

§ To create a facility that is financially sustainable that positively influences the local and national economy, and augments the tourism, education and science sectors within Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand.

 

The business case followed the New Zealand Treasury Better Business Case format and is organised around the five-case model to systematically assess that the investment proposal:

 

§ is supported by a robust case for change - the “Strategic Case”;

§ optimises value for money - the “Economic Case”;

§ is commercially viable - the “Commercial Case”;

§ is financially affordable - the “Financial Case”, and

§ is achievable - the “Management Case”.

 

The Strategic Case for the Expansion Project

 

Napier City Council’s strategic direction and planning documents support the proposed National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project. The proposed expansion also fits well with and contributes to the objectives of many other regional and national policies and strategies. It can also contribute to national strategic outcomes.

The proposed expansion aligns well with environmental programmes both in New Zealand and internationally and offers the opportunity for significant partnerships to be established both at home and overseas.

The main drivers of this proposal are the opportunities that have presented themselves through the Matariki REDS and other strategies currently being developed in the region, i.e. the Integrated Catchment Management Plan being developed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the University of Waikato.

NANZ has reached capacity in terms of space, programmes and resources and if nothing is done to cater for expansion, then it may very well end up going backwards rather than capitalising on its reputation and success to date as a respected centre of marine management.

In a facilitated stakeholder workshops held on 16th November 2016, there was a consensus from participants that to do nothing would result in a lost opportunity and that somewhere else might step into the breach and build an aquarium that would take over from the National Aquarium of New Zealand.

The stakeholders also considered that to be successful, this project needed to be addressed boldly and with vision. Small changes to the facility or to the exhibits would not achieve the stated objectives.

 

The Economic Case for the Expansion Project

 

Options for the development were discussed by stakeholders at the facilitated workshop held on 16th November 2016.

 

A Long List of Options was developed which addressed the “What, Where, Who, How and When” of the proposal.

 

On the basis of the options analysis, the recommended preferred way forward was:

 

§ A new extension to the aquarium and upgrade of current facility;

§ The facility to be located on the current site;

§ Research into the management of other aquariums suggests the best management model is to establish a governing board or trust for the facility which will have representatives from partner organisations and be not-for-profit;

§ A mix of funding sources to support the capital construction and ongoing operations;

§ A multi-staged construction to transition from the old premises to the new and to allow upgrade of the current building.

 

Visitor number projections have been undertaken by an independent tourism consultant, Dave Bamford with a low projection of 200,000, a medium projection of 250,000 and a high projection of 325,000 per annum. The average number of visitors per annum is currently 150,000.

 

These numbers have been used in the economic impact analysis and financial projections.

 

An Economic Impact Assessment has identified monetary benefits from the proposal for the region through:

§ Operational economic impacts from the facility;

§ Economic impacts from the actual redevelopment (construction) work;

§ Economic impacts of visitor spending for projected customer visitation levels.

The table below highlights the anticipated economic impact of the expanded facility.

 

 

Economic Impact Measures

Current Operation

Construction of Redeveloped NAQNZ Facility

Redeveloped NAQNZ Operation
Including Visitor Spending

Low Projection

Medium Projection

High Projection

Total Revenue ($M)

10.19

82.38

31.19

36.62

44.87

Net Household Income ($M)

2.59

11.39

6.44

7.42

8.89

Employment (Persons/Jobs)

92

291

238

278

338

Value Added/GDP ($M)

5.40

23.07

14.33

16.65

20.17

 

Under the Low projection, the key regional Value Added/ GDP impact increases from the current annual figure of approximately $5.4 million to approximately $14.3 million.

 

Under the Medium projection, the GDP impact increases from the $5.4 million figure to approximately $16.7 million.

 

Under the High projection, the regional Value Added or GDP impact increases from $5.4 million to approximately $20.2 million.

 

The overall employment increase is from 92 to in the range 238-338. The economic impacts for the facility reconstruction stage are also separately shown.

 

Potential benefits of the proposal that cannot be reliably quantified in monetary terms have also been identified and are detailed within the Business Case. These benefits may be seen in the social, cultural and environmental spheres of community wellbeing.

The Commercial Case for the Expansion Project

 

Napier City Council has considerable experience in the tendering of and contracting for large construction projects. It has procurement processes in place to secure and manage a contract with a suitable supplier. The process also caters for a situation where there is only one suitable supplier available within New Zealand. This is the case with the National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project.

 

A key procurement risk has been identified, due to only one practical supplier for this job; the risk is that the price may be inflated because of the limited ability to compare with other suppliers.

 

The Contracts Policy requires that where this situation occurs, the purchaser (NCC Manager responsible) must demonstrate in an auditable manner that the price is value for money and the reasons for the selection of a single supplier are well documents.

 

Marinescape is the only real option for undertaking this work if Napier City Council selects a local New Zealand company. If this is the case, it is recommended that an independent reviewer peer reviews and assesses the costs they propose for the project. Further options for architectural design will be explored during the final business case analysis.

 

A preliminary estimate for the capital works has been submitted by Marinescape, detailing the facility construction costs of $27.5 Million and specialist works costs of $17.5 Million.

 

This preliminary estimate is based on concept designs which are certain to be further refined.

 

It should be noted that the current concept designs do not adequately address the strong theme, which emerged from the stakeholder workshops that this is a unique chance to tell the story of New Zealand’s relationship with the sea, particularly from a Māoritanga perspective.

 

Marine scientists should also be involved in the design of the exhibits to ensure authenticity.

 

Marinescape Managing Director, Ian Mellsop has said in an email to NCC: “By carefully reviewing the design and making adjustments using a cost optimisation approach, I believe it may possible to reduce this by about 20% without impacting significantly on the Architects intent. This work should be carried out as part of the next stage design works.”

 

This would reduce the costs of construction to $22,000,000. There is clearly some room to move on this price and NCC should negotiate with the supplier on this.

 

The financial analysis model and the associated methodology is a profit and loss model for the operating projections.

 

The financial projections have been based on the current NANZ operating costs and based on the following assumptions for future operations:

§ The floor area of the aquarium will be three times the size of the existing space.

§ Staffing numbers will increase by 10 -15 additional FTEs;

§ Projected visitor numbers per annum are 200,000 (Low); 250,000 (Medium) and 325,000 (High);

§ Depreciation is not funded through operations;

§ A 3% contingency is allowed for on direct costs.

 

The financial analysis indicates the National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion proposal will have the following impact on the Napier City Council accounts:

§ For the Low visitor scenario (most conservative, providing the visitor numbers are achievable) the NANZ will record a deficit for the first 6 years. The deficits for equate to ongoing annual rating impact of 1% or 2%. NB: The current NANZ operation makes up 2% of total rates.

 

§ For the Medium visitor scenario, the National Aquarium of New Zealand operations will see a surplus in the first two years of operation, then have two years of deficits equating to a 1% rating impact, then return to surplus in Year 4.

 

§ For the High visitor scenario, the National Aquarium of New Zealand operations will see a surplus from the first full year of operation.

 

§ The impact of a capital contribution to the project (estimated at $7M) is $430,000 per year for 25 years.

 

The financial analysis of the preferred option demonstrates that it is affordable only if central government puts substantive funding into the capital costs of this project.

 

The potential for funding from corporate partnerships is considered to be high as the NANZ will have many saleable properties within it which could attract corporate partners, e.g. the themed areas, exhibits and structures, and naming rights for the entire facility are also available.

            The Management Case for the Expansion Project

           Napier City Council has a track record of managing large capital projects successfully on time and within budget. It has project management processes in place to manage, execute, monitor and evaluate the project and has the ability to contract specialist personnel where necessary if internal capability does not exist.

           The actual detail of the project management planning will be undertaken when Napier City Council approves further work on this project following the presentation of the Business Case.

           It is recommended that a dedicated Project Manager be appointed to this project, supported by a Project Team. A detailed Project Plan will be developed by the Project Manager taking note of key milestones, which will be specified as part of the project.

 

Key Project Partners

       

USA partners

 

Napier City Council is in the process of establishing relationships with overseas aquariums, particularly in California, USA. A recent visit to Monterey Bay Aquarium, the California Academy of Sciences, The Aquarium of the Pacific, and Birch Aquarium at Scripps was a trip designed to foster co-operative and collaborative relationships internationally. Napier City Council is seeking to work together with each of these institutions in a range of areas relating to education and research around marine sustainability.

 

Areas of partnership include:

 

§ Marine science research and education programmes;

§ Ocean conservation, sustainability and environmental issues;

§ Marine conservation and care through tourism, education and research to inspire behaviour change;

§ Exchanges of staff and personnel.

§ Business modelling / mentorship.

 

Design Partners – Weta Workshop

 

Weta Workshop has joined the Expansion project team as the lead designers and will work alongside the team of aquarium designers in order to achieve the vision and outcomes of the facility.

 

They will articulate through high-level design concepts, the following elements of the project:

 

·    The story of New Zealand and its relation to Hawk Bay

·    The unique indigenous story of Napier and Hawke’s Bay

·    The importance of the ocean to world

·    The current state of the ocean (impact on activity occurring on land through to our waterways, estuaries and out to sea)

·    Protection of native New Zealand endangered species (Kiwi / Little Fairy Penguins etc)

·    Impact of plastic on the health of the ocean and the animals within

·    Influencing behavior change for visitors to the facility

 

An independent tourism consultant was used to assess and advise on the visitor numbers for the expanded facility. Figures used in the business case are considered conservative and it is recognised that the brand power of Weta Workshop is substantial to the project. The association with Weta Workshop and the expansion project will result in increased visitors into Napier specifically to visit the aquarium. Napier City Council will be working alongside the Weta Workshop team to ensure all brand opportunities are maximized.

 

Sustainability Partner – Air New Zealand

 

Air New Zealand has identified that there are many synergies with the expansion project. Air New Zealand has expressed support of the National Aquarium Expansion Project as a logical extension of their commitment to preserving and protecting New Zealand’s unique natural environment for current and future generations. They have noted that they are behind the project and fully committed to working with Council and its other partners in seeing it through to fruition.

 

Education Partner - The University of Waikato

 

The University of Waikato will also take a role in the project’s development. Vice Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley has noted that the University of Waikato is committed to creating and building knowledge and technologies that support New Zealand's sustainable future. As a partner in the Aquarium's expansion, they see this project as an exciting opportunity to further that research and teaching in a facility which reflects and enhances that intent.

 

5.3   Issues

This is an Indicative Business Case, which considers the information available at the present date. There is a high probability that some changes will be required for the proposal to be viable. Key to the success of this project is:

 

§ Development of the design in conjunction with iwi representatives and marine researchers;

§ Interpretation and delivery of the messages through Weta Workshop’s technological expertise;

§ Achievement of the funding targets as outlined in the Revenue Generation Strategy prepared for the project;

§ Experienced project management;

§ Best practice facility governance and management.

 

5.4   Significance and Consultation

Consultation has been held with key stakeholders through project group meetings and workshops, iwi, staff and the neighbouring properties of the National Aquarium.

5.5   Implications

Financial

The capital cost of the construction has been valued at $45 million dollars with a proposed Council contribution of $7 million (loan funded) split over two financial years.

 

The revenue assumptions include three scenarios for visitor numbers: 

 

§ The low visitor scenario of 200, 000 visitors (most conservative, providing the visitor numbers are achievable) shows the NANZ will make a small loss in the first five years with a 1% or 2% impact on rates. This is an equivalent or lesser impact than what currently occurs.

 

§ The medium visitor scenario of 250,000 visitors shows an initial surplus, then a couple of years of losses when maintenance costs begin. The loss once again is small with a 1% or 0% rating impact.

 

§ The high visitor scenario of 325,000 visitors will see the NANZ making a profit from Year 0 and will have no negative impact on annual rates.

 

The impact of a capital contribution to the project (estimated at $7M) is $430,000 per year for 25 years.

 

Social & Policy

 

Accessibility for Napier and Hawke’s Bay locals

$100,000 has been placed to in the budget to allow for accessibility programmes for locals and initiatives with social providers and schools will be in place to ensure all locals can gain access to the facility.

 

Free open days for locals will continue and school programmes that provide free access for school children will be introduced.

 

A pricing strategy will be developed within the detailed business case to maximize revenue generation and will identify and assess the opportunities around the local and tourist market.

 

Risk

 

The main risks fall into two categories: Construction/Delivery Risks and Operating Risks.

 

A risk register has been developed and can be progressively updated as more detailed analysis is undertaken. This is displayed in the Business Case.

 

5.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

 

Option One

 

To accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project of the National Aquarium of New Zealand and to instruct Council officers to proceed with the next steps of the project which include:

 

·        Present the final indicative business case to Central Government agencies and seek their feedback and endorsement.

·        Include funding in the draft Long Term Plan of $3,500,000 within the 2019/20 financial year; and $3,500,000 with the 2020/21 financial year.

·        Report back to Council on the development of the next stage of the business case following endorsement from Central Government. 

 

Option Two

 

To not proceed any further with the expansion project.

5.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is to proceed with Option One which is to accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project of the National Aquarium of the New Zealand and to instruct Council officers to proceed next steps of the project. This is based on the Business Case demonstrating a very strong strategic case for undertaking the project.

 

The Business Case shows a positive picture in terms of the proposed expansion of the National Aquarium of New Zealand economically and financially, although the latter will need a long-term view in terms of attaining an operating surplus under the lowest projection scenario.

 

 

5.8   Attachments

a     Indicative Business Case   


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

6.     Multi-Use Sports Facility Business Case

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

383123

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Antoinette  Campbell, Director Community Services

 

6.1   Purpose of Report

To seek a decision from Council to suspend further progress on the Detailed Business Case for the Multi-Use Sports Facility and that the information developed in the draft business case is provided to the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust for the purpose of developing an independent Detailed Business Case for Indoor Courts.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

a.     That the progress on the Multi-Use Sports Facility Business Case is suspended until such a time that community recreation projects are prioritised and sequenced in the future. 

b.     That funding allocated for the Multi-Use Sports Facility be reallocated through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process to other projects that support community well-being.

c.     That Council officers work with the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust in the development of a detailed business case for additional indoor court space at Pettigrew Green Arena.

 

 

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

6.2   Background Summary

A proposed multi-use velodrome concept was consulted with the community in the drafting of the 2015/25 Long Term Plan.  Strong support for the proposal was raised by the cycling community and others, however there was also significant support for the development of more indoor courts.  It was agreed by Council to progress to a detailed business case for a Multi-Use Sports Facility (MUSF) that incorporated indoor court space into a velodrome complex.  Funding of $5,094,000 was allocated to the MUSF from the Capital Reserves Fund.  It was proposed that the balance of the funding required would come from external grants and sponsorship opportunities.

 

A full business case has since been drafted which details the design and siting of the facility, the capital and operational costs, and the community-wide benefits of an integrated indoor multi-use court and velodrome complex.  It is considered that the draft business case makes a compelling argument for the establishment of such a facility to complement the wider recreation offering in Hawke’s Bay. The projections demonstrated that the proposed facility would contribute to meeting current and growing demand for indoor court provision as well as providing a unique additional sports component with the inclusion of an elevated velodrome track.  It is this element of the design that provides a point of difference that would more likely attract external funding.   

6.3   Issues

The draft detailed business case was delivered to Sport New Zealand for feedback in November 2016.  Sport New Zealand commissioned APR Consultants Ltd to carry out an independent review of the business case.  A summary of the reviewers’ opinion follows:

 

·    The project rationale is well researched and the project objectives are SMART (specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time bound).

·    While the financial analyses are reasonable; there may be some pressure on the target amounts for other capital funding sources which require further clarification. This is important given the level of funding from NCC represents only around 25% of total project capital funding. Also there is an inherent risk in the level of debt funding proposed. Project debt on a project of this nature with uncertain income streams and operational costs raises significant project risks, particularly with uncommitted project capital.

·    The wider socio-economic benefits are well described and conservatively estimated.

·    The assessment of alternative delivery options is comprehensive and transparent.

·    At a local authority level the proposed facility is well-aligned with other relevant projects, plans and budgets; supported by organisational strategies and policies; and has accounted for public feedback and stakeholder engagement. However there is further clarification required around other proposed regional projects and the Hawke’s Bay Regions Facilities Network Plan.

·    Options and preferences on governance and management aspects of the proposal have been clearly set out, subject to further consultation and refinement.

·    Subject to the matters raised above and below the identification, measurement, mitigation and management of risks has been adequately accounted for.

 

Sport New Zealand provided further feedback based on its own high level review identifying what were seen as gaps in information and made recommendations for further consideration by the project team in finalising the business case. 

 

In Sport New Zealand’s feedback the question was raised whether the proposed facility is an appropriate response to the priority needs identified and adopted in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Facilities Plan (HBRFP).  The HBRFP does however clearly state the following priority action for the sport of cycling;

 

Develop a Better Business Cases study for a Velodrome in Hawke's Bay aligned with the National Cycling Major Events Strategy

 

A key concern of Sport New Zealand’s was that the proposal did not demonstrate adequately how it would meet the needs of Maori, particularly young Maori, in engaging in sport.  It is considered that while this element has been covered within the business case, it will need to be strengthened within the final business case with the provision of greater supporting evidence.  

 

At this stage Sport New Zealand do not maintain any position on the support or otherwise of the MUSF proposal and cannot state its position until the business case is complete.  Sport New Zealand are currently developing their sports facilities strategy which will identify where velodromes are best located within New Zealand.  Once this work is complete, the business case can be updated in response to gaps identified in the feedback provided by APR Consultants Ltd and Sport New Zealand.

 

It is therefore considered necessary to suspend progressing the business case until Sport New Zealand have worked through their national strategies for sporting infrastructure development.  It would also be prudent to remove the funding allocated for the MUSF and have this funding available for community well-being projects in the Long Term Plan.

 

Suspending the business case development will not address the immediate need for indoor courts identified as high priority by the HBRFP and indoor sporting codes.  The Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust are committed to progressing an independent business case proposing to develop additional indoor courts at the Pettigrew Green Arena.  It is considered that much of the background work carried out in the development of the MUSF business case can be incorporated to the Trust’s proposal.  Council officers will work with the Trust in progressing their proposal.

 

6.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

6.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

6.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1.   Suspend the progress on finalising the detailed business case and reallocate the funding for other community well-being projects identified through the Long Term Plan 2018/28 process.

2.   Progress the detailed business case to completion and formally present to Council.

6.7   Development of Preferred Option

Sport New Zealand commissioned APR Consultants Ltd to provide an independent review of the detailed business case for the Multi-Use Sports Facility.  The review and feedback from Sport New Zealand highlighted gaps in information and where further supporting evidence is required before they can state their position on the proposal.  Sport New Zealand are also carrying out their own national strategies for sporting infrastructure development and until this has been completed it is unlikely that they will be able to provide a position statement on the proposal.  The preferred option is to therefore suspend the development of the detailed business case until this has occurred.

 

 

6.8   Attachments

Nil


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

7.     Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee - draft minutes 28 July 2017

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

382394

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Deborah Smith, Governance Advisor

 

7.1   Purpose of Report

To present to Council the draft minutes of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting of 28 July 2017.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a.     Receive the draft minutes of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting of 28 July 2017.

 

 

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

 

7.2   Background Summary

The Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee met on the 28 July 2017; the draft minutes of this meeting are shown at Attachment A.

7.3   Issues

N/A

7.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

7.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

7.6   Options

1.   N/A

7.7   Development of Preferred Option

N/A

 

7.8   Attachments

a     Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee draft minutes - 28 July 2017   



 


 


 


 


 

      

 NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone:  (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

 

 

 

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

 

 

Open

MINUTES

 

 

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 19 July 2017

Time:

2.41pm – 3.08pm

Venue:

Taradale Town Hall

Lee Road

Napier

 

Present:

Councillor Price (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright

In Attendance:

Chief Executive

Director City Strategy, Director Infrastructure Services, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Director City Services, Manager Communications and Marketing

Manager Regulatory Solutions, Manager City Strategy, Manager Community Services, Team Leader Resource Consents, Team Leader Policy Planning, Policy Planner, Senior Advisor Policy, Communications Specialist

Administration:

Governance Team

 

 


Strategy and Infrastructure Committee30 August 2017 Open Agenda

 

Apologies

Nil

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the Management

Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillors McGrath / Wise

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 May 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

CARRIED

 

Notification and Justification of Matters of Extraordinary Business

(Strictly for information and/or referral purposes only).

 

Agenda Items

1.      Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

375927

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Wayne  Jack, Chief Executive

 

1.1     Purpose of Report

To endorse the governance structure, delivery and funding model for Mataraki – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy.

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, the Chief Executive (‘CE’) advised that:

·         There are currently three primary goals for the strategy, with measures which will be used to assess success. These goals are:

o   To increase the average wage across Hawke’s Bay

o   To create 5000 jobs over the next 5 years (measures for this goal include such things as NCEA Level 3 attainment for Māori/ Non-Māori and changes in employment growth)

o   To become a top quartile regional performer for GDP. Measures for this goal will be broken down by sector.

·         Council are trialling a collaboration portal on behalf of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) which will allow elected members to see how we are tracking against those goals on a website. Quarterly reports will also be able to be generated via the portal.

It was asked how the Matariki REDS strategy was or may be able to be aligned with the recently launched government contestable fund for youth projects. The CE advised that the strategy shares a similar ‘language’ with the new fund in that activities that create and encourage social inclusion are a key focus in how development will be approached. What is important is that the identification of key projects or activities will happen at local level rather than being ‘imposed’ by government. For example, it has recently been presented to the Matariki team that drivers’ licensing programmes have the potential to make a large difference in accessibility to work.

It was expected that there are a number of robust development opportunities that could win a strong share of the contestable fund.

The consultation on the social inclusion strategy has now been completed and the draft document is being finalised. It is expected that this will be circulated to council in the near future.

The Mayor acknowledged the considerable work put into the Matariki REDS by the Chief Executive.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Wise

That Council

a.   Endorse the governance structure, delivery and funding model for the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy.

 

CARRIED

 


 

 

2.      Napier Aquatic Centre Business Case: Options for Expansion

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

375027

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

 

2.1     Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval of the Napier Aquatic Centre Expansion Business Case and engage with the community on the recommended options.

 

At the Meeting

General support was indicated for the recommendation to take options 2, 3 and 4 to public consultation; it had become clear over recent discussions that a ‘no frills’ renovation would not meet the community’s needs. It was noted that this business case is focussed specifically on the aquatic facilities themselves and consideration to related matters such as car parking and surrounding environment will be addressed separately.

It was suggested that the appetite for a 50m pool may become clearer through the consultation process. It was hoped that in general there would be good levels of feedback through the process, reflecting the range of people that would use the facilities in different ways.

It was noted that the process of developing the options has been undertaken extremely quickly, in part out of necessity following the unexpected closure of the Greendale Pool in December 2016. The Community Team was thanked for the work they have undertaken to present such strong options as fast as they have.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Taylor

That Council

a.       Approves the Napier Aquatic Centre: Options for Expansion Business case

b.       Progresses community engagement and consultation on the recommended three options.

 

CARRIED

 


 

 

3.      Draft Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge Masterplan - Consultation

Type of Report:

Procedural

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

373788

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Fleur  Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

 

3.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to obtain endorsement of the Final Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan, and of the community engagement plan in advance of the community consultation phase.

 

At the Meeting

There was strong support for the draft Ahuriri Masterplan. It was seen as a visionary and robust document, with a heavy focus on environmental considerations while also allowing for recreational use. It was anticipated that future generations would truly see the benefits of the work to be undertaken now under the plan.

It was noted that there will be opportunities to work in partnership with and or alongside a number of organisations and build useful relationships to achieve the aims of the masterplan. Taking the opportunity to work closely with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and sharing our vision for the Estuary was seen as particularly important.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Boag / Taylor

That Council

a.       endorse the Final Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan.

b.       endorse the Community Engagement Plan.

 

CARRIED

 

 

4.      Permanent Commercial Activity on Marine Parade

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

352651

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Fleur  Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

 

4.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a Council decision on whether to allow a commercial activity to operate on Marine Parade’s foreshore reserve throughout the year on a more permanent basis.

 

At the Meeting

It was noted that the initial trial had gone well and the commercial activity was seen as creating vibrancy on the foreshore for cyclists and pedestrians. It was good that the location had been moved to work in better with the petanque club.

Some concerns were raised on two matters:

·         It was noted that the area had experienced inundation in early July; the owners would need to be prepared to address this possibly occurring again.

·         It was asked that Council review the charging model, noting that 5% turnover in arrears acts as a disincentive to good operators. It was recommended that a set monthly fee be looked at instead.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / White

That Council

a.       Agree to grant a ‘licence to occupy’ for the northern end of the Marine Parade foreshore reserve (adjacent to the petanque court) to a food and beverage-related commercial business.

b.       Agree that the license to occupy be managed as a 3 year contract with a review after each year.

c.       Direct officers to hold an open tender process to determine who will be granted this licence to occupy.

d.       Require the future proprietor to cover all costs associated with the provision of infrastructure.

 

CARRIED

 

 

5.      Hawke's Bay Airport Ltd - Reappointment of Director

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

376916

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

5.1     Purpose of Report

To seek endorsement from Council for the re-appointment of Sarah Park as a Director to Hawke’s Bay Airport Ltd.

 

At the Meeting

It was suggested that re-appointments should be undertaken in committee to protect the reputations of anyone involved until a decision has been made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Committee's Recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Brosnan

That Council

a.       Endorse the re-appointment of Sarah Park for a further term as Director of the Hawke’s Bay Airport Ltd.

 

CARRIED

    

 

 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

 

 

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

 

1.         CBD Security Patrols

2.         Citizen's Civic Award recommended recipients

 

CARRIED

 

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded, the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as follows:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF

EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) TO THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION

1.  CBD Security Patrols

7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist:
(i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7  (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

2.  Citizen's Civic Award recommended recipients

7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist:
(i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7  (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

The meeting closed at 3.08pm. 

 

 

 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE

MEETING

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:_____________________________

 

DATE OF APPROVAL:____________________

 

 

 



 

 

[2] The Peoples Panel – consultation volunteers sourced from www.sayitnapier.nz