Agenda of Finance Committee

Finance Committee - 06 December 2017 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Setting General Rates - Overview

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government (Rating) Act 2002
Document ID:	412497
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Ian Condon, Revenue and Treasury Manager

2.1 Purpose of Report

To provide background information on the underlying basis and process for applying general rate differentials. The information will enable a better understanding of the purpose of other rating related items on the agenda, and how each relates to the rate setting process.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Receive the report titled Setting General Rates – Overview.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

2.2 Background Summary

Within the Napier City Council rating system, general rates (inclusive of Uniform Annual General Charges) are set in such a way as to recover the assessed cost of general rate-funded services supplied to each of the main property categories – Residential, Commercial/ Industrial and Rural.

The allocation of costs results in six differentials applying for general rates. The six differential rating categories are:

Group 1 City Residential

Group 2 Commercial/Industrial

Group 3 Miscellaneous (includes Lodge Rooms, Halls, Homes for the Elderly, Private Hospitals, Public Utilities, Miscellaneous Crown Properties, Pensioner Flats, Sports Clubs, Non Profit-Making Organisations, Vacant Substandard Sections)

Group 4 Rural – ex City (mainly Awatoto, Guppy Road and Puketapu Road)

Group 5 Rural – other (Mainly Meeanee, Jervoistown, Brookfields Rd, Poraiti)

Group 6 Bay View Differential Rating Area (Township and Coastal)

Groups 5 and 6 relate to properties which came into Napier City from the HB County Council in 1989 following Local Government Reform.

In establishing the differentials for general rates the following process is followed:

a. The benefits arising from general rate-funded services are assessed for each service between residential and non-residential properties. The results are consolidated to determine the overall allocation of general rates between residential and non- residential properties. The current allocation is 69% residential and 31% non –residential. The assessment is reviewed every 3 years to coincide with the revaluation of Napier City. For this exercise, residential properties include the Bay View Differential Rating area.

b. The cost of services supplied to Bay View is assessed. For most services Bay View’s share is based on the ratio of rateable properties in Bay View to total rateable residential properties, however for roading services, actual costs are assessed, as the level of service provided is deemed to differ from city residential properties.

c. The balance of residential costs, after deducting the Bay View assessed costs, is deemed to be the assessed cost of services provided to city residential properties.

d. The cost of services supplied to rural properties is assessed. While for most of the services, including roading services, the rural share is based on the ratio of rateable rural properties to total rateable properties, actual costs are assessed for those services where the level of service provided is deemed to differ from the cost that would otherwise have resulted from the proportion of properties approach. Those services affected are cemeteries and building consents.

e. Council policy is to rate properties in the Miscellaneous Differential rating category at city residential rates. The assessed cost of services supplied to these properties is determined by applying the total rateable value of these properties to the residential rate.

f. The balance of costs to be recovered from non-residential properties, after allowing for the recovery of assessed costs from rural and miscellaneous properties, is deemed to be the assessed cost of services supplied to commercial/industrial properties.

g. The general rates to be recovered for each differential category is the balance of general rate funded costs remaining after deducting the amount to be collected from the Uniform Annual General Charge for each category.

h. The percentage differentials are determined by calculating the general rate per dollar of land value applying to each differential category, then relating that rate per dollar to the city residential rate per dollar on a percentage basis, with the city residential percentage being 100%. Differentials to apply for 2018/19 will be based on the 2017 revised land values.

Attachment A is a flow diagram of the process for calculating general rates and establishing general rate differentials.

2.3 Issues

Following the 2017 revaluation of Napier City, differentials for general rates need to be reviewed and revised. The following agenda reports relate to the revaluation and the process for setting general rate differentials.

a. Rating – 2017 Revaluation of Napier City

b. Allocation of general rate-funded costs

c. Costs of Services Supplied to Bay View

d. Cost of Services Supplied to Rural Properties

2.4 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications to Council arising from this item.

Social & Policy

N/A

2.5 Options

This item is provided for information only and does not require the consideration of options.

2.4 Attachments

a Rating System Diagram 2017-18 ⇩

Finance Committee - 06 December 2017 - Open Agenda Item 4

4. Allocation of General Rate-Funded Costs

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government (Rating) Act 2002
Document ID:	412969
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Ian Condon, Revenue and Treasury Manager

4.1 Purpose of Report

To review the allocation of general rate-funded costs between residential and non residential properties as part of the process of establishing the differential to apply to general rates following the 2017 revaluation of Napier City.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Approve the allocation of general rate funded costs on the basis of 70% residential / 30% non-residential, to apply from 1 July 2018.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

4.2 Background Summary

General rates recover the rating requirement not collected from targeted rates, and include a general rate, set on land values and a fixed uniform annual general charge (UAGC).

Under the current rating system, the allocation of general rate-funded costs is reviewed three-yearly to coincide with the revaluation of Napier City and preparation of the LTP. The last revaluation and review of assessed benefits was undertaken in 2014.

A 69% residential, 31% non-residential allocation was adopted, and phased-in on a transitional basis over 2 years, 2015/16 and 2016/17.

4.3 Issues

As Napier has just been revalued, the allocation has again been reviewed by re-examining the benefits available to these property categories. The results of the review, with an outline of assessed benefits by activity are shown at Attachment A. The overall result provides for a revised allocation for general rates of 70% to residential properties and 30% to non-residential properties.

There is only one change proposed in the allocation split. This relates to Building Consents which have been revised from an 80/20 split to 88/12, reflecting the average volume of building consents issued for the last three years. While this change is not significant, there has been a change in the overall allocation split because of budget changes and budget realignments since 2014. The largest general rate funded increases have tended to impact more on activities with high residential allocations such as Democracy & Governance, Grants and MTG, while several activities with high non-residential splits have seen reductions in their rate funded budgets such as the Aquarium, i-site, Kennedy Park and the Conference Centre – see Attachment B for the residential funding split.

The overall result is a change in the allocation from 69/31 to 70/30. This will result in a minor rating shift from non-residential to the residential sector but will more accurately reflect the assessed benefits based on current operations.

Based on the 2017/18 rating levels, the reallocations from 69/31 to 70/30 would add about $18pa (0.9%) to average residential rates, and reduce Commercial/Industrial rates by between 2% to 3.5%.

Currently residential properties represent 88% of total rateable properties and 75% of rateable land and rateable capital value within the city.

As the benefit assessment is showing a 70% allocation to residential/ 30% non-residential, this indicates that property values alone will not provide an accurate basis for the recovery of assessed costs / benefits of general rate funded services. For this reason, a differential approach is applied for setting general rates to enable the assessed costs to be fully recovered from each property category.

Rating Considerations

Residential

The residential rating comparison from Council’s 2016/17 Annual Report confirms that Napier has a lower level of average residential rates in comparison to others within the group.

A shift in the allocation split as proposed would result in Napier’s average residential rate for 2017/18 increasing from $1985 to $2003, an increase of $18 or 0.9%. At this level Napier would remain amongst the lowest rated provincial Councils.

Commercial

Commercial rating is more difficult to compare due to a variety of factors, such as location, property size and commercial values. However, from the review undertaken in 2014 where Napier rated slightly above the commercial average for similar Councils, a change in the allocation split as proposed would benefit the commercial sector and continue the shift applied over recent years in lowering the level of commercial rating, without impacting significantly on the residential sector.

The change in allocations is not significant and is consistent with Council’s Strategic priorities of maintaining rates affordability for citizens, while supporting the business sector and contributing to the economic wellbeing of the city.

4.4 Significance and Consultation

N/A

4.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications to Council arising from this review.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

4.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. To not apply differentials for general rates.

2. To retain the cost allocation at 69% residential / 31% non residential.

3. To change the allocation to 70% residential / 30% non residential, as indicated by the current review, and apply it fully from 2018/19.

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

Council rating policy is to apply rates to categories of properties as closely as possible to the benefits the properties received from Council supplied services. This will require the continuation of a differential system for general rates. Option 1 is not therefore favoured.

Retention of the current benefit allocation would result in no transfer of rating burden between the residential and non residential property categories. However, it would not reflect the policy to apply rates as closely as possible to the benefits the properties receive from Council supplied services. As this option does not best reflect the Council’s current rating policy, it is not favoured.

The triennial review of the allocation following revaluation of the City is part of Council’s rating policy. Although there will be some shift in the rating burden, it would seem appropriate to adjust the allocation to reflect the outcome of the review, as this will reflect Council policy to apply rates to categories of properties as closely as possible to the benefits the properties receive from Council supplied services.

Option 3 is therefore the preferred option.

4.8 Attachments

a Assessed Benefits Allocation ⇩

b Funding Residential Split ⇩

Finance Committee - 6 December 2017 - Attachments

Item 4

Attachments b

Basis of Allocation

KEY: R = Residential, in Napier City and Bay View.

NR = Non Residential, including rural properties and properties in Meeanee and Jervoistown.

Democracy & Governance

Based on the total rateable capital value of each of the property categories.

Sportsgrounds

The non-residential portion was assessed on the commercial benefits of sportsgrounds, in particular Park Island.

The balance was allocated as residential.

McLean Park

The non-residential portion was assessed on the commercial benefits of McLean Park (including Rodney Green Centennial Events Centre).

The balance was allocated as residential.

Napier Aquatic Centre

The non-residential portion is based on use by non-residential users, including users from outside Napier.

Marine Parade Pools

The non-residential portion is based on use by non-residential users, including users from outside Napier and the assessed commercial benefits of the Marine Parade Pools.

Par2 MiniGolf

The non-residential portion is based on use by non-residential users, including users from outside Napier and the assessed commercial benefits of Par2 MiniGolf.

Bay Skate

The non-residential portion is based on use by non-residential users, including users from outside Napier and the assessed commercial benefits of Bay Skate.

Reserves

The non-residential portion was assessed on:

· a visitor promotion component on expenditure on foreshore reserves and major greenbelt reserves; and

· a visitor promotion component, particularly on expenditure for the City’s high profile public gardens.

The balance was allocated as residential.

Inner Harbour

12.5% of cost reflects benefits to direct commercial users such as fishing companies and other fishing industry servicing companies. Remaining costs reflect general benefits to the community and are allocated on the number of rateable properties (88% R, 12% NR).

Libraries

Non-residential portion assessed on a share of general benefit to the community (5%) and to a share of membership (5%). The balance is allocated as residential.

Napier Conference Centre

The majority of use is by corporate/commercial businesses. A smaller percentage of use relates to ratepayer residential purposes such as weddings.

Napier Municipal Theatre

The majority of usage benefits the local and regional community through residents attending theatrical events, etc. The remainder relates to commercial hire and the benefits of this to non-residential beneficiaries.

MTG Hawke's Bay

Residential based on the benefits to residential ratepayers through cultural enrichment from an important community/public facility. The balance is allocated as non-residential to reflect the tourism economic impact.

Community Strategies

Based on an assessed allocation of the services provided to the categories of beneficiaries.

Grants

Based on an assessed allocation of community related benefit.

Housing

Services provided by the Housing activity are primarily of benefit to residential. The maintenance and operation of the complexes provides a small commercial benefit.

Halls

Based on the current usage

Cemeteries

Based on the number of residential and rural properties.

Public Toilets

Based on the number of rateable properties.

Emergency Management

Based primarily on the value of improvement to properties, but adjusted to recognise the priority of restoring the business and commercial activities of the City following an emergency.

City and Business Promotion

Based on an assessed allocation of the services provided.

City and Promotion Grants

Based on an assessment of the beneficiaries of the grants.

Events and Marketing

Based on an assessed allocation of the services provided.

National Aquarium of NZ

The majority of people visiting are from outside of Napier, with benefits to the commercial tourism support sector. The Napier residential community benefits from visits and various functions.

Napier i-Site Visitor Centre

Based on usage. Local residents source local and national information especially for visiting friends and relatives. Commercial activity and accommodation operators use the Centre to advertise their products and receive bookings.

Kennedy Park Resort

Residential benefits include accommodation for friends and family, quality of life/tourism benefits and employment opportunities. Non-residential benefits include commercial opportunities for local goods and service providers and commercial sector benefits from tourism activity generally.

Property Holdings

Based on the total rateable land value of each of the property categories.

City Development

Based on the proportion of the District Plan related to the various categories of properties.

Regulatory Consents

Based on the average number of subdivision, non-notified and notified consents issued over the last three years for the various categories of properties.

Building Consents

Based on the average volume of building consents for the last three years.

Environmental Health

Based on actual time and effort and materials on each type of activity, and the following assessment of benefit by function:

· General Licences 30% R 70% NR

· Liquor Licensing 10% R 90% NR

· General Activities 100% R

· Monitoring 90% R 10% NR

Animal Control

Based on the number of residential and rural properties.

Transportation

Allocation for traffic related costs (76% of roading expenditure) based on network analysis of the number and reasons for trips.

Allocation for amenity related costs (24% of roading expenditure) based on the number of rateable properties.

Waste Minimisation

Based on the number of rateable properties, with a multiplier of two for commercial/ industrial properties to allow for litter generation.

Stormwater

Based on a combination of:

· costs for maintenance and reticulation allocated between urban and rural areas on an actual expenditure basis - urban areas reallocated to residential and non-residential for disposal costs based on run off determined from land area and run off coefficient obtained from the building code; and

· infrastructural asset renewal costs fully allocated to urban areas, with allocation between residential and non-residential based on run off (see above).

Apportionment of other costs based on number of rateable properties.

Finance Committee - 06 December 2017 - Open Agenda Item 7

7. Representation Review: Engagement Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	406865
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance

7.1 Purpose of Report

To provide an update on the Representation Review project, data-gathering and pre-consultation phase.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Receive the report titled ‘Napier City Council Representation Review Survey’ prepared by SIL Research.

b. Note the summary report from Officers on the engagement undertaken during the pre-consultation phase of the Representation Review project.

c. Note that Officers will next report to Council early next year once modelling options have been prepared for consideration.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

7.2 Background Summary

Introduction

At the 30 August Strategy and Infrastructure Committee, Council was provided with an initial update on the representation review project. Napier City Council is undertaking its review in line with the Local Government Commission, Guidelines for local authorities undertaking representation reviews, 6^th Edition, June 2017. As previously advised to Council, Napier City Council will follow the key steps outlined below and broad timeframes.

The broad steps are:

Step 1: Data-gathering and pre-consultation (Aug-Nov 2017)

Step 2: Analysis of fair and effective representation (Nov 2017 – Feb 2018)

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

Council have made decisions on the electoral system and Maori Wards, which are not formally part of the Representation Review, but necessary precursors to it.

Progress Update

An update on the progress made with the Representation Review project follows.

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

As outlined in the Local Government Commission guidelines (Guidelines 2017), pre-consultation is considered best practice; it is not mandatory and is not a substitute for consultation within the formal statutory steps. The results of the pre-consultation is one way to inform the development of the representation model to be presented as a formal proposal, and can assist in the identification of issues relevant to the review process:

“The review must seek to achieve fair and effective representation for all individuals and communities of interest of the district/region, and not be limited to reflecting community views on particular aspects of arrangements”. (Local Government Commission Guidelines, 2017)

Between September and November, Officers undertook pre-consultation to seek views from the public on options of representation and current communities of interest. The summary report from Officers (Attachment A) provides detailed information on the types of engagement undertaken.

The public was asked to fill out a survey. As a result, 618 responses from individuals were received, with 598 useable responses. This exceeded the target of 400, which was determined as a statistically sound sample target for Napier’s population of 61,000 people. The Representation Review Survey report is provided in Attachment B.

Key findings from the survey included:

1. Three-out-of-four (74.6%) respondents were able to name the ward they live in.

2. Most respondents identify their main community of interest as ‘Napier’.

3. 41.3% of respondents preferred the status quo electoral system, ‘a mix of wards and at large’, which is consistent with previous years (2009-2011).

4. Over half of respondents indicated that the size of Council should stay the same (52.4%).

5. 30.3% of respondents wanted community boards in Napier, 42.6% stated ‘No’ to this question.

Step 2: Analysis of fair and effective representation (Nov 2017 – Feb 2018)

Now that pre-consultation is complete, the next step is to analyse all relevant information to identify any communities of interest and consider fair and effective representation options. As per sections 9.8-9.19 of the Guidelines 2017, consideration will be given to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to:

- Accessibility, size, and configuration of the district

- The existence of community boards

- Single versus multi-member wards

- The wider statutory role of local authorities encompassing overall community wellbeing, sustainability and the interests of future generations

- Increasing diversity of the population and the physical location of particular communities of interest

- Improved communications mechanisms

Council will be provided with a report in early 2018, which outlines the analysis of fair and effective representation and provides options for representation models.

Any changes to the current representation arrangements need to be based on analysis of relevant information, including up-to-date statistics from the Local Government Commission, and the results of the pre-consultation.

7.3 Issues

N/A

7.4 Significance and Consultation

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

Once the next steps of analysis and options for models of representation are developed, the formal statutory process will commence, which includes public notification, submissions, and an appeals process.

7.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications currently.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

The Local Government Commission Guidelines are being followed which will ensure that Council’s legislative obligations are being met.

7.6 Attachments

a Engagement Report ⇩

b Pre-consultation report ⇩

Finance Committee - 6 December 2017 - Attachments

Item 7

Attachments a

Pre-Consultation Engagement: Representation Review

November 2017

Prepared by: Natasha Carswell – Manager, Community Strategies

Engagement Summary

The purpose of the Representation Review pre-consultation engagement was gain feedback from the community on how they wish to be represented in the future so Council can consider this when develop a representation proposal for formal consultation early in 2018.

Engagement activity was undertaken from 14 September to 1 November and focused on channeling people to fill in a survey either online or by hardcopy.

Information was provided to the community about the current system and other representation options in order for them to provide informed feedback on future representation arrangements. A variety of collateral was used including fact sheets, reports (on website), bookmarks and advertising.

The primary engagement activities were pop-up events in shopping centres (Soap Box series), a focus group, meetings with Maori and Disability groups and social media. The Library and Customer Service staff were also briefed, so they could encourage people to fill in surveys.

The engagement activities were effective in channeling people to fill in the survey with 598 responses provided (target 400). The survey results are reported separately.

Engagement Activities

The table below lists the engagement activities undertaken for this project.

Date (2017)	Engagement Activity	Council/ Project team members involved
21 September	Library / Customer Services Staff Briefing
	9-10am, Library Seminar Room Staff were briefed on the Representation Review and their role in engagement. Staff were provided with a fact sheet. The team were enthusiastic about having a role in engagement. Hard copy surveys were made available in both libraries and at customer services, with ipads also placed in the libraries for online survey responses. Information Bookmarks were also provided. Mainly hard copy surveys were completed through this activity. Staff noted that customers were more focused on the pending Library move at this time. See Fact Sheet Appendix 1	Engagement Team Library staff Customer Services team
13 October to 24 October	Pop-up Events (Soap Box Series)
	Several Councillors took part in presenting the Soap Box Series in four locations across Napier: · 13 October – Onekawa Shopping Centre (Cr Brosnan, Cr White) · 13 October – CBD (Cr Wise, Cr Price) · 17 October – Taradale Shopping Centre (Cr Wise, Cr Taylor) · 24 October – EIT Maraenui (Cr Boag, Cr Tapine) At these events, Councillors presented on the different representation systems and canvassed what people thought an appropriate number of Councillors should be. Staff encouraged people to fill in surveys. At these events, people engaged in conversations about the current system and gave their feedback via the survey. The ipads were an effective tool at the shopping centres. See Soap Box Series notes guide Appendix 2	Councillors and Engagement Team
26 October	Focus Group
	3.30-5:00pm, MTG Education Suite Invitations were made to the following groups to provide participants for the focus group: · Positive Ageing Reference Group (2) · Napier Youth Council (2) · Te Kupenga Hauora · Napier Ability Plus (3) In total, 7 participants attended representing Maori, Pacific People, Youth, Seniors, Disability and were across 3 Wards. Most participants identified their community as where they lived. The pros and cons of each system were discussed and shared. Generally, the group did not support Community Boards but did see the need for minority groups to have a voice. The point was made that if Councillors understand the communities they serve, the need for special interest groups, or specific areas to be represented was diminished. The group considered the Council size to be adequate at the moment with some suggesting one or two less, and others suggesting one or two more. All participants completed the survey. See Focus Group Guide and Notes in Appendices 3 and 4.	Engagement Team members
	Meetings with Maori organisations / groups
Engagement period	The meetings with Maori organisations covered a number of subjects and while the Representation Review was identified more interest was shown towards the option to establish Maori Wards in these meetings. The Maori Consultative Committee received the initial update to Council on the review. Further consultation with Maori will be undertaken when the representation proposal is developed.	Maori Strategic Advisor, Team Leader Governance
	Safer Napier Event
28 October	Two team members attended the Celebrate Safer Napier event and approached attendees to fill in surveys either on the ipads or on hardcopy. Over 70 surveys were completed on the day.	Engagement Team

Appendices

Page

Appendix 1: Staff Fact Sheet 5

Appendix 2: Soap Box Series notes 7

Appendix 3: Focus Group Guide 11

Appendix 4: Focus Group notes 13

Appendix 1: Staff Fact Sheet

Representation Review Factsheet for NCC Staff

21 September 2017

The details

Every six years we need to review the Council’s make-up.

Currently Napier’s residents are represented by 12 Councillors in a mixed system – this is made up of six at large councillors elected by the entire city, and six ward councillors elected by residents in the four wards (two in the Taradale ward, two in Napier South, one in Onekawa-Tamatea, and one in Ahuriri).

Should we have ward councillors, at large councillors or a mix of both – and how many councillors should we have?

Should we have community boards or not, and where?

What we need you to do

We want to know if people feel well represented on Council, and if it could be any different.

To do this, we’re encouraging people to complete a survey. That’s where you come in – please let library visitors know about the survey, answer any queries they may have and encourage them to complete the survey.

Refer people to our website www.napier.govt.nz search keyword #repreview. Alternatively, the survey is also available as a hard copy for people to fill out while they are in the library, or they can do it on a tablet.

The survey

We’re running the survey over the next few weeks. The survey opens on Monday 25 September and closes on 31 October 2017.

People who complete the survey have the option of going into a random draw for a $50 Prezzie card. (Staff are encouraged to complete the survey but are not eligible to enter the prize draw.)

Other events

Councillors and staff will be out and about at a series of pop-up “soap box” events, where they will talk about the current arrangement and other possible options.

People will have the opportunity to do the survey at these pop-ups:

· CBD Flowerpot, cnr Market and Emerson Streets, 12.30-1.00pm Friday 13 October

· Onekawa shopping centre, by Fish n Chip shop, 3.00-3.30pm Friday 13 October

· Taradale shopping centre, near Bay Espresso café, 2.30-3.00pm Tuesday 17 October

· Maraenui EIT, Tu Tangata Meeting, 5.30-6.00pm Tuesday 17 October.

What does the Council look like currently?

See our website www.napier.govt.nz search keyword #councillors.

https://www.napier.govt.nz/our-council/mayor-and-councillors/councillors/

How do people find out what ward they live in?

Refer people to our website www.napier.govt.nz search keyword #councillors, where they can click on a special link to find out their ward and suburb.

https://napier-city.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=f8ff032a2cba47f78849ae4b7c20c4dd

Who decides what changes will be made?

The results of the survey will be presented to Council and will help info the development of an option to go through a formal consultation process early next year.

When will any changes happen?

Following consultation, Council will decide what, if any changes will be made to Napier’s system of representation. The Local Government Commission will then confirm the decision, which will take effect from the election in 2019.

How can people have a say?

For more information and to complete the survey online, go to www.napier.govt.nz search keyword #repreview. Or do the survey while visiting the library.

https://www.research.net/r/sil-NCCrep2017w

Any queries?

Contact Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance, jane.mcloughlin@napier.govt.nz, extn 8755.

Appendix 2:

Representation Review – Soap Box Series

Soap Box Series – Schedule

Date/Time

Where

Ward presenter

At Large Presenter

Friday 13 October

10:30am to 11am

12:30 – 1pm

Onekawa Shopping Centre

(fish n chip shop)

CBD

(Flower pot)

Annette

Kirsten

Faye

Keith

17 October 2017

2:30 – 3pm

Taradale Shopping Centre

(bay expresso)

Kirsten

Graeme

24 October 2017

5:30 0 6pm

Tu Tangata Maraenui Meeting

Maxine

Api

Talking Points

Key outcomes for the event – to explain:

· what representation arrangements are and what the review is about

· what the current Council make-up is

· the difference between an At-large and Ward councillor

· what Councillors actually do

· get people to fill in the survey

We will try to gather a small group of people together – then we will get you started.

Your talk should be about 3-5 mins each. Remember this is about sharing information and getting community opinion.

At Large Councillor

· Introduce self and Councillor colleague

· We are here today to get your opinion on how the Council is made up – if you have any other questions we are happy to talk with you at the end.

So - do we have enough Councillors? Too many? Should everyone elect all the Councillors or should we have Councillors who are elected according to where you live – or a mixture? Do you want community boards? We look at this every 6 years.

· In Napier’s history we have had a whole raft of different systems. At election time at we have over 20 candidates vying for one of 12 councillor spots. The Mayor is extra. Currently we have a mixed system – 6 ward councillors and 6 at-large councillors. I am going to talk more about what an at large councillor is and xxxx will cover what a ward councillor is.

· At-large councillors are elected by everyone in the city – you could think of them as city-wide councilors. Pretty straight forward.

· What do councillors actually do? Well we have 2 hats – one is to ‘govern’ the city – make decisions for the overall benefit of Napier – it is a mix of big picture, long term planning and also guiding what happens across the city on an ongoing basis. The second hat is that we represent our community - making sure we are in touch with what the community view might be on any particular issue or our general direction.

· I have some questions for you –

o Who thinks we should have less councilors? More? The same? (ask someone why they think that)

o Who knows the name of one of the at large councillors?

o Who thinks we should only have at large councillors?

Handover to Ward Presenter

Ward Councillor

· Introduce self (again)

· I am going to talk about Wards and community boards

· As xxx said, we have some ward councillors (half the Council in fact). The city is spilt into 4 wards – 2 bigger ones with 2 ward councillors each and 2 smaller ones with 1 ward councillor each.

· Who can name 1 or more of the wards? (Ahuriri, Nelson Park, Taradale, Onekawa-Tamatea)

· Do you know which ward you are in?

· So what is the difference between a ward councillor and an at-large councillor?

o Ward councillors are elected by the people living in the ward they are standing in – e.g if you live in Marewa you vote for a candidate standing in the Nelson Park ward (substitute for where you are).

o You might think that ward councillors represent their ward – but all councillors have to act in the best interests of the city – so in that way they are no different from at-large councillors. They do have a responsibility to bring the views of their ward at the Council table – so in this way they do have regard for the interests of their area. Because of this, they often network within their ward community so they have the understanding they need about the views of the ward community. Has anyone heard about a ward meeting happening? (if anyone says yes – did they go?)

· Community Boards – so Napier has never had a community board, but some councils do – typically larger cities or areas with isolated or distinct communities – Hastings has a community board for rural Hastings. If there is a community board, the council may or may not give it some powers e.g. some might get a budget to spend in the area and they can make recommendations to the full council. They are funded either by everyone (general rate) or by the community they represent (targeted rate).

Does anyone think we should have a community board? Why / why not?

Finally – if you haven’t already, please go and see the team and fill in the survey – guess the lolly jar or grab a bookmark so you can do the survey at home.

The survey results will give the Council good information for when we look at how the Council should be made up for the next 6 years. (early next year).

Thank you for your attention!

Further Notes:

· This review does not include whether or not to establish Māori Wards – this is done separately (and before this decision) – if Māori Wards are established, that will be part of the mix for the rep review.

· You are likely to get other questions about what Council is and isn’t doing – it is up to you if you want to answer them or whether you want to talk to the person separately – BUT we don’t want the session to get off track too much.

· Our main aim is to get people to fill in the survey – this is where it counts. The team will be looking after this.

· Jane (governance) will be on hand at all events for any questions

Appendix 3: Focus Group Guide

Representation Review

Focus Group Guide

Thursday

26 October 2017

3.30 – 5pm

MTG Education Centre

Participants

Jill Fitzmaurice	5 Hukarere Road, Napier	PAS Ref Group
Bubbles Munro	28A Whilte Street, Taradale	PAS Ref Group
Janet Smith	67 Avenue Road, Greenmeadows	PAS Ref Group
Val Forward	97A Avondale Road, Taradale	PAS Ref Group
Leigh Bedford		YCON
Anna Lorch	61 King Street, Taradale	YCON
Nora Hopkins	8 Rochester Street, Tamatea	NAPS
Jacqui Lee	4 Rhodes Place, Taradale	NAPS
Berry Rangi	271 Westminster Ave, Tamatea	Tiare Ahuriri PACIFICA
Mike Marsh	TBC	Via NAPS
		Te Kupenga Hauora
		Te Kupenga Hauora

Focus Group Team

Natasha Carswell

Michele Grigg

Welcome – Natasha

Intros, afternoon tea

Health and Safety / Housekeeping - Natasha

Introduction – Natasha

§ Representation Review – what is it?

o Ward / At Large / Mix – what is your Ward? (i-pad, look up)

o Community Boards

o How many Councillors

o Engagement focus

§ Purpose of the focus group – our roles

§ Topics for today

o What is your community?

o The options

o The survey

Exercise – What is your community?

Place, community of interest etc – prompts: work, travel, visiting friends, family, services

Map – draw your connections

Discussion – Wards / Community Boards

The Options

Split in three groups

Q: How should we be represented

Q: How many Councillors?

G1: Wards – pros and cons

G2: At large – pros and cons

G3: Mixed – pros and cons

G1: more – how many – why?

G2: less – how many – why?

G3: the same – why?

All together:

§ Wards – if we are to have Wards, what should they be – the boundaries, the size etc?

§ Community Boards – if we have Community Boards – how should they be made up?

Survey

Complete the survey – ipads / paper

Wrap-up

Final thoughts / questions – thanks and koha

Appendix 4: Focus Group Notes

Representation Review Focus Group

MTG Education Room

26 October 2017, 3.30pm-5.00pm

7 participants

Natasha, Michele, Jane from NCC

Background of project – described by Natasha.

Community of interest exercise (with the maps)

· Karen - started with where I live, which is Tamatea – more than that – it’s where our life happens, where the kids go to school, family live there, shop there, like living there, on BOT of high school. But also part of Cook Island community and our hall is in Flaxmere. Plus I work out of town – community is on the plane most weeks, cause I’m flying to Auckland, Wellington, Rarotonga. Also connected on social media.

· Mike – basic locality is as far as I can walk – Pandora Pond, Marewa, town, Marine parade. But still feel close to Clive as that’s where I was born and raised. But it’s part of Hastings. Blind sport – involved in that but that’s based in Hastings. Still love Napier. Overall I go back to where I am now.

· Nova – realised that Tamatea is my main hang out spot – schools, family, shopping, doctors, community stuff in the churches. With blind sport – I’m limited in what I can do. Realise how limited we become in where we can go. Mainly based in Tamatea but like the whole of Napier.

· Leigh – now live in Parklands, but Pirimai is mainly my home. I attend the church there, friends there, primary school there, where I established myself. It’s my community. Spent my high school life in Taradale. My memories are in Pirimai.

· Anna – born in Taradale and moved back when 7. I feel like it’s my community. School is down the road, go to church in Taradale. Don’t have a licence. It’s where I have my independence. Freedom. Go the bus to places. Walk a lot. Sometimes come into town to see Mum.

· Berry – live in Tamatea and love it there. Daughter is 6 houses up, son is 6 houses down. But as a Cook Islander we spend a lot of time in Hastings and Flaxmere; where our hall is. Come into Te Awa sometimes. Main area is Tamatea; everything we want is there. Church is there too.

· Jacki – born in Onekawa South. Grew up there. Left in teens. Don’t connect with that area much. Visit sister there. Live in Taradale – live with daughter and her kids, 4 and 2. With Jasper and the grandkids, Napier is my playground. Go for walks along river and Marine Parade – go for safe places to walk.

Wards and/or at large system

Ward Councillor awareness? Two people (out of seven) know who their ward councillors are.

Awareness of wards? Three of seven not aware what ward they live in.

Group 1: Ward Only System

· Pro: if you had only ward reps you would feel they have care for and take responsibility for the area they work in – only if they are accessible and known though

· Pro: Ward councillors can live out of the area, so that gives them a bit of objectivity

· Con: discourages people from having the interests of the city as a whole

· Only works well if the communities of interest within a ward can be strongly identified - often lots of groups within the ward, of different identities

· Overall, they only work well if there’s a good decision making process at the Council table and they fairly weigh up all the views. Otherwise it’s the loudest voice or the majority voice.

Group 2: At Large System

· Geographical location of councillors may not be well represented – e.g. they could all live on the hill and the other communities would feel left out. Their views wouldn’t think about other smaller communities.

Group 3: Mixed Ward and At Large System

· Ward represents different communities, different people reside in each area (eg, elderly and families in Taradale); more intimate – you might know the people in the ward or they’ve been in the area and you’ve connected with them. At large – opportunity to have reps across the whole area. If only wards they would all be fighting for their own corner and not thinking about the whole of Napier.

Community Boards

Would these be good for Napier?

Any community not well represented at the moment?

· Maori aren’t well represented. I have watched the debates in Rotorua and Taranaki with interest, and we have a high population of Maori and yet, we have only one Maori Councillor.

· Who’s the voice for people with disabilities? Mental, intellectual, physical? At least one person so people know who to go to if they have an issue etc. [talking here about how other groups are represented or advocated for by Council.]

· Should we be thinking about Maori or more multicultural?

· If you try and represent all views, it’s quite difficult. Need to make sure Council (members) understands the community they serve – doesn’t mean they all have to represent different special interest groups. They need to understand the community in its entirety.

· Community Boards: sometimes there are issues that come up, where you could pull a group together to consider things on an issue-by-issue basis rather than standing boards. Regular turnover too, to give people an opportunity to participate.

Number of Councillors

Group 1: more Councillors

· Don’t want to see more Councillors

· Could have one more perhaps – so they can help with the workload of the others!

Group 2: less Councillors

· If we had less might be too big of a job for the rest of the Councillors

· Fewer people making decisions, so quicker to make decisions and get on with things.

· No magic number. Maybe 8, 10.

Group 3: same number of Councillors

· If it ain’t broken don’t fix it

· It seems ok at the moment – City seems to be going ahead, things happening.

· About quality not quantity.

Other comments

Would like to have a better understanding of Councils, what they do and why they make decisions.

I’ve been on the Youth Council almost a year and never met any Councillors. Need more visibility and more interaction. The YCON Chair could attend a Council meeting, or vice versa.

Instead of the ward system, could you have a community board that reflected the make up of that community and they could give their views to the Council? At large plus community boards.

Information given about People’s Panel and Civic Councils consultation.

All participants completed Representation Review survey.

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone: (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

Finance Committee

Open

MINUTES

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Time:

3.30pm-3.51pm

Venue:

School Hall, Napier Girls’ High School

Clyde Road, Bluff Hill

Napier

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor Hague (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, and Wright
In Attendance:	Chief Executive, Director City Infrastructure, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager Community Strategies, Chief Financial Officer, Manager City Development, Strategic Planning Lead, Business Transformation Lead
Administration:	Governance Team

Apologies

Apologies

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Boag

That the apology from Councillor Wise be accepted.

CARRIED

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Expressed gratitude to Napier Girls’ High School for hosting the meeting today.

Announcements by the Management

The Chief Executive provided Councillors with a brief update on tentative dates for the relocation from the Civic Building; and acknowledged the great feedback received on the Ahuriri Masterplan seminar delivered by staff to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Elected Members and representatives from Mana Ahuriri.

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillors Brosnan / Wright

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 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. Statement of Proposal - Civic Site Optimisation

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Document ID:*	383441
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to approve the Statement of Proposal that provides Council with the option to divest, by way of sale or long-term lease, the site currently occupied by the Civic Administration Building to a private developer for commercial development. The Statement of Proposal contains an outline of what is proposed; the reasons for the proposal; the options being considered their advantages and disadvantages; and the feasibility of the preferred option.

The Business Case contains the detailed information and analysis supporting the option put forward in the Statement of Proposal.

An Engagement Plan summary and methodology is also provided for Council approval.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, it was clarified that:

· Occupancy rates are exclusive of WINZ clients

· Today’s decision is about the statement of proposal; the next stage is that feedback from the engagement will be presented to Council for consideration of the best use of the Civic site and options around the land.

· Staff will look at how to increase pedestrian traffic.

· HB Tourism is promoting visitors to Napier which will help bring in more people so that the impact on similar hotels will be mitigated.

· The visitors that a new hotel would be trying to tap into are a new market that is not prevalent currently in Napier.

Staff were congratulated on the comprehensive information provided and the clear rationale as to why this piece of work is being done now rather than delaying it as part of the Long Term Plan. Staff were also congratulated on the great presentation on the topic they have provided and their offer to provide this to any community group that is interested.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Wright

a. That the Statement of Proposal – Civic Site Optimisation be approved for consultation in accordance with the Engagement Plan Summary.

b. That the Statement of Proposal is notified to the public on the 4^th October 2017, with submissions closing 3 November 2017.

CARRIED

2. Loan Raising 2017/18

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Document ID:*	371199
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Ian Condon, Revenue and Treasury Manager

2.1 Purpose of Report

To approve new loan authorities and loan raising for 2017/18.

At the Meeting

It was clarified that these loans have already been approved by Council and then the work is undertaken and reported on in arrears.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Price

That the Council resolve as follows:

a. That Council borrow such amounts and enter into such incidental arrangements on such terms and conditions as any of the Authorised Persons named in Resolution d. below may determine from time to time.

b. That every borrowing or incidental arrangement incurred or entered into by the Council on the terms and conditions determined by any of the Authorised Persons shall:

i. Be for the purposes specified below, or for general working capital purposes of the Council, subject, in each case, to the financial limitations contained in the Liability Management Policy.

NAME	PURPOSE	AMOUNT
Roading Loan 2017	Embankment Road Bridge	1,050,000
CBD Development Loan 2017	CBD Development	833,000
Whakarire Loan 2017	Whakarire Ave Groyne	500,000
Park Island Loan 2017	Park Island Expansion	1,260,000
Sportsgrounds Loan 2017	Sportsgrounds Infrastructure	2,268,000
Sportsgrounds Growth Loan 2017	Sportsgrounds Development	657,000
City General Loan 2017	General Borrowing	400,000
CBD Stormwater Loan 2017	CBD Stormwater Upgrade	355,000
Taradale Stormwater Loan 2017	Taradale Stormwater Upgrade	350,000
Conference Centre Loan 2017	Conference Centre Upgrade	1,115,000
		$8,788,000

ii. Be secured by and have the benefit of a Debenture Trust Deed, creating a charge over rates.

c. That the Council considers that the financial limitations contained in the Ten Year Plan and Liability Management Policy address the risks and benefits of the proposed loan and security to be given by the Council.

d. That the persons holding the following offices with the Council be designated as “Authorised Persons”:

i. Director Corporate Services

ii. Chief Financial Officer

iii. Revenue and Treasury Manager

e. That any of the Authorised Persons are hereby authorised, empowered and appointed, on behalf of the Council, (but subject to Resolutions a. and b. above) to:

i. Negotiate and approve the specific terms and conditions of the borrowing in accordance with the financial limitations contained in the Liability Management Policy;

ii. Negotiate, execute and deliver such documents and take all actions as any of the Authorised Persons may consider necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the borrowing and the security which may be given in respect thereof; and

iii. Sign, despatch, any letter, acknowledgement, notice, certificate, authority, approval, payment, or other document on behalf of the Council as any of the Authorised Persons may consider necessary or desirable in connection with, or incidental to, the matters referred to or authorised in paragraphs i or ii above.

f. That all further actions, documents, agreements, authorities, letters, payments, approvals or notices required in connection with the matters approved and authorised by these Resolutions be from time to time undertaken, executed, entered into, or given on behalf of the Council by any Authorised Persons, such further matters to be in the form and/or on the terms and conditions approved by an Authorised Person and the execution of any document/s relating to such matters by an Authorised Person shall be conclusive evidence of the agreement to and authorisation, approval and confirmation of that matter by the Council and the Authorised Persons.

g. That the authorisations set out in Resolutions d. to f. inclusive above shall remain in full force and effect until written notice of their revocation by resolution of the Council has been received by the Authorised Persons, provided that any person dealing with the Authorised Persons shall be entitled to assume that the Authorisations have not been revoked and remain in full force and effect and, in so assuming, shall be protected unless and until he or she has actual notice of such revocation

h. That the Council provides for the repayment of loans through the establishment of Redemption Funds or by such other mechanisms that are in accordance with the Liability Management Policy.

i. That copies of this resolution and all other resolutions, orders and documents relating to the said loans, certified by the Mayor and Chief Executive as correct extracts from the minutes of all proceedings of the Council may from time to time be sealed with the Common Seal of the Council as evidence of the same and issued as required.

CARRIED

3. Budgets to be carried forward to 2017/18

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	384406
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Mary Quinn, Senior Management Accountant Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

3.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval to carry forward budgets into 2017/18.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, it was clarified that:

- The skate ramps are currently being installed.

- Budget for the war memorial flame will be included later once costs are known.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Hague / Brosnan

That Council

a. Approve carrying forward budgeted expenditure of $1,499,000 from 2016/17 into 2017/18.

b. Approve the release of additional budget of $200,000 for the skate ramps at Bay Skate funded from the capital reserve.

c. Approve unbudgeted expenditure of $35,000 for street lighting for safety purposes at the Dickens Street West carpark, funded from the parking fund.

CARRIED

4. Christmas Cheer Funding Applications

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	382414
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Belinda McLeod, Community Funding Advisor

4.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval to apply for external funding to support the Christmas Cheer Appeal for 2017.

At the Meeting

It was clarified that Council has previously applied for this funding from external funders.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wright / McGrath

a. That the Council apply to external funders as outlined in Table a.

Table a

Funder	Up To
Returned Service Association Napier	6,000
Returned Service Association Taradale	6,000
Infinity Foundation	6,000
Total	$18,000

That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required as the funders close dates are before the next Council meeting. This will require the following resolution to be passed before the decision of Council is taken:

That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles 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.

CARRIED

Decision of Council

Councillors Wright / Taylor

CARRIED

Council Resolution

Councillors Brosnan / Price

That the Council apply to external funders as outlined in Table a.

Table a

Funder	Up To
Returned Service Association Napier	6,000
Returned Service Association Taradale	6,000
Infinity Foundation	6,000
Total	$18,000

CARRIED

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

Councillors Tapine / Wright

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

1. Service Delivery Review (17A) for Transport

2. Service Delivery Review for Waste Minimisation

3. Council Projects Fund - Applications

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. Service Delivery Review (17A) for Transport	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 7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	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. Service Delivery Review for Waste Minimisation	7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	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.
3. Council Projects Fund - Applications	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.

The meeting concluded at 3.51pm.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE MEETING

CHAIRPERSON:_____________________________

DATE OF APPROVAL:____________________

Council Members	Councillor Wise (In the Chair), Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White and Wright
Officer Responsible	Director Corporate Services, Adele Henderson
Administrator	Governance Team
	Next Finance Committee Meeting, 20 March 2018