MĀori Consultative Committee

Open Agenda

 

Meeting Date:

Tuesday 27 March 2018

Time:

3.00pm

Venue:

Council Chamber
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
Napier

 

 

Committee Members

Councillor Apiata Tapine (in the Chair), Mayor Bill Dalton, Liz Ratima, Tiwana Aranui and George Reti

Officer Responsible

Director Community Services

Administration

Governance Team

 

Next Māori Consultative Committee Meeting

Tuesday 8 May 2018

 

 


Māori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Karakia

Apologies

Piri Prentice

Conflicts of interest

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Announcements by the management

Confirmation of minutes

A copy of the Minutes from the meeting held on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 are attached on page 244

New Items for Māori Consultative Committee 

No new items.

Reports from Standing Committees

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 6 March 2018

1      Name of the Conference Centre Building........................................................................ 3

2      Coastal Hazards Strategy............................................................................................. 10

3      Traffic Safety Improvements - Jervoistown.................................................................... 22

4      20 & 21 Chambers Street, land legalisation - land to be declared road.......................... 29

Reports from Finance Committee held 20 March 2018

1      Hawkes Bay Local Authority Shared Services - Structure change................................. 33

2      Representation Review................................................................................................. 58

3      Financial Forecast to 30 June 2018............................................................................ 208

4      Hawke's Bay Museums Trust - Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 20............................. 219

5      Hawke's Bay Museums Trust - Half Yearly Report to 31 December 2017.................... 227

6      Quarterly Report for the six months ended 31 December 2017................................... 242

  


Māori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

Reports from standing committees

Māori CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Māori Consultative Recommendations arising from the discussion of the Committee reports be submitted to the Council meeting for consideration.

 

 

 

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 6 March 2018

 

1.    Name of the Conference Centre Building

Type of Report:

Procedural

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

449068

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Charles Ropitini, Strategic Māori Advisor

Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

To consider the name of the Napier Conference Centre building.

 

That Council

 

a.   Rename the conference centre building to War Memorial Napier Conference Centre.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

 

a.   Rename the conference centre building to War Memorial Napier Conference Centre.

 

Substitute Motion

Councillors Wise / White

 

That Council

 

a.    Reinstates the words ‘War Memorial’ to the currently named Napier Conference Centre, the name becoming ‘Napier War Memorial Centre’.

 

b.   Resolve the building branding, including signage, forms part of the War Memorial design concepts being brought to Council later this year.

Amendment

Councillors Brosnan / Wise

 

That Council

 

a.   Reinstates the words ‘War Memorial’ to the currently named Napier Conference Centre, the name becoming ‘Napier War Memorial Centre’.

 

b.   Resolve the building branding, including signage, forms part of the War Memorial design concepts being brought to Council in June 2018.

 

 

Committee’s recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Wise

That Council

 

a.   Reinstates the words ‘War Memorial’ to the currently named Napier Conference Centre, the name becoming ‘Napier War Memorial Centre’.

 

b.   Resolve the building branding, including signage, forms part of the War Memorial design concepts being brought to Council in June 2018.

 

Mayor Dalton against

Carried

 

1.2   Background Summary

The original War Memorial Hall was built by public subscription in memory of those who lost their lives in the Second World War.

The original memorial was located on the outside of the War Memorial Hall and consisted of a perpetual flame, a water feature, and a Roll of Honour.  In 1995, the building had significant renovations in order to provide a conference centre for Napier and the subsequent expansion enclosed the memorial elements within the new and larger building structure.

In 2015, Napier City Council approved a redevelopment project for the facility that included seismic strengthening, an extension, and an upgrade of the building to make it more suited for medium-sized national and international conferences and events.

During the design phase it was recognised that having the War Memorial inside the facility was restrictive both for public access alongside the appropriateness of its location in an area used for social events.  It was also identified that the name, War Memorial Conference Centre, had created marketing issues, particularly with potential Australian clients.

At its ordinary meeting of 29th June 2016, the Council subsequently resolved to:

“Change the name of the Napier War Memorial Conference Centre to the Napier Conference Centre with the tag line of Conferences / Events / Functions.”

The decision to relocate the War Memorial and Roll of Honour has since been met with disapproval from some members of the community.  Although the report to Council was presented in a public meeting, it is apparent that there was little wider community awareness of the change.  There has also been some concern raised with the name change of the War Memorial Conference Centre to Napier Conference Centre.

Following public consultation, and at its meeting of 27th September 2017, Council resolved to;

“Agree that community consultation is undertaken on the future of the existing Roll of Honour plaques, the design concepts and the name of the centre.”

This report addresses the name of the facility only.  The design concept and criteria for the Roll of Honour will be presented to Council at a later date.

1.3   Issues

In January 2018, three public meetings were held to provide an update on the War Memorial project and to consult on the Roll of Honour naming criteria.

While the public meetings were successful in canvassing opinion on the Roll of Honour review, the meetings raised the issue of the name of the Napier Conference Centre with a push for the reinstatement of the War Memorial title to the building.

The decision to change the name of the facility was based on the following reasons:

1.   The name had evolved as War Memorial elements had been removed from the building and the building has had significant change to its original form and purpose, both in 1995 and in again in 2015;

2.   An Australasian brand and marketing specialist confirmed that there was confusion about the facility being an RSL (Australian equivalent of RSA), and this had been stated as a reason for not progressing booking enquiries.

3.   Both Taradale and Napier RSA organisations were consulted and supported the decision at that time.

 

The three public meetings held last month have indicated the significance of the reinstatement of the War Memorial title to the Napier Conference Centre to parts of the community.  A number of variations on the name of the centre have been put forward with the two most popular being;

1.     Retain the Napier Conference Centre name of the facility and name the original 1957 hall (the ballroom) the “War Memorial Hall”

2.     Rename the Napier Conference Centre facility to the “War Memorial: Napier Conference Centre”.

These options are to be assessed against the status quo.

1.4   Significance and Consultation

This project is a priority for Council and has had ongoing consultation with the community. In total four public meetings have been held to date and both councillors and a section of the community have expressed their thoughts and suggestions around the name.

 

Council officers will schedule a further public meeting to update the community on the following elements:

·      An update on the final War Memorial design concept

·      A presentation on the criteria for the Roll of Honour and ensuing research project.

1.5   Implications

Financial

If Council makes the decision to reinstate the title of the War Memorial into Napier Conference Centre facility, the financial implications are expected to be in the following areas:

Brand

A review of the current brand visual identity will need to be undertaken, with professional advice sought to ensure integrity is maintained for the inclusion of the War Memorial title to the facility.  The activity delivered from the facility will continue to be that of conferences, events and functions delivery and will therefore need not to be rebranded.  It is only the building structure that is proposed to be rebranded with appropriate signage affixed to the building.

Marketing

It is proposed that the activity continues to be marketed as the Napier Conference Centre, and the facility is branded on the outside to include the War Memorial title, proximal to where the memorial will be reinstated (a mock-up of the proposed branding is shown at Attachment A).

It is estimated that the cost of undertaking a complete branding change including that of the marketing and promotion collateral, would be approximately $100,000.  With the proposal to rebrand the facility only to include War Memorial title, this cost would be considerably lower.  There is no financial provision for a branding change however if kept to a minimum as proposed, could be reallocated from existing budget.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

1.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Retain the Napier Conference Centre name of the facility and name the original 1957 hall (the ballroom) the “War Memorial Hall”

b.     Rename the Napier Conference Centre facility to the “War Memorial Napier Conference Centre”

c.     Maintain the status quo.

 

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is that the conference centre building be renamed, and branded, War Memorial Napier Conference Centre.  In consulting with the community, this has been clearly identified as the preferred option with the reinstatement of the words ‘War Memorial’ to the building in its entirety.  This will provide for the building structure to display prominent branding and signage that clearly denotes that it is indeed a war memorial.

 

The existing branding of the activity delivered from the centre can be maintained so as not to cause confusion with the purpose of the facility, and to attract a wide conference, events and functions audience, as is the purpose of the activity.

 

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors it was advised that the name the building was rededicated under in 1995 was the ‘Napier War Memorial Centre’, with subtitles relating to its usage. However some records differ on this matter and Officers were directed to confirm the formal name of the building in 1995 to Council at its meeting on 3 April 2018.

During discussion on this item the following points were raised:

·     The Working Party, which drew on input from a variety of external subject matter experts, did not make any recommendation to Council on the naming of the building, as the intent in forming the group was to assist council officers in formulating a paper to bring to Council.

·     The whole Council agreed that reinstating ‘War Memorial’ in the building title would appropriately reflect the building’s history and original intent.

·     There was some debate about the appropriateness of including ‘conference’ in the building name. The Mayor noted that he was certainly not against having ‘War Memorial’ in the title but that it was also important to incorporate the word ‘conference’ so that the current primary function of the facility is recognised and can be used in the branding.

·     Dissenting views noted that the formal name and the branding are two different things, and it was felt by some Councillors that excluding the word ‘conference’ from the formal name would not affect bookings or online search results.

·     It was further noted that while it was understood that commercial activity is undertaken in the building, that this should not be the primary focus.

·     It was noted that the building was established as a conference centre by a previous Council in 1995. The renovations in 2016 were intended to ensure the building was then fit for this purpose.

·     The preferred option of those members of the public who have spoken to Council appears to be ‘Napier War Memorial Centre’. Councillors were encouraged to seek a wide range of views from the community prior to the final decision of Council.

·     It was hoped that, moving forward, both history and contemporary use could be embraced in the building.

·     It was noted that, should a name change be ratified by Council, there would be associated costs to rebranding the building and any collateral associated with conferences and events. Council officers were requested to provide the anticipated costs of rebranding to Council at its meeting on 3 April 2018.

During the discussion, Councillor Wise moved a substitute motion to the Officer’s recommendation which, following a small amendment specifying the time frame by which design concepts should be brought to Council, became the substantive motion. 

 

1.8   Attachments

a     Artist's Impression of Proposed Branding   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

2.     Coastal Hazards Strategy

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

449684

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To receive and consider the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy - Joint Committee’s (the Joint Committee) recommendation, on the final report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Wright

That Council

 

a.     Receive the draft minutes of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Joint Committee 20 February 2018,

b.     Endorse the Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels and adopt the recommendations of this report,

c.     Agree to commence Stage 4 (Implementation) of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120, and

d.     Consider any funding implications during the Long Term Plan process. 

Carried

 

2.2  Background Summary

     

      In 2014 a decision was made to form a joint committee made up of representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council together with representatives from Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and He Toa Takitini. The committee was set-up to look at coastal hazards over the period 2016-2120 and produce a strategy determining options for managing coastal hazard risks, namely beach erosion, inundation through overtopping and sea level rise.

      The Strategy has been progressed in four key stages as shown in figure 1 below.

 

      Stage 1 Define the Problem - commenced in 2014 with two reports being prepared – “Coastal Hazard Assessment” and “Coastal Risk Assessment”.

      Stage 2 Framework for Decisions - began in May 2016 with a framework developed to support a collaborative decision making forum for a community led response to the issues (rather than the more traditional and previously used ‘top down’ planned approach). The framework combined a multi criteria assessment analysis with an adaptive pathways approach (combined with several other economic, social and cultural considerations) for communities to consider different management strategies, i.e. “the status quo” (do nothing/monitor the situation), “hold the line” (defend) or “managed retreat” (withdrawing, relocation, or abandonment) for specific areas along the coast for the whole of the 100 year timeframe.

      Both of these stages have previously been reported through to Council in detail at the completion of the respective stages.

      Stage 3 Develop the Response - two cell assessment panels (one southern and one northern) were formed with community representatives from Tangoio/Whirinaki, BayView, Westshore/Ahuriri, Marine Parade, Clive/East Clive, Haumoana/TeAwanga/Clifton. Other participants included a representative from the port, Ahuriri business, NZTA, DOC, recreational interests, and rural community board.

      The Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels commenced their work in January 2017 and were tasked with assessing information on coastal hazards risks and developing informed recommendations for the Joint Committee’s consideration in identifying actions to respond to those risks.  The panels have now completed their task in preparing a 100 year Strategy for preferred response options along the coast, focussing at this stage on priority areas (i.e. those areas deemed most at risk in the short term).  The Strategy is shown at Attachment A.

      Pages 11 - 16 of the Strategy detail the preferred pathways for the four priority areas of the Napier coast (Ahuriri, Pandora, Westshore and Bay View), while pages 64 – 67 detail the indicative costs for each of the pathways.

      At the meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee on
20 February 2018 (as shown in the draft minutes at Attachment B), the Committee resolved to: 

      1) Receive the Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

      2) Endorse the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018.

      3) Recommend that the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council endorse and adopt the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018, and commence Stage 4 (Implementation) of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

2.3   Issues

 

      Partner Council reporting on Stage 3 will be completed by 3 April, 2017. Subject to the outcome of Stage 3 being endorsed, and to confirming timing for reporting back to, and seeking support from, each Tangata Whenua member of the Joint Committee, Stage 4 will be able to commence, subject to partner Council’s funding commitments and LTP processes.

      Napier City Council, along with the other partner Councils, have already committed to including $100, 000 per year (uninflated) for the next ten years in its draft LTP (assuming confirmation through the LTP processes).  This money is intended to cover Stage 4 of the Strategy and includes the planning phase of design and budget refinements, cost sharing and funding options and preparing for implementation. However, this funding, once confirmed, will not be available until the new financial year, 1 July 2018. 

      The ten years of funding in the LTP is intended to demonstrate leadership and a firm commitment by the partner Councils to facing up to one of the most pressing issues associated with climate change, i.e. sea level rise and its impacts on coastal erosion and inundation.

      In the interim, budgeted costs for Stage 3 have been exceeded, leaving insufficient funds in the current financial year to proceed with any significant work in Stage 4. This exceedance has resulted from the need for more Assessment Panel workshops being held than originally intended, and a corresponding increase in inputs from external advisors.

      The Partner Council representatives on the TAG consider that a “pause” is necessary, and that engaging further external advice in support of Stage 4 will need to be held over until after 30 June, 2018 and the confirmation of draft LTPs.

In practical terms, this means limited Joint Committee and TAG activity in Stage 4 between April to June 2018.   From July onwards, technical expertise is expected to be required and engaged to, among other matters:

·     Guide the refinement of the funding approach towards an agreed position between all Partner Councils;

·     Commence implementation planning, particularly around the staging of physical works programmes in accordance with priority; and

·     Commence refining high level design and costing information for agreed physical works programmes, as part of detailed design.

 

In the interim, TAG are expecting to be able to advance work where internal resources can be dedicated in support of it, or where external funding may be available. As an example, funding and expertise may be available through the National Science Challenges programme to support the development of triggers. There are also a range of Assessment Panel supplementary recommendations that, if adopted by the Partner Councils, could be advanced.

The Joint Committee and TAG meeting schedule for 2018 is intended to be programmed accordingly.

 

2.4   Significance and Consultation

The Coastal Hazards Strategy is a significant body of work that has been based on a community led collaborative planning process.  Engagement with the community and key stakeholders has been a fundamental pillar of the process with opportunities provided to comment on options, the process and the Strategy itself.  Pages 39-40 detail the main public feedback forums.

Regular newsletters have also kept the wider public informed of the process at key milestones and a dedicated website (https://www.hbcoast.co.nz/) has invited interested parties to become involved.

Consultation on funding issues will also be available as part of the normal Council LTP processes.

 

2.5   Implications

Financial

The immediate financial implications have been discussed in Section 1.3 (Issues) above, but while some preliminary discussions has occurred between the partner Councils regarding the development of a funding model to implement the recommended pathways, some key questions remain open. These include, among other things:

·     The Share of Responsibilities between Councils for collecting rates in support of the physical work programmes identified by the Strategy;

·     The Share of Responsibilities between Councils for seeking resource consents and implementing works;

·     The detailed functioning of a ‘Contributory Fund’, particularly how targeted rates will be applied (i.e. whether rates collected from a specific coastal community are only spent in that community or whether there is an opportunity for a more general fund); and

·     The public / private benefit assessment for each physical works programme, and the resulting apportionment of costs.

Stage 4 will need to resolve these issues in order for the Strategy to deliver the preferred physical solutions for each of the priority areas of the coast.

Social & Policy

One body of work that will arise from Stage 4 will be a need to review all relevant provisions of both regional and district plans to ensure there is a policy framework that supports the preferred pathways while maintaining appropriate consenting requirements through normal resource management planning processes. 

Risk

The biggest risk associated with climate change is not acting.  The NZ Coastal Policy statement requires Councils to plan for coastal erosion and inundation using a 100 year time frame.  The three partner Councils have been proactive in developing a Strategy that meets legislative requirements, current best practice and the aspirations of the potentially most affected communities. 

 

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

·     To adopt the report and endorse the recommendations, including commencing Stage 4. 

·     To receive the report but not endorse the recommendations and not commence Stage 4.

 

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is for Council to adopt the report and endorse the recommendations of the Joint Committee.  The Joint Committee has had governance representation from the three partner Councils and has overseen a robust community led planning process for developing a Coastal Hazard Strategy to meet the needs of the community for the next 100 years.  The implementation phase is critical in order to deliver the preferred pathways necessary to making the Napier community resilient to the potential impacts associated with coastal erosion and inundation in the face of climate change and sea level rise. 

 

 

At the Meeting

In discussion Councillors noted the following:

·     All assessment panel members for the Northern Cell have signed the recommendation put to the committee;

·     A thorough and robust process has been followed to identify the preferred pathways, using state of the art methodology;

·     The questions raised by Councillor Dallimore via email prior to the meeting relate to Stage 4 which will not commence until July.

·     Representatives of the Northern and Southern panels will be presenting to Council at the meeting on 3 April 2018.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (Under Separate Cover) 

b     Draft Minutes - Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Joint Committee - 20 February 2018   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

3.    Traffic Safety Improvements - Jervoistown

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

448099

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Robin Malley, Team Leader Transportation

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

To provide an update to Council on the consultation process undertaken with the Jervoistown community regarding road safety issues; and to recommend the installation of traffic calming features on Jervois Road and Napier Street in response.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Wright

That Council

 

a.     Notes the results of engagement with the Jervoistown community

b.     Approves the installation of a series of traffic calming features on Jervois Road and Napier Street.

 

Carried

 

3.2   Background Summary

The Jervoistown community has been engaged with Council for a number of years, initially following proposals to construct a footpath on Jervois Road. This was in response to two pedestrian fatalities in New Zealand, one of which occurred in Bay View. The footpath proposal generated strong opposition from residents and it was agreed that Council’s Community Services team would work with residents to investigate alternatives.

A trial traffic calming plan was agreed, with tree planters located at the carriageway edge supported by road markings installed in March 2016. The focus of these works was Jervois Road, although planters were also located at the entrances to Napier Street. Following positive community feedback and evidence of speed reduction, the planters were left in in place with a view to developing the scheme to include Burness Road and Napier Street.

The subsequent liaison with the community has involved a number of meetings which have resulted in a high level of engagement with a specific section of the community. In 2017 Council presented an opportunity for all residents to provide feedback on various options through a survey issued to all households. 71 responses were received (40% response rate), providing preferences for interventions. The results of the survey were relayed to the community at a meeting in December 2017.

 

3.3   Issues

The main issues to be considered are traffic speeds, traffic volumes and road safety, particularly with regard to vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, the mobility impaired and children. Each of these is briefly discussed in this section.

Traffic speed surveys have been undertaken on both Jervois Road and Napier Street over a number of years, most recently in June 2017. The recent surveys recorded 85th percentile (the speed which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below) mid-block speeds of 53km/h on Jervois Road and 56km/h on Napier Street. Maximum speeds of 116km/h and 119km/h were recorded at the same locations. The following plan summarises the most recent speed survey results.

 

 

 

Plan showing 85th percentile and maximum speeds measured in 2017 (km/h)

 

Speed surveys undertaken prior to the installation of the existing calming features returned an 85th percentile speed of 61km/h. Surveys undertaken 1 month after the installation in 2016 returned an 85th percentile speed of 54km/h. Follow up surveys returned an 85th percentile speed of 57km/h three months after installation. The speeds recently observed are consistent with these latter observations, demonstrating that while speeds did ‘bounce’ after users had become accustomed to the calming features, they have not returned to pre-installation levels.

The recorded speeds would not normally be sufficient to warrant an intervention, however, given the narrow carriageway width and lack of footpaths, these speeds will appear faster and pose a higher level of risk than a normal urban street with kerbs and footpaths.

Traffic Volumes for Jervois Road and Napier Road were also recorded during the speed surveys. Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes were calculated at 670 vehicles for Jervois Road and 614 vehicles for Napier Street in 2017.

Of these volumes, approximately 15% of vehicles using Jervois Road and 18% of those using Napier Street were travelling through the area (between Meeanee Road and Tannery Road). These proportions appear to be quite high given that there is an equal journey length, higher speed alternative of using Tannery Road.

Long-term residents will have noticed an increase in traffic activity over the last few years related to residential subdivisions, concentrated around the western ends of Burness Road and McElwee Street. Some of this activity relates to the construction of infrastructure and houses and will be short term, with different traffic patterns to those normally experienced. The rest of the increase will be related to the increased residential base and will be sustained.

Accident records for the last ten years have been assessed, showing no injury accidents occurring on Jervois Road, Gordon Road, McElwee Street, Burness Road or Napier Street during that period. Seven non-injury accidents occurred on those roads during the same period. None of the accidents involved vulnerable users.

Plan showing recorded accidents (2007 to 2017) in Jervoistown. All accidents shown on left, accidents resulting in injury on the right.

3.4   Significance and Consultation

The issues covered in this report have been subject of extensive consultation with the Jervoistown community, primarily through public meetings but also including surveys mailed to all residents. A summary of the responses is included in the Development of Preferred Option section of this report.

If Council supports the recommendation of traffic calming, the design and location of this will also be developed with opportunities for community input.

None of the options tabled meet the criteria for additional or targeted engagement under the NCC Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.5   Implications

Financial

Budget has been identified through the LTP planning process at a level adequate for construction of a footpath and traffic calming in Years 1, 6 & 7 of the 2018-29 LTP. Further, budget has been identified in the current financial year’s programme for minor works. The work is eligible for NZTA funding assistance under the ‘Minor Improvements’ Work Category (changing to ‘Low Cost Low Risk Improvements’ as of 2018/19)

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

This issue falls within the normal risk profile of Council as Road Controlling Authority and does not present specific risk exposure.

3.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Do Nothing. This option would see the existing gateway features retained and maintained but with no further development of the road environment.

b.     Install traffic calming features on Jervois Road and Napier Street. Any additional traffic calming installed in Jervoistown would have to include both Jervois Road and Napier Street and also Burness Road. Should treatments not be installed across the area as a whole, there would be an imbalance of speeds across the area, leading to a risk of users exposed to different levels of risk on road environments which look and feel very similar. The cost of this option is estimated between $50,000 for minimal, basic interventions and $150,000 for a more developed treatment using materials better suited to a more rural environment.

c.     Install footpaths. The roads within Jervoistown do not have any footpaths, with vulnerable users either sharing the road or using the berms. The berms are generally well maintained, but are primarily grass, with open drains on both sides. Formation of footpaths, on one or both sides, would provide a facility which could be used all year round with a higher level of service for users, particularly wheeled mobility users and children without adequate confidence or experience to safely use the road. New footpaths could be formed progressively, with one side of each road constructed in the first instance. Footpaths on McElwee Street and Gordon Street could be included later on although traffic volumes and speeds on these roads means that sharing road space is more appropriate here. The cost of this option is estimated between $150,000 for limesand footpath on one side each of Jervois Road and Napier Street, to $500,000 for concrete footpaths on both sides of Jervois Road and Napier Street.

d.     Install Footpath and traffic calming. The final option is to install both traffic calming features (at a full, area wide level, or a reduced coverage or frequency) along with footpaths. The cost of this option is estimated between $200,000 and $650,000.

e.     One-Way System. A fourth option of introducing one-way operation was included in consultation with the community. This option has not been considered in detail, as there is a risk of encouraging higher speeds, introducing additional turning movements and increasing traffic volumes on McElwee Street and Gordon Street. One-way operation would not address the speed and vulnerable user concerns of the community.

3.7   Development of Preferred Option

The driving principle behind the selection of options is to reduce conflict between vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, children playing) from speeding vehicles. This is achieved through separating the users (provision of footpaths) and/or reducing risk by reducing speed (traffic calming). All options other than the Do Nothing option seek to satisfy this principle. The exact nature of the options, such as the design, location, frequency of any calming features; or the width, location or surface type of footpaths has not been developed at this stage.

 

Do Nothing

It is clear that the Do Nothing option will not address the desires of the community in respect of reducing traffic speeds and increasing safety. There is nothing to suggest that the existing situation (vehicle speeds and crash history) would worsen with no intervention. Risk may increase as background traffic levels increase. However, there does not appear to be significant opportunity for further subdivision in Jervoistown beyond that already consented.

Community feedback includes several comments that the current planters are not safe.

 

Traffic Calming on Jervois Road and Napier Street

This is the recommended option. It was the most popular first choice for those residents who responded to the 2017 survey.

Appropriately designed and spaced traffic calming features will reduce speeds through the area, reducing the likelihood of accidents and the severity of any accidents which may happen. Reduced vehicle speeds will mean that vulnerable users for whom the grass berms are unsuitable can share the road space more comfortably and safely.

Traffic calming is likely to deter through traffic in favour of Tannery Road which will result in lower traffic volumes, further reducing exposure to risk for all users.

 

Footpaths

The construction of footpaths on Jervois Road and Napier Street, whether on one or both sides of the road would result in improved safety for vulnerable users. Improvements would be increased, but not doubled, if paths were constructed on both sides. Footpaths would provide an all-weather alternative to walking on the berm or in the carriageway, which may also result in increased levels of walking and cycling.

Introduction of footpaths may result in increased vehicle speeds as drivers feel that vulnerable users are separated from danger. This risks injuries of greater severity if accidents do occur.

There is some concern among residents that footpaths would detract from the rural feel of Jervoistown. While the aesthetic distinctions between semi-rural and urban environments are subjective, footpaths could be constructed to minimise the potential ‘urbanisation’ such as meandering alignments and use of limesand rather than concrete. Construction of a footpath would not be accompanied by kerb and channel.

 

Footpaths and Traffic Calming

From a traffic safety perspective, this would be the ideal response. The reduction in speed and through traffic volumes resulting from traffic calming along with the separation of vulnerable users would reduce risk significantly through reduced frequency of conflicts and reduced severity.

Summary of consultation responses.

 

Option

Traffic Calming Extension

One Way System

Footpath

Traffic Calming and Footpath

1st Choice (No. of responses)

34

0

15

18

2nd Choice (No. of responses)

5

14

7

15

3rd Choice (No. of responses)

11

2

18

8

4th Choice (No. of responses)

1

27

9

9

 

The community survey offered an opportunity for respondents to make comments. These comments were helpful in understanding the wider concerns of the community, but did not provide a great deal of consistency from which a solution could be developed. Responses ranged from “Traffic calming would slow people down. Footpath would enable our children to walk in a safe space” to “No to footpath or combination. No further adjustment to current setup. Rural concept and does not require interference from Council”.

 

This report seeks approval for the type of intervention recommended. Should Council support the recommendation, officers will develop and evaluate some alternatives for traffic calming treatments, which will then be presented to the community for feedback.

 

Regardless of the outcome of this project, Council will continue to monitor speeds, traffic volumes and safety records as with all roads in the City and respond accordingly to any significant changes.

 

 

At the Meeting

In discussion it was noted that Council officers have consulted and worked closely with the Jervoistown community on this issue.

The recommendation is intended to slow traffic and reduce driving speeds through this suburb without adversely affecting the residents’ rural outlook.

It was noted that should speeds increase again in future then further action may be required by Council.

 

3.8   Attachments

Nil

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

4.    20 & 21 Chambers Street, land legalisation - land to be declared road

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Public Works Act 1981

Document ID:

448863

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To obtain a formal declaration from Council under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 that the land in question be declared road.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

a.     That Council resolve to re-approve, under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981, to declare the land in the Schedule below to be road.

 

Schedule

 

Hawkes Bay Land District – Napier City

 

 

Area

Legal Description

Part of Certificate of Title

0.0053 ha

Section 1 SO Plan 511878

HB A3/562

0.0122 ha

Section 3 SO Plan 511878

Proc 179673, HB W3/362

 

 

Carried

 

4.2   Background Summary

In October 2017, Council approved the land to be declared road under Section 115 of the Public Works Act 1981. The decision was inadvertently made under the wrong section of the Act and now needs to be declared road under Section 114 of the Act.

Early in 2017 it was revealed that an historical anomaly exists to the front of 20 and 21 Chambers Street in that some of the formed road and footpath falls within the legal boundary of the two privately owned properties. The owners of both properties have agreed that Council remedy the situation by redefining the boundaries to reflect the current position.

4.3   Issues

There are no issues.

4.4   Significance and Consultation

Both property owners have been consulted.

4.5   Implications

Financial

Funding for the compensation and legalisation is to be provided from existing roading budgets.

Social & Policy

Not applicable

Risk

Not applicable.

4.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     That Council approve the resolution under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981.

4.7   Development of Preferred Option

Not applicable.

 

 

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

 

4.8   Attachments

a     Chambers Street legalisation   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

Reports from Finance Committee held 20 March 2018

 

1.    Hawkes Bay Local Authority Shared Services - Structure change

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

Document ID:

447078

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

To propose the legal structure of Hawke’s Bay Local Authority Shared Services Limited (HBLASS) become dormant in order to focus attention and resources on the purpose of HBLASS and reduce compliance costs for all the councils.

 

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Wright

That the Council:

a.     Agree HBLASS, as a legal entity will be dormant in the short term; with the ability for the legal entity able to be reactivated in the future.

b.     Note that the dormant status of HBLASS is effective on receipt of agreement by all members of the Board.

c.     Note that the decision on the dormant status of HBLASS will be determined by the majority of councils.

d.     Note that each Council will continue its participation in a Collaborative approach that has proven effective in a pilot: Hawke’s Bay Councils delivering Service and Value.

e.     That the Councils approve the exemption of HBLASS from the Council Controlled Organisation requirements (Local Government Act Section 7(3))

f.     Note that each Council will actively support shared and common goal setting, decision-making, resourcing including financial contribution, staff and communication.

 

Carried

 

1.2   Background Summary

Since 2012, when HBLASS was incorporated as a legal entity (see the Constitution at Attachment A), there has been significant effort to identify functions and analyse opportunities for shared services and joint procurement across the Hawke’s Bay Councils.

The effort and the results, through HBLASS have been focused largely on procurement and the development of shared IT services.  HBLASS funded a Chairperson for IT shared services, minutes, and governance as well as selective consulting studies and plans.  Because structural change and cost reduction are implicit in Shared Services, an “all in” model was met with resistance when timing and opportunities didn’t align with councils direction at a particular point in time.

In early 2017, there was a review leading to a recommitment to HBLASS efforts with Collaboration as an approach to improving Hawke’s Bay wide Service and Value. As part of the review, a new wider role of HBLASS Collaborator was introduced on a 6 month contract. 

        The principles of Collaboration are:

§ Discover who is doing what

§ Connect with others that share the same objective

§ Collaborate to delivery more for less.

The following summarises the Collaboration and outcomes in 2017:

 

The focus on collaboration versus Shared Services is consistent with the direction that a number of the Councils are taking in other regions.  Bay of Plenty for example has a collaboration portal that has resulted in improved knowledge sharing and efficiencies been delivered within projects and service delivery. This portal is now widely used by local Councils.  

Staff involved have delivered improved Service and Value across Hawke’s Bay in the following areas:

§ IT: Shared Infrastructure Services including Wide Area Network, Desktop and Web Services.

§ GIS: Shared Aerial Photography.

§ Open Spaces: Opportunities for One View of Information and Shared approaches to operations.

§ Animal Control: Opportunities for Shared Education and License Data.

§ Training and Development: Common Requirements and Shared Onsite Training.

§ Shared Internal Audit Services. Improved quality, value and efficiency.

§ Records Management: Common approaches.

 

1.3 Proposed Structure

The Chief Executive (CE) Forum, will replace the HBLASS board structure with the same five Council CEOs and independent chair – the function of HBLASS will continue but without the legislative requirements of operating a Company. The CE Forum group is fully committed to working together focusing on improving Service and Value for the Hawke’s Bay region through collaboration. The primary difference in the structure change is less time and resource spent on the requirements for an active Council-owned, legal entity and more focus on setting direction and enabling staff to achieve Service and Value. At the same time, the CE Forum provides an umbrella and common way of operating for the many collaborative initiatives across Hawke’s Bay, beyond HBLASS.

The administrative function is also significantly reduced. A lead council would be identified to maintain a ledger with invoicing to each council to recover agreed and shared costs for the Collaboration Program and any project expenses.

To deactivate a councils-owned company requires the following steps to be undertaken:

1.   Obtain a special resolution of shareholders (in writing and signed) stating the shareholders agree to shelve the company.

2.   Pay final GST return to Inland Revenue (HBLASS is not registered for FBT but this would apply if it were).

3.   Make final payouts as determined by above resolution (if applicable) to clear the bank accounts.

4.   Close bank accounts with Westpac.

5.   Deregister for GST with Inland Revenue.

6.   File the final income tax return (IR4) for the tax year (includes company accounts up to the point when business ceased, but note this cannot be filed early and is due after the end of the financial year in which HBLASS closed).

7.   File the IR433 Non-Active Company Declaration form with Inland Revenue.

 

The HBLASS Limited legal entity can be reactivated in the future if business models, organisational, contract or procurement changes require a separate legal entity

1.4   Issues

There are no foreseen issues or risks at this time. This structural change will cost less and focus attention on the purpose of the LASS.

1.5   Significance and Consultation

The Board is comprised of the five Chief Executives of the Hawke’s Bay Councils.  All Chief Executives agree with the recommendation to make the HBLASS company dormant and have approved a motion at their meeting on December 8, 2017.

Each Council is now being consulted with a recommendation to make the HBLASS company dormant.  The Chief Executives intend to still refer to their activities and undertaking as a group as HBLASS, but not as a separate legal entity.  The Councils are requested to provide a response to this proposal by the end of March 2018.

 

1.6   Implications

Financial

There will be residual funding from the current years subscription, and it is proposed to transfer this to Napier City Council, where it will provide an accountability report.  The residual fund will be to pay for the continued services of the Chairman and Collaborator roles.

Social & Policy

Through the Collaboration pilot in 2017, there has been a significant interest shown by staff in the opportunities for improved Service and Value across Hawke’s Bay that will contribute to the outcome of health and prosperity of the region.

Risk

The requirements of being a CCO will still need to be met if the Councils wish to continue with the Company in its current format, including the preparation of a Statement of Intent. This work has currently been put on hold.

Councils may decide not to continue to fund the Chairperson and Collaborator role and further opportunities on effective and efficient services may be missed.

1.7   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.   Approve the recommendation to make dormant HB Local Authority Shared Services Limited.

b.   Not approve the recommendation with HBLASS Limited to continue in its current form.

c.   Recommend that all shared service/collaboration activities cease immediately.

1.8   Development of Preferred Option

Option A – Make the HBLASS legal entity dormant as this will result in a lower financial and administration burden to the councils while improving the focus to meet Service and Value outcomes.

As noted above during the review of HBLASS in 2017, LASS organizations around New Zealand were approached to share their experience. Success was linked directly with a collaborative approach. Other LASS organizations that have taken the traditional structural/cost reduction approach with services being operated and contracts run through the LASS, are currently assessing the change to a collaborative approach for more robust and relevant solutions.

HBLASS has taken the initiative to test collaboration in the Hawke’s Bay environment during 2017. There has been considerable success over the six months of this pilot to test collaboration. In order for further improvement, there must be greater engagement, client focus, leadership accountability and strengthening of a collaborative culture.

 

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, the Director Corporate Services and Chief Executive noted the following:

·     Officers do not expect the proposed changes to have any effect on budgets.

·     The proposed changes will allow Council to invest more time directly in collaboration opportunities.

·     Funding for the Chairperson and Collaborator roles will continue at this time as part of Council’s commitment to shared services.

·     The Collaborator will continue to report to the Chief Executive Forum and will meet with the shared services groups regularly.

·     Newsletters providing updates on shared interests and outcomes will continue to be circulated to councils, including Councillors, and uploaded to the website. A Collaboration booklet is being prepared for distribution also.

 

1.3   Attachments

a     HBLass Constitution 2012   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

2.    Representation Review

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Local Electoral Act 2001

Document ID:

441536

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance

Rachael Horton, Manager Business Excellence & Transformation

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To determine Council’s initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 and 2022 elections.

 

That Council:

 

Approve the initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 and 2022 elections, and that the proposal be distributed for public consultation, that initial proposal being:

 

a.     the basis of election is Ward-only based on the current Ward structure:

i.      that two Elected Members be elected by the electors of the Ahuriri Ward

ii.     that two Elected Members be elected by the electors of the Onekawa-Tamatea Ward

iii.    that four Elected Members be elected by the electors of the Nelson Park Ward

iv.    that four Elected Members be elected by the electors of the Taradale Ward 

 

b.     the total number of Elected Members is 12 and the Mayor

 

c.     that there be no community boards within Napier City. 

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Price / Mayor Dalton

That Council:

 

Approve the initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 and 2022 elections, and that the proposal be distributed for public consultation, that initial proposal being:

 

a.     retain the status quo of representation arrangements as they currently stand; 12 Elected Members, current ward structure, mixed system of six Elected Members at large, and six Elected Members elected via wards

Cr Boag against

 

b.     the total number of Elected Members is 12 and the Mayor

 

c.     that there be no community boards within Napier City. 

 

Carried

 

2.2   Background Summary

What are representation arrangements?

Representation arrangements are the way the public are represented for local government elections for a Local Authority such as Napier City Council, including the following options:

·     The basis of election; that is, whether the election of members (also known as councillors, other than the Mayor) is by:

the entire electoral district (called ‘at large’),

the division of the district into wards for electoral purposes, or

a mix of ‘at large’ and ward representation.

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

·     The total number of members that are elected to the governing body of the 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. 

What are the benefits of undertaking a representation review? 

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

Both the Local Government Act 2002 (Act 2002) and the Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act 2001) highlight that diversity of communities’ matters in local government decision-making (see sections 3, 10(1), 14(1), of the Act 2002 and section 4, (1), of the Act 2001). 

As outlined above, there are different options for representation arrangements, and the Act 2001, section 3(c) enshrines a review of these options to allow diversity in local decision-making. 

Principles outlined in the Act 2001 that govern the requirement to undertake a representation review include:

·              Fair and effective representation for individuals and communities,

·     Reasonable and equal opportunity:

to vote

nominate, or be nominated as candidates, and

·     Public confidence in, and public understanding of local electoral processes. 

A key outcome of undertaking a representation review is that communities of interest within a district are well represented on the governing body of Council and that voters have an equal vote.  

 

What is the process officers have undertaken to inform this representation review?

At least every six years, a Local Authority must review its arrangements. Napier City Council last reviewed its arrangements in 2012 and therefore was required to review in 2018 and decide on any changes.

For this review, Officers have undertaken data-gathering and pre-consultation with Napier residents, and analysis of fair and effective representation, resulting in the Representation Review Analysis Paper (Attachment A).   For more information on the process refer to the methodology section of the Analysis paper.   

The process undertaken reflects the Local Government Commission’s best practice guidelines that state that Councils should undertake pre-consultation with the public and undertake analysis on fair and effective representation.  This is because the decision on representation arrangements must not be limited to reflecting community views, but must seek to achieve fair and effective representation for all individuals and communities.

A key part of the analysis is to identify communities of interest within Napier, and then identify how these communities could be most effectively and fairly represented. 

Officers have updated Elected Members in Committee meetings in August and December 2017 on the process being undertaken and the results of pre-consultation (Attachment B provides the Representation Review survey report, Attachment C provides the survey responses on Community Boards). 

What are the next steps in the process?

This report presents the analysis of the review to inform Council’s decision on the initial proposal; this will then be publicly notified, and submissions invited.   

Once Council makes a decision on the initial proposal, the statutory process commences.

Napier residents will have an opportunity to provide their thoughts on the proposal via submissions once the initial proposal is released.  A hearing will be held where Council can consider feedback from Napier residents, and decide whether to modify their initial proposal or not.  The initial proposal then becomes the final proposal.  

The final proposal will be publically notified, and Napier residents will have the opportunity to make an appeal or objection on the final proposal to the Local Government Commission.  At this point, it is the Commission which makes a final determination on Napier’s representation arrangements, and Council has no further role in deciding. 

Indicative timeframes for the statutory process include:

·     Council decision 3 April and public notice (April)

·     Submission period and consideration (April/May)

·     Public notice of final proposal (June)

·     Appeals and objections to Local Government Commission (June-December)

·     Local Government Commission considers appeals and objections (January to April 2019)

·     Implementation of determination (April-June 2019).

 

What were the key findings from the analysis report?

Key findings of the analysis include:

        History of Napier’s representation arrangements

·     Strong local democracy can be measured by high voter turnout, more than one candidate for each seat, and diversity of candidates.

·     Survey respondents prefer the current mixed election system made up of six at large and six ward Elected Members.

·     Of the three election systems Napier has had over the last 40 years, the ward system followed by the mixed system created more fair and effective representation than the at large system. 

·     Napier’s mixed system is unusual; most councils have a ward system.

 

        Communities of interest

·     Napier is made up of diverse communities.

·     Napier’s suburbs have their own community characteristics.

·     The current ward system mostly caters for suburbs that share community characteristics.

·     Suburbs that are distinct have sufficient commonality among other suburbs within the current ward structure.

       

        Effective representation

·     Using the existing ward structure, the most effective system for representing communities of interest is the ward system, followed by the mixed system.

·     The at large system best reflects Napier residents’ feedback that their community of interest is “Napier”, but has in the past led to less candidates, less diversity among candidates, and lower voter turnout.

·     The mixed system has in the past led to single candidates for a ward seat being elected unopposed; giving no choice to voters.

·     The ward system has in the past provided higher number of candidates and more diverse candidates.

·     Napier could feasibly reduce the number of Elected Members to 10 and still be in line with other city councils for representation ratios.

 

        Fair representation

·     Napier’s current rate of elected members is higher in comparison to other city councils.

·     Nelson Park Ward residents are the least engaged in local democracy and have the highest deprivation levels which can be a barrier to their engagement.

·     Avoiding single member wards helps to improve voter choice and representation for ward residents.

 

        Community Boards

·     Bayview and Maraenui are distinct communities of interest for a community board.

·     Survey respondents do not have a strong preference to establish community boards, and there is even less appetite by ratepayers to pay for them.

·     Survey respondents have identified they are seeking an improved council to community connection.

·     Improvements to existing mechanisms can achieve the same outcomes for better

representation as a community board might do. 

The analysis paper contains detailed information to support the key findings, and provides feasible options for consideration.

 

2.3   Issues

At a seminar with Elected Members on 7 March 2018, Elected Members asked officials to look into the following:

A)   Whether three wards could be justified in terms of fair and effective representation, used in a mixed system with no single-member wards, and the total of Elected Members remaining at 12.   

 

B)   Whether there are any options for retaining a mixed system with the current ward structure, with no single-member wards, and reducing the number of At Large Elected Members (possibly to four) to retain a total of 12 Elected Members.  

 

Officials considered both A and B and presented the analysis to these in Attachment D. 

2.4   Significance and Consultation

Representation arrangements affect all Napier residents and have a high degree of significance.  As outlined earlier, pre-consultation was undertaken with all of Napier’s residents, firstly via a commissioned survey covering all representation arrangements, and secondly via a survey undertaken by Officers on community boards.  

The statutory process under the Act 2001 and Act 2002 includes a high level of community engagement in it, as already outlined in this report.  The statutory process will commence following Council’s decision on the initial proposal. 

2.5   Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications with the Officer’s recommendation. 

It is estimated that the cost to establish community boards for options d ii – iv, would add up to $200,000 to rates per annum. 

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There is a risk that residents in higher deprivation areas may end up with lower population-member ratios than those residents from low deprivation areas.  To mitigate this risk, the analysis report clearly states that consideration should be given when calculating options for fair representation to ensuring that residents from high deprivation areas are given an adequate voice. 

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     (preferred option) Retain the current ward structure and total number of Elected Members and move to a ward only system.  No community boards are established.  Under this option:

i.      current ward structure is retained which gives particular representation to voters in high deprivation areas, does not split recognised communities of interest between electoral sub-divisions, and does not group together two or more communities of interest that have few common interests. 

ii.     it is more likely there will be a choice of candidates for each seat, avoid single member wards, and provide more diverse candidates. 

iii.    the number of Elected Members would remain at 12.

 

b.     Status Quo - Retain the status quo of representation arrangements as they currently stand; 12 Elected Members, current ward structure, mixed system of six Elected Members elected at large, and six Elected Members elected via wards.  No community boards.

Under this option:

i.      it is likely that there will be Elected Members who stand unopposed, thus giving no choice for voters. 

 

c.     Retain status quo, except for reducing the total number of Elected Members to 10 or 11 by reducing at large Elected Members to four or five. No community boards are established. Under this option: 

i.      Population-member ratios would be more in line with other city councils.

 

d.     Community Boards are either:

i.      Not established (preferred option). 

Under this option, improvements to existing mechanisms for the public to engage with Council, and a full ward system with actively engaged Elected Members would provide the types of improvements to Council/community connection that are being looked for in community boards. 

ii.     Established in Bayview.

iii.    Established in Maraenui.

iv.    Established in Maraenui and Bayview.

 

e.     Three ward system, based on:

i.      Ward configurations:

1.  Ahuriri Ward: Bayview, Ahuriri, Hospital Hill, Bluff Hill, Westshore, Nelson Park, McLean Park, Meeanee, Awatoto, Poraiti (three Elected Members)

2.  Onekawa Ward: Onekawa West, South, Central, Marewa, Maraenui, Tamatea North & South, Pirimai (four Elected Members)

3.  Taradale Ward: Taradale North & South, Greenmeadows. (three Elected Members)

ii.     12 Elected Members in total, including two at large Elected Members.

iii.    No community boards.

        Under this option: two at large Elected Members are retained which all voters can vote for, so gives them a choice beyond the candidates standing for their ward; it avoids single-member wards.  It is a new ward configuration, and therefore voters would need to become aware of it.  

 

f.     Three ward system, based on:

i.      Ward configurations:

1.  Ahuriri Ward: Bayview, Ahuriri, Hospital Hill, Bluff Hill, Westshore, Nelson Park, McLean Park, Meeanee, Awatoto, Poraiti (three Elected Members)

2.  Onekawa Ward: Onekawa West, South, Central, Marewa, Maraenui, Pirimai (three Elected Members)

3.  Taradale Ward: Taradale North & South, Greenmeadows, Tamatea North & South (four Elected Members)

ii.     12 Elected Members in total, including two at large Elected Members.

iii.    No community boards.

        Under this option: two at large Elected Members are retained which all voters can vote for, so gives them a choice beyond the candidates standing for their ward; it avoids single-member wards.  It is a new ward configuration, and therefore voters would need to become aware of it.  

 

For the particular sections in the Analysis Report that support the options as outlined above, the following pages refer:

 

·     Pages 35-36: Based on effective representation, the key advantages and disadvantages of each system (e.g. at large, mixed, and wards).  The two most effective options are considered to be to retain the mixed system, or move to a ward system.

·     Pages 37-38: For Council size, the two most effective options are considered to retain the status quo of 12 or reduce to 11 or 10. 

·     Pages 41-43: For fair representation, the two options are to retain the mixed system and current ward configuration and number of Elected Members per wards, and reduce the number of at large Elected Members to 11, or to move to a ward only system based on the current ward configuration. 

·     Pages 53-54: For analysis on Community Boards. 

 

        Pages 1-7: Addendum (Attachment D) for analysis on three ward configuration. 

 

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

Option A is the preferred option due to the benefits as outlined above. 

 

 

At the Meeting

Councillor Price moved a substitute motion that Part A of the Officer’s Recommendation reflect that option 2.6b (being the status quo of 12 Councillors, six ward Councillors under the current ward structure and six at large Councillors) be the preferred option taken out for consultation.

In response to questions from Councillors, the Team Leader Governance clarified the following points:

·     75% of Territorial Authorities use the ward-only system. 7% of Territorial Authorities (Five councils including Napier) currently use the mixed system, with Tauranga being the only other City Council. 

·     Option B with three wards and four ‘at large’ councillors (which was not outlined in the Council report as an option, but considered in Attachment D, page 169), is initially considered feasible; consideration would need to be given as to whether the new ward boundaries and configuration of Councillors would appropriately group communities of interest together to ensure fair and effective representation.  The analysis shows that the four current wards generally accommodate the communities of interest well.

In discussion in relation to Part A of the Officer’s Recommendation (basis of election), the following points were made by some Councillors:

·     The analysis undertaken is extremely comprehensive and a useful starting point for this discussion.

·     Napier is a small city which does not take long to traverse and some Councillors believed that this means that all Councillors are already very accessible to the public.

·     Napier’s Council is currently diverse and one Councillor felt that it was adequately representative of the Napier community.

·     Although the analysis shows that a ward-only system has historically provided a good level of effective and fair representation, some Councillors were concerned that this was not the community’s preferred basis for election as outlined in the pre-consultation. 

·     It was believed that the mixed system provides a level of ‘check and balance’ between the ward Councillors and at large councillors, with at large Councillors taking a city-wide view in decision-making.

·     A full ward system could result in block voting and were concerned that this would translate to ineffective representation.

·     There was some question as to whether the ward-only system would actually translate into increased voter turnout or participation. Napier already has higher voting numbers than the rest of the country, even with the existing mixed system.

·     The current mixed system allows voters to choose a larger proportion of the total Councillors than would be possible under a ward only system.

·     There have been a number of instances of unopposed elections to ward positions which may be seen to reduce democracy; in cases where there is a strong incumbent potential new candidates may be deterred from standing.

·     There was general agreement that single member ward councillors face particular challenges under the current structure.

·     There was general agreement that a mixed system offered the “best of both worlds” but the current ‘status quo’ could be improved, for example by removing single member wards.

·     It was suggested that a mixed system based on 3 wards may offer another option for consideration as a possible structure.

·     There is a lack of clarity around the roles of ‘at large’ Councillors; they are very willing to be involved in ward-specific activities and communications, but would appreciate guidance from ward Councillors on how best to be involved.

·     Ward Councillors noted that it would be helpful to be able to spread the workload at times and increased numbers of members in each ward would contribute towards this.

·     Councillors were interested to see the results of future public consultation and would like for the full analysis undertaken by Officer’s to be made available to the public in this process.

With regards to Parts B and C of the Officer’s recommendation (total number of Councillors and Community Boards),

·     There was general agreement to retain 12 Councillors plus the Mayor.

·     There was a general discussion around whether community boards would help voter turnout and engagement in some areas. It was noted that the people most likely to stand as candidates for a community board would be the same people that are already heavily committed with other boards.

·     Council recognise that some communities of interest are quite disengaged from Council but this can be addressed in other ways.

It was decided to take the Officer’s Recommendation in separate parts for clarity on the final Committee Recommendation to Council.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Representation Review: Analysis Report 

b     Representation Review survey report 

c     Community Board survey responses 

d     Representation Review addendum   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

3.    Financial Forecast to 30 June 2018

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

445812

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

To report to Council the financial forecast to the 30 June 2018 for the whole of Council.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Hague / Taylor

That the Committee

a.     Receive the financial forecast to 30 June 2018.

 

Carried

 

3.2   Background Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a financial forecast for Council’s operating and capital expenditure to 30 June 2018. The operating and capital forecasts are based on actual expenditure January year to date, plus estimated remaining spend for the 2017/18 financial year. Attachment A provides analysis of the variations between the Annual Plan 2017/18 and financial forecast for 2017/18 for both capital and operational items.

Net operating expenditure

The operational forecast shows a forecast net surplus of $5.3m at 30 June 2018 which is below the budgeted surplus of $5.7m (see Attachment A).

Capital plan

Officers have reviewed the timing of the capital programme and this has resulted in a number of projects being reprioritised. The capital plan for 2017/18 (including vested assets) is forecast at $39.7m compared to budget of $51.3m (see Attachment A). The key movements between 2017/18 and 2018/19 in the forecast capital plan are set out below:

·     A review has been undertaken with NZTA on the reseal programme, $1.5m identified works now not required this financial year

·     Revised Stormwater renewal programme $200k.  The Te Awa Structure Plan project is being reviewed as part of the 2018-28 LTP which may impact the timing of this project $300k

·     Revised timing of Sewage renewal programme, and included in LTP - $1.3m

·     Council decision not to proceed with Multi Use Sports Facility $3.1m.  Park Island Expansion rescheduled and included in the LTP $2m

·     CBD Parking options still under review $3.2m

 

 

3.3   Issues

The proposed capital plan for year 1 of 2018-28 Long Term Plan will include capital projects that have transferred from 2017/18.

3.4   Significance and Consultation

The issues for discussion are not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and no consultation is required.

3.5   Implications

Financial

Attachment B includes a summary schedule by activity group, and shows the net movement in the funding source for both operating and capital expenditure.

Attachment C sets out all rate funded and non-rate funded movements. The main reason for the forecast reduction in funding required for 2017/18 is due to moving capital projects out to future years.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

Officers have undertaken a risk assessment on project timing. It was assessed that there is no change in risk as a result of these project movements.  Officers will continue to monitor and identify any variance to the capital work programme and will report to management on a monthly basis.

3.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Council can receive the financial forecast to 30 June 2018.

3.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is that Council receive the financial forecast to 30 June 2018.

 

 

At the Meeting

The Chief Financial Officer spoke to the report highlighting the following points:

·     The forecast net surplus is $5.3M at 30 June 2018.

·     The forecast capital plan is $39.7M down from $51.3M as a result of:

A review by the New Zealand Transport Agency which identified works now not required in this financial year,

The revised stormwater and sewerage renewal programmes,

Council’s decision not to proceed with the multi-use sports facility, and

The current review of CBD parking options.  

 

3.8   Attachments

a     Financial forecast to 30 June 2018 (attachment A) 

b     Funding source by activity group (attachment B) 

c     Summary of rate funded and non-rate funded movements (attachment C)   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

4.    Hawke's Bay Museums Trust - Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 20

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

435714

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To provide the draft Statement of Intent 2018 – 20 for the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust to Council for its consideration as part of the reporting requirements for council-controlled organisations.

 

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Hague

That Council

a.     Receive the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 20 and provide any feedback to the Trust for their consideration.

 

Carried

 

4.2   Background Summary

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out monitoring and reporting requirements of council organisations (Part 5, Section 66, Local Government Act 2002).  The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust is a council-controlled organisation as defined under Part 1, Section 6, of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.3   Issues

No Issues

4.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

4.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

 

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors it was noted that the management agreement between Council and the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust clearly outlines Council’s responsibilities in relation to managing the collection. 

 

4.6   Attachments

a     HBMT Statement of Intent with letter to NCC   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

5.    Hawke's Bay Museums Trust - Half Yearly Report to 31 December 2017

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

435717

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

5.1   Purpose of Report

To provide the half-yearly report for 2017/18 for the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust for adoption.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Price

That Council

a.     Receive the half-yearly report for 2017/18 from the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust.

 

Carried

 

5.2   Background Summary

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out monitoring and reporting requirements of council organisations (Part 5, Section 66, Local Government Act 2002).  The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust is a council-controlled organisation as defined under Part 1, Section 6, of the Local Government Act 2002.

The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust must produce a half-yearly report within 2 months after the end of the first half of each financial year.  The Board is required to deliver this report to shareholders.  This report must also include any information outlined in its Statement of Intent.

The half-yearly report covers the period from 1 July 2017 – 31 December 2017.

5.3   Issues

No Issues

5.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

5.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

 

 

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

 

5.6   Attachments

a     HBMT Half-Year Financial Report to 31 December 2017   

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

6.    Quarterly Report for the six months ended 31 December 2017

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

446664

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

6.1   Purpose of Report

To consider the Quarterly Report for the six months ended 31 December 2017.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Brosnan

That the Committee

a.     Receive the Quarterly Report for the six months ended 31 December 2017.

 

Carried

 

6.2   Background Summary

The Quarterly Report summarises the Council’s progress in the second quarter of 2017/18 towards fulfilling the intentions outlined in the Annual Plan. Quarterly performance is assessed against income, total operating expenditure, and capital expenditure.

6.3   Issues

No issues.

6.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

6.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

 

 

At the Meeting

Councillors noted the quality of the report and appreciated that it was very user friendly. 

 

6.6   Attachments

a     Quarterly report Second quarter - Oct 2017 - Dec 2017 (Under Separate Cover)   

 

  


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

 

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

 

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 6 March 2018

1.         Reappointment of Chair to Hawke's Bay Museums Trust

2.         Council Projects Fund - Application

Reports from Finance Committee held 20 March 2018

1.         Digital Equity for All - Te Papa Partnership

 

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.

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 where the withholding of the information is necessary to:

Ground(s) under section 48(1) to the passing of this resolution.

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:

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 6 March 2018

1.  Reappointment of Chair to Hawke's Bay Museums Trust

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.

2.  Council Projects Fund - Application

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.

Reports from Finance Committee held 20 March 2018

1.  Digital Equity for All - Te Papa Partnership

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.

 

 


Maori Consultative Committee - 27 March 2018 - Open Agenda

 

 

MĀori Consultative Committee

Open Minutes

 

Meeting Date:

Tuesday 13 February 2018

Time:

3.05pm – 3.53pm

Venue

Council Chamber
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
Napier

 

 

Present:

Piri Prentice (In the Chair), Councillor Apiata Tapine, Liz Ratima, Tiwana Aranui, Mayor Bill Dalton and George (Hori) Reti [arrived at 3.12pm]

In Attendance:

Chief Executive [until 3.29pm], Strategic Māori Advisor, Councillor Boag

Administration:

Governance Team

 

 

Karakia

A karakia was delivered by Tiwana Aranui and responded to by the Chair.

Apologies

Apologies

Councillor Apiata Tapine / Tiwana Aranui

That the apologies for lateness from George (Hori) Reti be accepted.

Carried

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

The Strategic Māori Advisor confirmed that due to likely wet weather the Art Deco Festival Pōwhiri will now be held at the MTG, commencing at 9am.

Confirmation of minutes

Tiwana Aranui / Liz Ratima

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

Carried

  


 

Reports from standing committees

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Māori Consultative Recommendations arising from the discussion of the Committee reports be submitted to the Council meeting for consideration.

 

 

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 30 January 2018

 

1.    Leasehold Land Policy Review

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

430497

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property  

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a review of the Investment Property Portfolio policy through the long term plan process.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor spoke to the report and explained that the Council owns a considerable amount of leasehold land, predominantly commercial leasehold land. This paper has been brought to Council to give them the option to freehold specified non-strategic leasehold land where alternative suitable investments are preferred.

 

George Reti arrived at the meeting at 3.12pm

 

In response to questions from the committee the following points were clarified:

·         The income from the leasehold land is required to be used for the upkeep of the foreshore and inner harbour.

·         The land must be identified as non-strategic land before a sale can be considered.

·         Councillor Apiata Tapine noted that he could not see that any of the land referred to in this report would be near any sites of cultural significance.

·         The previous policy remains in place for residential leasehold land.

 

Following on from this report a general discussion was held in relation to building standards and social housing in Napier.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

Committee’s recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Taylor

That Council

 

a.     Direct officers to consult on the proposed Investment Property Portfolio policy changes as part of the Long Term Plan process, including the following amendments:

 

·      To allow freeholding of specific land identified in the June 2016 Boffa Miskell report “Napier City Investment Portfolio: Urban Landscape Strategic review” as non-strategic, on a case by case basis and only when alternative and suitable investments can be found.

·      That recommendations on the freeholding of all identified non- strategic land be considered by the Audit and Risk Committee in the first instance for recommendation to Council.

·      That the sale of leasehold land be a delegation of Council.

·      That a divestment procedure be established and approved by Council resolution prior to the release of any leasehold land, should the policy be adopted.

 

Carried

 

 


 

2.    Summer Street Party - Sale of Food

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

440277

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To obtain a Council resolution to allow food trucks to operate within Emerson Street at the upcoming Summer Street Party on 17 March 2018 in accordance with the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2014.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor and Chief Executive spoke to the report and advised the Committee that the Summer Street Party was originally planned to coincide with the Mission Concert on 17 March. Even though the concert has been cancelled, Council and Hawkes Bay Tourism are still proposing to go ahead with this event to encourage people to continue with their plans to visit Hawke’s Bay for the weekend. Council staff have consulted with retailers in relation to the Street Party and have confirmed with food vendors that competing trucks will not be positioned in front of their businesses.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

Committee’s recommendation

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That Council

 

a.     Allow mobile food vendors to operate within the public spaces of Emerson Street on the 17th March 2018 as part of the Summer Street Party event, and as approved by Council’s events team.

 

Carried

 

 


 

3.    Temporary Liquor Ban - Mission Concert

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

429442

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions  

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

To consider the formal request from New Zealand Police for a temporary liquor ban on the roads adjacent to the Mission Estate Winery during the 2018 concert.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chair confirmed that this item has been pulled from the agenda. Due to cancellation of the Mission Concert, the New Zealand Police have officially withdrawn their request for a temporary liquor ban.

There was no discussion on this item at the meeting.

 

4.    Herschell and Byron Street Parking Reconfiguration

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Traffic Regulations

Document ID:

433679

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions  

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To formalise the Herschell Street off street car parking reconfiguration and the Byron Street on street parking charge resulting from the relocation of the Napier Public Library.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor spoke to the report noting that as a result of relocating the library into the temporary premises at the MTG there is now a need to reconfigure the parking in the surrounding area to accommodate visitors to the library.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

committee’s recommendation

Councillors Wright / Boag

That Council

 

a.     Convert the Herschell Street car park from a leased car park to a pay and display car park.

b.     Convert the on street car parking on Byron Street to pay and display

c.     Set the tariff for car parking at $1.00 per hour for both the car park and on street parking.

 

Carried

 

 

5.    Ground lease - Eskview and Districts Rugby Football Club Incorporated

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Reserves Act 1977

Document ID:

434200

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

 

5.1   Purpose of Report

To obtain Council approval to grant a new ground lease to the Eskview and Districts Rugby Football Club Incorporated for the land occupied by the Club’s building on Petane War Memorial Domain for a term of 15 years with one 15 year right of renewal.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor noted that Council are simply agreeing to renew a long-standing ground lease arrangement with the Eskview and Districts Rugby Football Club.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

 

 

 

committee’s recommendation

Councillors Taylor / White

        That Council:

 

a.     Approve a new ground lease be granted to the Eskview and Districts Rugby Football Club Incorporated for the land occupied by the Club’s building on Petane War Memorial Domain for a term of 15 years with one 15 year right of renewal.

 

b.     Approve that the terms and conditions of the lease will be as per Council’s standard terms and conditions for leases of Reserve land to community groups. The initial ground rental will be a nominal rental of $200.00 plus GST per annum, reviewed annually according to the method laid out in the standard terms described above.

 

Carried

 

 

6.    15 Craven Terrace, land legalisation - land to be declared road

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Public Works Act 1981

Document ID:

434199

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

 

6.1   Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval pursuant to Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 that the land in question be declared road.

 

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor clarified that this report is requesting to redefine the boundaries where part of a road currently falls within the boundary of another property owner.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

 

 

 

committee’s recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Wright

That Council

 

a.     Declare that, pursuant to Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981, the land in the schedule below to be road

SCHEDULE

 

Hawke’s Bay Land District – Napier City

 

Area

Legal Description

Part of Certificate of Title

0.0068 ha

Section 1 SO Plan 518661

HB E4/507

 

 

Carried

 

 

7.    Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee - Minutes - 23 November 2017

Type of Report:

Procedural

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

430450

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Deborah Smith, Governance Advisor

 

7.1   Purpose of Report

To present to Council the draft Minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee from 23 November 2017.

 

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

Liz Ratima / Tiwana Aranui

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

Carried

 

 

 

 

committee’s recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Tapine

That Council

 

a.     Receive the draft Minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee from 23 November 2017.

 

Carried

 

 

general business

The Chief Executive confirmed that once the draft Long Term Plan has been finalised this will be circulated to the Committee. The Committee members will also be consulted on the Waste Management Plan.

 

The Chief Executive left the meeting at 3.29pm

 

The Chair held a round table discussion and members of the Committee spoke to items of interest.

 

The Chair asked George (Hori) Reti to close the meeting.

 

The meeting was closed at 3.53pm.  

 

Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

 

Chairperson .............................................................................................................................

 

 

Date of approval ......................................................................................................................