Agenda of Māori Consultative Committee

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 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 2 October 2018

1. Amendment of Resolution - War Memorial Consultation Options

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
Document ID:	636482
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Wayne Jack, Chief Executive

1.1 Purpose of Report

To recommend the amendment of the part b of the resolution of Council dated 29 June 2018 regarding the Napier War Memorial consultation options.

Officer’s recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

That Council:

Approve that the following assessed design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also feedback into any potential modifications:

· Option Two – Building solution outside of the main Memorial Building

· Option Three – Landscape solution outside of the main Memorial Building

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

Substitute Motion

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

a. That Council approve the withdrawal of the Brent Scott design from the community consultation process and replace this with an internal example/concept, that being the design concept prepared by Craig Morley.

b. That the following three design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also input into any potential alternative designs or modifications:

a) Option One - Renovation solution Internal to the main Memorial Building

b) Option Two – Building solution external to the main Memorial Building

c) Option Three - Landscape solution external to the main Memorial Building

c. That Council notes the offer of the video and images of Option One from Mr Morley and agrees that these will be sufficient to include in the consultation without needing to incur additional design costs.

d. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

The division was declared carried by 6 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, McGrath, Tapine and Wise

Against: Councillors Hague, White and Wright

Abstained: Councillor Price

Council Resolution

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

b. That the following three design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also input into any potential alternative designs or modifications:

a) Option One - Renovation solution Internal to the main Memorial Building

b) Option Two – Building solution external to the main Memorial Building

c) Option Three - Landscape solution external to the main Memorial Building

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

At it’s extraordinary meeting of 29 June 2018, Council passed the following resolution:

Following that resolution, Option One (“Annex attached to the main building”) was withdrawn by the designer. The reasons provided to the Chief Executive, and circulated to Council in early July 2018, included recognition that the design would not be viable without substantial alterations to the building entry and foyer, fire escape and disabled access and site levels in the forecourt. It was also noted that there would be Health and Safety as well as logistical issues with building a memorial wing on the forecourt that would impact upon the operation of the facility.

Although the design was withdrawn entirely at the decision of its originator and not at the behest of Council, it is believed that an amendment to specify that Council will now be consulting on two options may increase clarity for the consultation process.

1.3 Issues

N/A

1.4 Significance and Engagement

The proposed amendment will enhance clarity as Council goes out to public consultation on the War Memorial design options. Other proposals from the public can be considered against the criteria following the consultation.

1.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To amend the existing resolution for clarity prior to initiating public consultation on the War Memorial design options.

b. To uphold the existing resolution

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

Consultation on the ‘third option’ is not feasible following advice from the Architect and would delay consultation considerably as reworked designs and costings would need to be obtained as it is not feasible. It is therefore recommended that this option be withdrawn and the resolution is amended.

At the Meeting

The Chair clarified that his recommendation was for the matter to be open to discussion, and the recommendation noted in the report is incorrect.

A substitute motion was moved by Councillor Wise to include a third option, internal to the War Memorial building, to go out for consultation.

The following points were noted in favour of including the internal option:

· Following the Council decision of 29 June 2018, the Brent Scott design was withdrawn as it is not viable without substantial changes to the current building. It was questioned why this concept was initially included in the design options.

· As the design brief was signed off by the War Memorial working group, not Council, a Councillor suggested that the process by which the original three design concepts were assessed was flawed.

· Attendees at a public meeting held on 16 September 2018 were presented with three designs including the internal design prepared by Mr Morley. The majority voted in favour of including an internal option.

· It was proposed that Mr Morley’s option should be included as an internal example in response to the community’s wishes as Council has been assured all along that the design concepts are examples for the community to consider.

· It was noted that Mr Morley had agreed to his design images being used in the consultation process.

· Providing three different concepts as examples truly gives the community an opportunity to engage in this process; a wide breadth of options should be provided.

· The community of interest in this matter, although not a majority anymore, must be encouraged to participate in the process. A Councillor stated that we must learn from the Easter Sunday Trading decision and encourage the community’s participation.

It was acknowledged that preliminary costings would be required for the third option to be included in the consultation.

The following points were noted against including a third option:

· The proposed design has not undergone the testing that has been completed for the other two designs.

· Council does not want to prolong the process of returning the War Memorial to the site and Council is ready with a consultation plan now. This consultation process will provide our community with the opportunity to comment on the two designs, as well as submitting other options for Council to consider. These options can be internal and external designs and can include Mr Morley’s design as a submission.

· Why should this proposed internal option be included when other members of the community have not had an opportunity to submit their designs?

1.8 Attachments

Nil

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

2. Easter Sunday Trading Policy

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	632729
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

2.1 Purpose of Report

A high court decision on 1 August 2018 overturned the current Easter Sunday Trading Policy that allowed shops within the Napier District to open on Easter Sunday. This report is to seek Council approval to re consult on an Easter Sunday Trading Policy. This requires Council to adopt a draft policy, the accompanying Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), and to authorise officers to commence the special consultative procedure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal; and

b. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002.

c. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently so that public consultation may be initiated as soon as possible.

Substitute Motion

Councillors Boag / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Agree the proposed changes to the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, as follows:

1. Include in Reason for Proposal section (page 10):

Pharmacy and Souvenir Shops, as these are also to be open under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

2. Add in another heading:

What would happen if we do not pass this policy?

We would return to the situation in which some shops listed above could open and others not.

3. Include in the Religious Beliefs section (page 11):

During consultation with the community in 2016 and 2017 on the previous Easter Sunday Trading Policy, Council received feedback from parts of the community that demonstrated concerns with having a policy that removed one of the few remaining days where shops were not legally able to trade. Council is keen to understand the Napier community’s views on this aspect of the policy.

4. That the survey on page 11 of the proposal be removed.

b. Approve the Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, with the agreed amendments as set out in Part A.

c. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002

d. Officers to prepare an engagement plan that is specifically directed to Christian Churches, Unions, Retail and business organisations.

e. Request that council be provided with a full briefing of the High Court ruling by our legal representation

f. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

Carried

Council Resolution

Councillors Boag / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Agree the proposed changes to the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, as follows:

1. Include in Reason for Proposal section (page 10):

Pharmacy and Souvenir Shops, as these are also to be open under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

2. Add in another heading:

What would happen if we do not pass this policy?

We would return to the situation in which some shops listed above could open and others not.

3. Include in the Religious Beliefs section (page 11):

4. That the survey on page 11 of the proposal be removed.

b. Approve the Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, with the agreed amendments as set out in Part A.

c. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002

d. Officers to prepare an engagement plan that is specifically directed to Christian Churches, Unions, Retail and business organisations.

e. Request that council be provided with a full briefing of the High Court ruling by our legal representation

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

Council adopted an Easter Trading Policy at a Council meeting in February 2017. Adoption of this policy has allowed shops to open on Easter Sunday in 2017 and 2018. However, Council were challenged on the adequacy of the process of undertaking the special consultative procedure. The judicial review centred on Councils interpretation of Part 6 of the Local Government Act that prescribes decision-making and consultation and Section 14 that sets out principles relating to local authorities. The focus was on Council’s process of identifying affected parties, over and above consulting with the community as a whole. The judicial review process clarified the interpretation of the special consultative procedure under Section 83A of the LGA.

Background to the Policy

In August 2016, the Government amended the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. The amendment allows Local Authorities to adopt a policy giving retailers the option to open on Easter Sunday. Prior to the amendment, the trading restrictions on retailers included restricted trading on three and a half days of the year – Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day (until 1pm) and Christmas Day. Restricted trading is the allowance in the Act that enables shops selling certain types of goods to open e.g. dairies, service stations, takeaways, restaurants, cafes and duty free shops on these days. In addition, an amendment to the Act passed in 2001, allowed garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. Some tourist centres also hold an exemption for Easter Sundays meaning retailers in these towns can already open, but Napier doesn’t have such an exemption.

Current Situation

The aim of the legislative change made in 2016 was to create a uniform advantage across businesses and regions who wish to benefit from the tourist trade on what is presently a restricted trading day and not a public holiday. The employment NZ website provides a list of Councils who have adopted an Easter Sunday Trading Policy allowing shops to open https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/public-holidays/restricted-shop-trading-days/local-council-easter-sunday-shop-trading-policies/ . At the time of writing, 39 out of 67 local authorities have a policy in place. Notably these Councils are mainly in the provinces, with the larger city’s either yet to consider the matter, resolved either to not consider a policy or it was voted against after consultation with the community. Hastings District Council undertook informal engagement and voted not to proceed to the next stage of formal consultation.

The Policy

The 2016 amendment to the Act gives local communities the opportunity to choose whether or not to allow trading on Easter Sunday. The scope of the policy needs to define whether trading on Easter Sunday can occur in:

a) the whole of the district; or

b) any parts of the district.

The policy cannot:

a) permit shops to open for only some purposes; or

b) permit only some types of shops to open; or

c) specify times at which shops may or may not open; or

d) include any other conditions as to the circumstances in which shops in the area may open.

The option of trading in the whole of the district or in part of the district needs to be considered. Considering the small size of our district, and the repercussions that could occur by suggesting some parts can trade while others cannot, (e.g. city centre vs all of Napier) it is recommended to consult on a policy that allows Easter trading in the whole of the district. Should the proposed policy be adopted, there is no compulsion for retailers to open on Easter Sunday, the policy will provide them with the choice as to whether to open or not.

The Workers Choice Provision

The legislation recognises that Easter Sunday is a day of significance across New Zealand and some people will choose not to work on this day. Additional changes to the legislation include a worker’s choice provision giving employees a right to negotiate with their employers, and the ability to refuse work on Easter Sunday, without any repercussions to the employment relationship.

2.3 Issues

Through the issuing of a public notice, and other methods of alerting the public and interested parties during consultation on this policy in 2016, officers did not intentionally set out to exclude one group of people over another. Nevertheless, the events following has demonstrated that certain individuals and organisations in our community were not satisfied with the level of engagement and therefore the process taken this time will seek to rectify that.

Unions were identified as a key stakeholder in the 2016 consultation and notification of the proposed policy were sent to two representatives of First Union through a bulk email software called send blaster. The Unions have advised the emails were not received.

This time round, Officers will ensure the key stakeholders are given the specific opportunity to provide their feedback. Both Unions (representing staff) and Retailers are considered important key stakeholders that ensure balanced representation of the views to be considered.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

The matter is obviously of high interest to several key stakeholders and as such Council will take a targeted approach to consultation with the main stakeholders identified (in no particular order) as Retailers, Retail and Business Organisations, Unions, and Christian Churches and Organisations. The broader public will also have the opportunity to provide their feedback on this matter again.

An engagement plan will be developed and shared with Councillors prior to consultation commencing. The engagement approach will be a combination of face to face/phone calls and via email as appropriate. General advertising and promotion will also take place.

Special Consultative Procedure

The special consultative procedure requires Council to adopt a statement of proposal (that includes a draft policy), publically notify the proposal and allow 4 weeks for the public to make submissions. If Council agree to continue to the formal notification stage, the period for consultation will run through the month of October, with a hearing held in late November. The final decision to adopt a policy that allows shops to open will rest with Council after submissions have been heard and considered.

2.5 Implications

Financial

The costs associated with consulting on this policy can be accommodated within existing operational budgets.

Social & Policy

Parliament had long grappled with the contentious issue of Easter Sunday Trading before passing the responsibility to local Councils. The arguments for and against are seemingly complex and personal with discussions on the topic tending to focus on matters of religion, families, the retail economy and the freedom of choice. Councils reporting will not explore these issues in detail, rather this process is about allowing the community to put forward their views for Council to consider in their decision making.

Risk

There is a risk of continued divided community opinion around the issue of Easter Sunday Trading. However, the special consultative procedure and a carefully managed engagement plan will allow the community and interested parties to express their views on the issue and will ultimately require Council to weigh up, on behalf of the community, the preferred option for Easter trading in Napier.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Resolve to not adopt a draft policy for public consultation.

b. Approve the Statement of Proposal (including draft policy) and authorise officers to proceed with public notification of the special consultative procedure as prescribed by the Local Government Act 2002.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

There is sufficient public interest and interest from retailers to re consult on the Easter Trading Policy. This gives the opportunity for those who may have missed the opportunity to submit in 2016, to now do so.

At the Meeting

A substitute motion was moved by Councillor Boag to include a few amendments to the Easter Sunday Trading Policy.

The following points were noted in favour of the substitute motion:

· Pharmacy and souvenir shops should be included in the Policy as they are included under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

· To avoid any confusion it should be made very clear that if the Policy was not adopted following consultation, certain shops as listed in the Policy would still remain open.

· The proposed amendments are required to make the Policy clearer and to reduce the risk of any possible challenges to the decision.

· A full briefing on the High Court ruling by Council’s legal representation is requested before submissions received through consultation be considered.

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

· The 2016/17 survey was a recommendation from Local Government New Zealand. It was not a statistical survey, but more to understand whether there was any support for undertaking further work.

· It was noted that the full briefing requested in relation to the High Court ruling would need to be a public excluded workshop.

· As Council is identifying communities of interest there is a risk that we may miss another interested group. In this instance, Council has received advice in relation to the groups of interest; there are some 42 churches identified within the Napier area which Council will specifically engage with.

· The information received is that this is a unique situation to Napier, in that other Councils have followed a Statement of Proposal and special consultative process and followed their normal process.

2.8 Attachments

a Statement of Proposal Easter Sunday Trading Policy

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

3. District Plan Review - pre-engagement strategy

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	634986
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Catherine Reaburn, Senior Policy Planner

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to approve the pre-engagement strategy for the District Plan Review (DPR).

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Wise

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Endorse the District Plan Review pre-engagement strategy

Carried

3.2 Background Summary

On 21st August 2018, Council’s Strategy and Infrastructure Committee recommended to “endorse ‘in principle’ both the overall strategic direction for the review and the indicative overall process the review of the District Plan will follow”. This recommendation was adopted by Council on the 18th September 2018.

The next step in the DPR process is pre-engagement. Three parallel strands of pre-engagement are proposed, as follows.

Launch “Our City, Our Home” – key city outcomes

The key focus for pre-engagement with the general public is to launch, generate interest and excitement, and obtain feedback and buy-in on the strategic outcomes for the city. The pre-engagement will focus on making the city outcomes accessible, interesting and relevant to the general community and will provide opportunities to engage online and face to face (through pop-ups). The purpose of this pre-engagement stream will be to confirm the overall strategic direction for the District Plan Review and identify the other strategies and projects undertaken by Council that contribute to the strategic outcomes. The intention is that the DPR will then contribute to achieving the confirmed outcomes (as one “tool in the toolbox” for building “Our City, Our Home).

This pre-engagement stream will be undertaken through a range of methods including development of an interactive website under “Say It Napier” based on the “Our City, Our Home” concept, video, social media, email banner, email distribution networks and billboards.

Public pre-engagement on “Our City, Our Home” is scheduled to commence on 5 November 2018 and finish on 30 November 2018.

Stakeholder feedback on issues to be considered in the District Plan Review:

The key focus for pre-engagement with key stakeholders is to receive meaningful feedback on resource management issues that affect them and on potential options to address those issues. This will be undertaken in the context of the preliminary city outcomes and strategic direction, but with a focus on particular matters of interest to each stakeholder. Feedback from stakeholders will be considered in development of the officers’ recommendations and subsequently when determining which options Council adopts in developing the draft District Plan.

Pre-engagement on specific issues of interest will be tailored to the stakeholder to ensure meaningful feedback is received. A range of engagement methods are proposed including information brochures outlining issues and options for feedback; tailored presentations at regular meetings of stakeholder groups/organisations; one-on-one meetings; and distribution of information through email networks and newsletters.

The first round of this strand of pre-engagement will run in parallel with the public engagement strand (i.e. from 5 November to 30 November) to provide officers with an early understanding of priority issues and areas of risk. However, officers note that engagement with stakeholders will be iterative through the preparation of the draft District Plan and will be tailored and targeted as appropriate for each issue.

Mana whenua

A hui with mana whenua is proposed. A key question of this hui will be asking mana whenua representatives how they wish to be engaged in the process. An engagement strategy for the full District Plan Review process will then be developed in collaboration with mana whenua.

3.3 Issues

The key issue is providing an appropriate level of information to the public and to stakeholders, while ensuring meaningful engagement. Engagement on the strategic outcomes is more informative and general. Feedback on particular issues is more useful from those stakeholders affected by that issue. For example, the port and residents on Bluff Hill will be able to give meaningful feedback on the issue of port noise. The pre-engagement strategy enables an appropriate level of detail and information to be targeted to each audience.

3.4 Significance and Engagement

The District Plan potentially affects every person, business and property owner in Napier. A full review of the District Plan typically only occurs once every 10-15 years and provides a unique opportunity for the community to input into its development. The pre-engagement period will be the first in a series of opportunities for the community and stakeholders to input into the District Plan development. Given this, the matter has significant from minimal to high impact to the community.

It is noted that pre-engagement is not a legislative requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991.

3.5 Implications

Financial

The pre-engagement strategy will be resourced and managed within existing budget allocated to the District Plan Review.

Social & Policy

Feedback obtained through pre-engagement will be considered together with legislative requirements and existing Council policies when developing the draft District Plan.

Risk

The risk is that should Council decide not to undertake pre-engagement, the scope, complexity, time and resourcing required to deliver the District Plan Review may expand significantly at a later date and potentially also compromise the quality of the final product.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Endorse ‘in principle’ the pre-engagement strategy for the District Plan Review

b. Not to endorse ‘in principle’ the pre-engagement strategy for the District Plan review.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is for Council to endorse ‘in principle’ the pre-engagement strategy for the District Plan Review. This will enable Council to launch the city outcomes; to obtain community support and feedback; and to enable confirmation of the strategic direction for the DPR. Council will also obtain meaningful feedback on potential planning options to assist officers in determining the content of the draft District Plan.

At the Meeting

It was agreed that although pre-engagement is not a legislative requirement, it is worthwhile undertaking this step to ensure that Council engages as many people as possible in the process.

In response to questions, Council officers noted the following:

· The District Plan review is a long process. The three weeks proposed for pre-engagement is a good period of time to gain an initial response and understanding; however, stakeholder engagement will continue well beyond the three weeks.

· This pre-engagement is about sharing Council’s proposed outcomes with the community and receiving their feedback on these outcomes. Council is already aware of the key issues and knows who the stakeholders are. Therefore consultation on these issues is an almost separate work stream.

· The plan is to resolve as many issues as possible, in a consultative manner, prior to distributing a draft document. This will then be followed by Council adopting a Proposed District Plan which marks the moment when the legal consultation requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991 commence. This process will ensure most issues have been well worked through with stakeholders and avoid the legal framework being required to resolve issues as much as possible.

· There will be plenty of opportunities to engage with the wider community through the draft document.

3.8 Attachments

a Visual summary of pre-engagement concept

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

4. Parking Control Change - Upper Tiffen Car Park

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Parking Control Bylaw 2014
Document ID:	603217
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

4.1 Purpose of Report

To seek council approval to convert the upper floor of Tiffen Car Park from pay and display all day casual parking to leased car parking during the week days (Monday to Friday).

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Tapine / White

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Resolve that the Upper Tiffen car park becomes leased car parking (Monday to Friday).

i. That the rate be set at $25.00 per week.

b. Resolve that the ground level of Tiffen car park becomes $5 all day casual parking Monday to Saturday

Carried

4.2 Background Summary

As previously outlined in the 26 June 2018 Open Agenda item to Council, parking supply in the CBD is at a premium with occupancy levels for on-street car parking increasing from 54% in 2014 to 72% in 2017. The free “gravel pit” private parking has now ended. The removal of this parking has placed additional strain on parking resources, particularly for all day parking with approximately 300 further cars requiring parking in the wider CBD.

The City Vision principles of “putting people first”, “pedal power” and “being open for business” are key to the future direction of parking in the city. Collectively this approach promotes more flexibility, innovation and experimentation to occur alongside a focus on implementing measures to encourage compliance.

With these principles in mind, recent changes to parking controls were put in place and have been well received, with early indications they are having a positive effect.

Leased car parking is in high demand. Occupancy levels of leased car parks are at 100% and demand and interest in leased parking is strong (with a waiting list of over 200 people wanting a lease carpark). There has been fast uptake of leases at the newly released Edwardes Street leased carpark.

The Upper Tiffen Car Park achieves 95% occupancy on Monday – Friday, and is currently being utilised as a pseudo leased car park with regular users. Saturday occupancy averages 41%. The lower level of Tiffen Car Park is currently a casual carpark at $1.00 per hour and no time restrictions. Average weekday occupancy is at 61%. Saturday occupancy averages 67%.

Given the infrastructure is in place, it is proposed Council trial the dual use of the car park as Monday – Friday leased parking on the Upper Tiffen Car Park and casual all day parking on the lower carpark at the same $5 rate rather than $1 per hour, which would increase occupancy on this level.

4.3 Issues

It is important that leased car parking opportunities are realised as this is the best way to allow commuters who work in the CBD certainty of a carpark without cluttering up car parking that is meant for shoppers and casual CBD town experiences. Clearly having over 200 people on the waiting list will put an undue strain on casual parking infrastructure.

Leased parking on the northern side of town is at a premium given the limited offerings because of geographical constraints. Accordingly, people wishing to lease a carpark in the northern vicinity would need to demonstrate that their place of work is in this vicinity. This would ensure that the Upper Tiffin carpark is being utilised appropriately.

4.4 Significance and Engagement

The change to weekday leased car parking will require good communication with the public and current carpark users. This will be achieved using a similar method as that used for the conversion of the Edwardes Street carpark to a leased park.

4.5 Implications

Financial

The infrastructure needed to enable the dual use of this carpark (e.g. leased during the weekday and pay and display in the weekends) is already in place, with no investment in infrastructure required. It is expected that the change will result in a similar intake of revenue from this level of the carpark.

There will be costs associated with installing signage. These are considered minor and can be incorporated within existing operational budgets.

Social & Policy

The City Vision principles are applied to the management of the parking resource.

A Parking Strategy document is still to be considered by Council, which will set out the longer-term direction of parking in the city. However, this proposal is consistent with the draft strategy and the discussions held at council workshops.

Risk

The risk is that congestion and frustration with car parking options will increase if additional leased car parks are not added to the city’s supply.

4.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Do nothing

b. Approve the changes being proposed

c. Instruct Officers to consider other options for increasing leased parking

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is to approve the changes being proposed. The overall aim of this change is to provide for all day leased car parking for CBD workers and maintain a casual all day option, thereby optimising the use of the Tiffen car park in particular but also the overall parking offering in the city for shoppers and casual CBD parking requirements. It is also important to have a mind-set of continual “tweaking” in response to an ever-changing CBD occupancy. In this way, the public car parking offering can stay relevant to the CBD parking needs.

Officers will monitor the response to the changes and amend them as required to meet the demands of the various customers.

At the Meeting

In response to questions, Council officers noted the following:

· It is standard for free parking to be further away from the town centre as a City grows.

· Council needs to provide for working commuters so their parking needs doesn’t impinge on the short term casual retail parking supply which is currently congested.

· Alternative parking options have been taken up successfully; the Edwards Street leased parking facility for $15 per week is now fully let.

· Positive feedback has been received in relation to the park-n-ride option.

· The change made to the Herschell Street parking from two hour to all day parking has been well received.

4.8 Attachments

a Tiffen Carpark Upper Level

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

Reports from Finance Committee held 16 October 2018

1. Whakarire Revetment Funding Proposal

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	631017
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

1.1 Purpose of Report

To consider funding options and obtain approval from Council on the public/private funding split for the Whakarire revetment.

Substitute Motion

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Dallimore

That the Finance Committee:

a. Leave the Officer’s recommendation for this item on the table for further discussion at the Council meeting on 30 October 2018, that being:

That the Finance Committee:

a. Approve, in principle, funding option for the revetment works at Whakarire Avenue in accordance with Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act.

b. And that options of funding by general rate or UAGC be identified for consideration.

c. And that consultation be undertaken as appropriate. This would comprise informal consultation on a proposed funding option as per part a above, culminating in formal consultation as part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan process.

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

The Whakarire revetment proposal has had a long history. The original design of the groynes to remediate the threat of coastal erosion in this area received significant opposition from the surfing community and others. As a consequence the resource consent application received many submissions in opposition. Through mediation a new design was introduced to the submitters. The new plans included a reserve area for public access and a revetment which would hug the coastline and not intrude into the surf break as the initial design had done. Residents in the Whakarire area and other submitters including the surfing community signed off on these new plans agreeing to the revetment and the reserve areas.

While funding of the revetment had never been actively discussed with the submitters or the Whakarire Avenue residents, there was an implicit assumption at the time that the costs would be absorbed by all the city’s residents. This reflects that Napier (being a city council with relatively small rural land holdings) has not had a strong tradition of using targeted rates (N.B. current targeted rates are listed in the Long Term Plan on page 203).

Subsequent to the resource consent for the works being fully approved for construction, the regional coastal erosion work (Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy) began to explore and define the beneficiaries from coastal erosion interventions to understand the link between those who benefit and those that are paying. In this way the community good and the private good is identified in particular.

Essentially this work has hypothesised that the immediate property abutting the coastal erosion will benefit significantly if work is done to halt that erosion. There is also a suggestion that there might be secondary beneficiaries, where a public space (reserve or road) lies between the property and the coastal erosion or where the local community might have added benefits of accessing the area under threat from erosion. Both of these scenarios are over and above the benefits received from doing the work by the rest of the Napier residents.

The work also identified regional and national beneficiaries. This included the Port and Airport and the region and nation as a whole. However it should be noted that these parties are difficult to realise funding from – therefore the while a percentage of benefit/ cost can be apportioned it can’t be collected using rates for example.

Council has held a workshop to discuss and explore how such a funding split (as prescribed by Section 101 (3) of the Local Government Act) would apply to Whakarire revetment. This paper presents the basic steps associated with an assessment under Section 101 (3) LGA applied to the Whakarire revetment project. Importantly once the process of identifying who are the beneficiaries and secondly how much each should pay has been apportioned, the overall impact on the community can be considered. This can include decisions around historical understandings of who pays, realistic affordable apportionment (i.e. if the direct beneficiaries are so few that cost apportionment is exorbitant, for each beneficiary) or any other relevant considerations in settling on a final funding option.

In this case, the direct beneficiaries have been identified as the 12 properties on Whakarire Avenue abutting the northern coastal edge, and a portion of Charles Street. Secondary beneficiaries have been identified in the Coastal Hazards Strategy as the Westshore community (refer to map at Attachment A).

1.3 Issues

Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act requires Council to undertake a multi-step process when making decisions that might impact on Council’s financial management.

This process involves an assessment of:

a) Community outcomes relating to the proposal

b) Distribution of benefits

c) Time frame (intergenerational)

d) Exacerbators

e) Costs/benefits

f) Overall impact of funding on the community

The final step in the process allows Council to select its funding mechanism and modify any allocations but also consider what impact the results from the steps undertaken above have on the community and affordability to pay.

a) The community outcomes to which the funding primarily relates:

Community Outcomes

Achieved By

Excellence in infrastructure and public services for now and in the future.

Protecting the coast from further erosion thereby helping to sustain the coastline for future generations.

A safe and healthy city that supports community well-being.

A coastal area that the general public can safely utilise for recreational activities such as walking, fishing and surfing.

b) Distribution of benefits between the whole of Napier City Council and parts of the City or individuals:

a) The benefit to the wider Napier community from the revetment is the use of the beach and access to the beach.

b) In addition to a) above, the Westshore community would benefit from the protection of the future value of properties within this community.

c) In addition to a) above, Individual properties along Whakarire Avenue identified as being within the current erosion risk zone stand to gain the most from the construction of the revetment. This is both in relation to maintaining their housing and property asset but also significantly increasing the value of their holding.

c) The period over which the benefits will occur

The benefits from property protection would continue in perpetuity and benefit current and future generations.

d) Whether individuals or groups are the cause of the activity

Coastal erosion is a natural occurrence and is not due to the action of any specific party. However the presence of Port and its effects have been mooted as both a benefit and an exacerbator. For the purposes of cost apportionment the point is also moot as it is unlikely that a mechanism for charging the Port can be found.

Climate change is expected to have an effect on coastal erosion trends as a result of rising sea level and increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms.

e) Costs and benefits, including transparency and accountability where funding one activity distinctly from others:

It is appropriate that a theoretical cost recovery split should recognise the private benefits accruing to the adjoining land owners for many generations.

The method of cost recovery should also recognise the public benefit to Napier City rate payers and the wider Hawke’s Bay community from having protected this area of the coast for future generations for the public and visitors to enjoy. This includes protection of the Charles Street asset. (Which buffers the residential area on the other side of Charles Street)

It is difficult to quantify the exact portion of benefit accruing to the private and public beneficiaries but it would be reasonable to estimate approximately 20% of the benefit lies with the wider community who gain public access to the area to carry out general recreational activities.

This assessment has established that the private benefit of this activity accrues to the private land owners in the form of property/asset protection and also to the Westshore community through improved beach accessibility and protection of future property values. This has been assessed between 20% and 30%.

The remainder (in excess of 50%) is attributable to the properties on Whakarire Ave adjacent to the coast (12 properties) who stand to substantially gain from protecting their asset and in turn receive higher valuations for their property asset once the erosion work is complete.

f) Overall impact of allocation of funding on the community:

Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan includes a capital budget of $1.7m in 2019/20 for the Whakarire revetment. Resource consents costs have already been paid by the general rate.

It is clear that 12 Whakarire properties stand to gain the majority of the benefit of the revetment through asset protection in perpetuity. However, the impact of spreading the majority of the total cost across the 12 Whakarire properties immediately protected by the revetment would result in an exorbitant annual increase to their rates. Properties within the Westshore community should also contribute a portion of the total cost to reflect the benefit they would receive in the form of improved beach accessibility and protection of future property values.

The remaining 20% of the total cost would be recovered from the residents of Napier city (Public Good).

Members may wish to consider other factors such as expectation of who pays when the resource consent was initiated , reasonableness, practicality of collection and affordability to pay before settling on an appropriate allocation for each beneficiary.

Costs and benefits

Funding for the Whakarire revetment would be loan funded and repaid over a 25 year period. Council officers have considered the following matters in determining the terms and conditions of this loan funding:

· The term of the loan should recognise the long term nature of the project, and the life of the underlying asset

· The need to take into account of intergenerational equity principles

The loan would bear interest at 7% per annum. The interest rate is based on Council’s average cost of borrowing and would be reviewed annually.

The following table sets out the whole of life cost and the ongoing annual cost to be recovered for the revetment:

Whakarire revetment	Annual cost	Whole of life
Debt and interest	$146,000	$3,650,000
Maintenance	$5,000	$125,000
TOTAL	$151,000	$3,775,000

Funding

The following funding mechanisms have been considered in accordance with Section 101(3):

Option 1. Spread the whole cost evenly across the entire Napier City Council rating base (UAGC)

This would equate to an annual per property charge of approximately $6.00 for every property within the Napier City Council rating base.

Under this scenario the total cost is spread equally across the community including areas which stand to gain little if any benefit.

Option 2. The total cost of the revetment is recovered from general rates applied on a land value basis.

This option would involve recovering the total cost of the revetment through the general rate. Under this option properties with high land values will bear a greater proportion of the total cost regardless of their proximity to the coast.

Option 3a. Apportion the whole cost according to the levels of assessed benefit.

Under this option the allocation the total annual cost is split between private and public beneficiaries according to levels of perceived benefit. This could look like:

Funding split	%	Annual cost per property	Annual cost recovered	Whole of life
Private Good – targeted rate on Whakarire properties	50%	$6,292	$75,500	$1,887,500
Private Good – targeted rate on Westshore properties	30%	$84	$45,300	$1,132,500
Public Good – general rates	20%	$1	$30,200	$755,000
TOTAL	100%		$151,000	$3,775,000

Option 3b. Apportion the whole cost according to the levels of assessed benefit.

However, after considering the impact on the community and affordability issues arising from the steps undertaken above, the funding split could be modified as follows:

Funding split	%	Annual cost per property	Annual cost recovered	Whole of life
Private Good – targeted rate on Whakarire properties	3%	$378	$4,530	$113,250
Private Good – targeted rate on Westshore properties	22%	$61	$33,220	$830,500
Public Good – general rates	75%	$4	$113,250	$2,831,250
TOTAL	100%		$151,000	$3,775,000

1.4 Significance and Engagement

Approval of a funding option will require consultation through the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

1.5 Implications

Financial

Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan includes a capital budget of $1.7m in 2019/20 for the Whakarire revetment

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

1.6 Development of Preferred Option

That in accordance with Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act the Council approve a funding option for the revetment works at Whakarire Avenue and that options of funding by general rate or UAGC be identified for consideration and consultation.

At the Meeting

The Director City Strategy spoke to the report noting that this stage of the process requires Council, as decision makers, to consider what factors will determine where the benefit lies and to apportion the costs accordingly. It was noted that there are numerous ways to split the funding across the beneficiaries of the revetment and once a proposal has been determined in principle this will be further refined through community engagement before the final funding proposal is determined through the 2019/20 Annual Plan adoption process.

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

· If the work does not go ahead the existing structure will suffer further degradation and private property will ultimately be affected.

· This work is required to address existing erosion, as opposed to predicted future erosion, solutions for which are being worked through by the Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee. The revetment design and consenting approval process had occurred prior to the majority of the Coastal Hazard Strategy work.

· The shared pathway has not been included in the cost estimate at this stage, although it has been included in the Resource Consent. The pathway will be included later following consultation with residents and users of the area.

· Funding set aside in the Hawke’s Bay Harbour Board Endowment Land Income Account is for the purposes of maintaining the foreshore reserves and works in the inner harbour. These funds are already committed to projects.

· It was confirmed that shingle from Marine Parade is no longer being moved to Westshore Beach. This work was funded largely through general rate payers, split between Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Councillor Dallimore tabled a document for consideration by Council officers and spoke to the history of the issue, noting that this is not an exact science.

Some Councillors stated that the figures should be reworked and further information was required to determine the balance between public good and the benefit to local residents, including that of the wider Westshore residents.

It was agreed that Councillors would collate and submit any questions to the Chief Executive by Thursday, 18 October 2018 to allow for responses to be considered prior to the Council meeting on 30 October 2018, where the matter would be debated further.

The Chief Executive left the meeting at 3.56pm.

1.7 Attachments

a Map showing Westshore area

b Map showing Whakarire properties

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

2. Capital Project Funding Bought Forward

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	653014
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval from Council to bring forward funding in the Long Term Plan 2019/20 budget relating to the Park Island Redevelopment into 2018/19 to complete the earthworks required for the Hawkes Bay Rugby Union complex at Park Island due to be started February 2019.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Price

That the Finance Committee:

a. Approve $400,000 to be brought forward from the Long Term Plan 2019/20 budget for the Park Island Redevelopment (Loan funded) to accommodate earthworks required to progress the Hawkes Bay Rugby Union complex at Park Island due to start February 2019

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

The original Park Island Master Plan was developed in 2013. An updated Masterplan was subsequently presented, and adopted by Council in April 2017 and a resolution passed to initiate a District Plan Change to rezone Park Island Northern Sports Hub to meet the Master Plan objectives.

The Northern Sports Hub now includes additional car parking to support the inclusion of a new high performance facility and game standard training field for the Hawkes Bay Rugby Union.

A Deed of Agreement was signed by Napier City Council, and Hawkes Bay Rugby Football Union on 18^th November 2016. For the HB Rugby Union to achieve their programme timeline, the critical building start dates of 1^st February 2019 requires earthworks associated with the development to be bought forward.

Council’s agreement with HBRU requires us to provide a suitable building platform to enable them to construct their new building. They have requested Council initiate earthworks as soon as possible. To ensure deadlines are met, this project should be awarded no later than 19^th October and requires confirmation of budget before this can be awarded. Two tenders for the work for the construction of the earthwork foundation for the new HBRU complex at Park Island.

In the long term plan for the Northern Sports hub allocated $100,000 in year 1 and $2.596m in year 2 (both loan funded). Funding will need to be bought forward to achieve the above outcomes.

2.3 Significance and Engagement

Bringing forward the budget will not significantly impact rates next year when loan funding is calculated over the 25 year life of the loan.

Engagement on the District Plan has already been undertaken, and Council adopted Plan Change 11 on 22 November 2017. A Deed of Agreement with the HBRFU was signed 18^th November 2016.

2.4 Implications

Financial

The Northern Sports hub redevelopment provided $100,000 in year 1 and $2.596m in year 2 (both loan funded) in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Loans are calculated at the end of the financial year. The request is to bring forward $400k of the $2.596m, which will bring forward this loan and associated loan repayments. As the loan is calculated over a life of 25 years this will have an impact on 2019/20 Rates of $34,300 or 0.06%. This is not considered significant and requiring further engagement.

Social & Policy

n/a

Risk

Due to the tenders not yet awarded for this contract, this paper is considered commercially sensitive

2.5 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve bringing forward $400k to support the HBRFU build timeframes in advance of next year’s rugby season (February 2019)

b. Not approve bringing forward funding to support the HBRU build timeframes

2.6 Development of Preferred Option

Under the Deed of Agreement with the HBRFU, Napier City Council have committed to support the Park Island Development, and this opportunity provides for the rationalisation and relocation of the HBRFU administration in conjunction with an HBRFU high performance indoor training facility and outdoor training facility at Park Island. Council wishes to work with its stakeholder to achieve these objectives and agreed timelines. There is a strong preference for earthworks to be undertaken during the summer months.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors it was clarified that there was a misunderstanding between the parties in relation to the timing and Plan change in this matter, which has resulted in the funding having to be brought forward from the Long Term Plan 2019/20 budget. It was noted that this request is part of a larger package of work.

2.7 Attachments

Nil

3. Road Stopping - land corner of Geddis & Longfellow Avenue

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 1974
Document ID:	637186
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

3.1 Purpose of Report

To obtain Council approval to initiate the road stopping process in accordance with the 10^th Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974, and subsequent sale of approximately 188m² of current legal road on the corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenue, to Ahuriri District Health.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Tapine

That the Finance Committee:

a. Recommend pursuant to Section 342 of the Local Government Act 1974, to initiate the stopping of approximately 188m² of legal road, on the corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenue and adjacent to 65 Geddis Avenue, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule to the Local Government Act 1974.

b. Recommend that upon completion of the Tenth Schedule stopping process, the stopped road is sold to Ahuriri District Health (a Charitable Trust) at a peppercorn sale price of one dollar plus all associated legal, survey and advertising costs.

Carried

3.2 Background Summary

A Resource Consent has been granted for the re-development of the existing medical centre on the corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenue, Maraenui. The Consent is subject to road stopping being completed on the corner, or as an interim measure until the road stopping is complete, a Licence to occupy the adjacent Road Reserve. The land is needed for vehicle ingress, egress and vehicle manoeuvring to the proposed car parking.

The Resource Consent, Development Plans and road stopping area plan are attached.

3.3 Issues

There are no issues.

3.4 Significance and Engagement

The Tenth Schedule requires public notification of the road stopping. This is by way of notices in the local newspaper and signage at each end of the proposed stopped road. Any member of the public has 30 days to object to any road stopping.

The final Council decision on whether or not to approve to road stopping must take account of any objections.

3.5 Implications

Financial

The sale of the land at a peppercorn sum is due to the charitable nature of Ahuriri District Health.

There are no other cost implications to Council. Ahuriri District Health are to pay all Council’s costs for the road stopping.

Social & Policy

The re-development of the Maraenui Medical Centre will provide enhanced medical services to the community.

Risk

Not applicable.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the road stopping and selling of the Road Reserve to Ahuriri District Health.

b. Decline the road stopping and selling of the Road Reserve.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

Option A is the preferred option as it gives Ahuriri District Health certainty for the medical centre re-development.

At the Meeting

Further information was requested from officers around how this work ties in with the Activate Maraenui Project.

3.8 Attachments

a Resource Consent Decision

b Development Plans

c Proposed road stopping area

Māori Consultative Committee - 23 October 2018 - Open Agenda

Māori Consultative Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 11 September 2018
Time:	3.05pm-4.11pm
Venue	Council Chamber Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Present	Piri Prentice (In the Chair), Mayor Bill Dalton, Councillor Apiata Tapine, Tiwana Aranui, Te Whetu Marama Henare-Winitana [3.08pm], Councillor Maxine Boag.
In Attendance	Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Strategic Māori Advisor, Communications and Marketing Manager, Manager Community Services, Marketing Manager, Manager Sport & Recreation, Event Manager, Associate Project Engineer.
Administration	Governance Team

Karakia

Tiwana Aranui opened proceedings with a karakia.

Te Whetu Henare-Winitana joined the meeting at 3.08pm

Apologies

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

That the apology from Hori Reti be accepted.

Carried

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

The Chair, followed by members of the committee, reflected on the passing of Ruruarau Heitia Hiha, and acknowledged the work of Pukemokimoki Marae. The committee expressed their wishes for Heitia to be recognised in some way as a significant elder in the community.

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2018 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Reports from standing committees

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 21 August 2018

1. Marine Parade Traffic Calming - Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	486985
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to provide Council with a progress update, and to outline the proposed approach moving forward for this project.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

In response to questions from the committee, the Mayor confirmed that the traffic calming has been successful although there are further improvements to be added. It was noted that the average speed has increased due to this stretch of road being a straight run along the parade. Council officers are considering measures to address this, including raised crossings and speed reduction, which will also deter trucks from using this route.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

T Aranui / Councillor Tapine

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Hague

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Note the update provided by the Council Officer.

Carried

2. District Plan Review - Project Launch

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	603455
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to follow up on the seminar held with Council on 23 July 2018 regarding initiating a review of the District Plan and for Council to approve ‘in principle’ both the overall strategic direction for the review and the indicative overall process the review of the District Plan will follow.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive spoke to the report noting that preliminary work to date has identified a number of outcomes to focus the review of the District Plan, including greenfield growth into the hills and establishing the estuary as a premier regional park through the Ahuriri Masterplan. Key principles and strategic objectives have also been identified to help Council drive the delivery of outcomes through the District Plan.

The next phase in the review process is engagement, which will follow the normal process and will begin with the Heritage Strategy workshop in a couple of weeks.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

T Aranui / Councillor Tapine

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Jeffery

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Resolve to formally initiate the review of the current District Plan.

b. Endorse ‘in principle’ both the overall strategic direction for the review and the indicative overall process the review of the District Plan will follow.

Carried

Reports from Regulatory Committee held 21 August 2018

1. Annual Dog Control Report 2017/18

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Dog Control Act 1996
Document ID:	559263
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

1.1 Purpose of Report

To present the territorial authority report on dog control policies and practices for the dog control registration year 1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018, for adoption by Council as required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, prior to being submitted to the Secretary for Local Government and being made publically available.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive spoke to the report advising that this is an annual report and the increase in infringement notices can be attributed to Council’s focus on dog registration numbers.

In response to questions regarding the pound, it was confirmed that Council are tracking well and meeting the new standards. MPI have completed a further check and Council are aware that there are a number of pounds across NZ yet to meet those standards.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors White / Tapine

The Regulatory Committee:

a. Adopt the Napier City Council Annual Dog Control Report 2017/18.

i. That the report be submitted to the Secretary for Local government and published in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

Carried

Reports from Finance Committee held 4 September 2018

1. Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Waste Minimisation Act 2008
Document ID:	619564
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rhett van Veldhuizen, Waste Minimisation Lead

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the adoption of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (Plan) 2018-2024.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

Councillor Tapine noted that the report is a culmination of work by both Napier City Council and Hastings District Council. 8000 submissions were received and considered addressing how we manage our waste going forward, and the Plan recognises that a strategy will need to be rolled out over a period of time.

Practical steps and measures have been identified to help Councils move towards their goal of better waste management across the region, and the proposed Plan will allow Council to record data to assist with better decisions in future.

In response to questions from the committee it was clarified that there are Marae specific programmes running outside of this Plan. Maraes support waste minimisation but consideration needs to be given as to how this will work for them; it may be beneficial for Council to meet with the four Marae to discuss the Plan.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Tapine

The Finance Committee:

a. Adopt the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-24 in accordance with section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 without further amendment which revokes the previous Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012-2018.

b. Delegate to the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee the authority to implement updates and changes that may be required due to wider environmental factors, while keeping within the intent of the strategy.

c. Acknowledge the recommendation from the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee that additional resource is urgently required to implement the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Carried

2. Joint Waste Futures Steering Committee Unconfirmed Minutes

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	618626
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cheree Ball, Governance Advisor

2.1 Purpose of Report

To present to Council the unconfirmed minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee meeting, held on 25 July 2018.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Hague

The Finance Committee:

a. Receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee meeting from 25 July 2018.

Carried

3. Coastal Hazards Joint Committee Membership

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	621251
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Deborah Smith, Acting Team Leader Governance

3.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval from Council for the nomination of a further member of the Coastal Hazards Joint Committee.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Dallimore

The Finance Committee:

a. Approve the nomination of Cr Brosnan to the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

Carried

4. 2018 NRB Survey

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	619834
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Steve Gregory, Transformation Lead

4.1 Purpose of Report

To advise Council on the results of the NRB survey carried out in 2018.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive spoke to this item noting that as part of the Annual Report process Council is required to report on the community’s satisfaction levels.

It was noted that overall the results of the NRB survey are pleasing, in particular, council staff are regarded increasingly well by the community; and satisfaction levels regarding the MTG are slowing increasing.

Council is aware that the swimming pool issue needs to be addressed with a decision expected shortly. The water supply satisfaction levels are likely a result of chlorination.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Boag

The Community Services Committee:

a. Resolve that the 2018 NRB Survey results be received.

Carried

5. Investment Property Portfolio Policy

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	622351
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

5.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval of a Policy relating to the Investment Property Portfolio (Leasehold Land).

The resolution of Council of 1 June 2018 (as outlined below) required that a divestment, and investment policy for the sale proceeds, is established and approved by Council resolution prior to the release of any leasehold land.

The attached policy has been developed in response to the resolution. It outlines the terms and conditions on which Council may sell non-strategic land included in the portfolio. The policy also provides guidance relating to the investment of the proceeds of sale.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive spoke to the report noting that the Investment Property Portfolio Policy will allow the freeholding of Council’s leasehold land portfolio. Freeholding has been a subject of debate with lessees for a number of years as the previous policy did not allow this.

The policy provides principles that Council can assess land against to determine whether the land is strategic or non-strategic. It was noted that the leasehold land portfolio currently produces $1.9M per annum in revenue, and this revenue will need to be offset.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wise / Hague

The Finance Committee:

a) Approve the Investment Property Portfolio Policy.

Carried

6. Sale of Endowment Land

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Napier Borough Endowments Act 1876, Napier Borough Endowments Amendment Act 1999, Sections 140 and 141 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA).
Document ID:	622679
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

6.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval to sell certain land which is subject to the Napier Borough Endowments Act 1876 and is part of Council’s Investment Property Portfolio. Any sale is to be considered on a case by case basis and is subject to the terms and conditions of the Investment Property Portfolio Policy.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chair noted this is a good opportunity to consider the future of endowment land.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wise / Hague

The Finance Committee:

Resolve:

a. To allow the sale, after consideration on a case by case basis, of the land included in the schedule below, being endowment land which is subject to the Napier Borough Endowments Act 1876.

b. That considerations and process is to comply with Council’s Investment Property Portfolio Policy.

c. To record that this decision represents a discretion to be executed by Council on a case by case basis, nothing in this decision represents a right for any person to insist or require Council to sell to them and the sale by Council of any land under this decision does not create precedence or expectation that other land held by Council (whether of a similar nature or not) will be sold.

d. That the process requirements set out in Sections 140 and 141 of the Local Government Act 2002 are to be complied with.

e. To record that Council has considered the issue of an offer back obligation to the Crown under Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981. Legal advice has confirmed that in the particular circumstances surrounding the land, there are relevant exceptions to any offer back obligation based on the criteria set out in Section 40(2) and (4) of the Public Works Act 1981, and therefore there is no offer back requirement.

Schedule of land:

48 West Quay Lot 1 DP 478612, CFR664012

40 West Quay Lot 2 DP 4786142, CFR 664012

14 Bridge Street Lot 2 DP 17631, CFR HBK2/1415

16 Bridge Street Lot 1 DP 17631, CFR HBK2/1415

22 Bridge Street Part Town Section 610 Napier, CFR HBC4/1148

9B, 9FD and 9 E Riddell Street Lot 1-2 DP 5357, CFR HBA4/1405

160 Wellesley Road Town Section 569 Town of Napier CFR HB97/42

Carried

Reports from Community Services Committee held 4 September 2018

1. Community Services Grants - Allocation

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	604443
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Carswell, Manager Community Strategies

1.1 Purpose of Report

To assess the adequacy of the current budget allocation for the Community Services Grants scheme and to identify options for any increase.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Manager Community Strategies spoke to the report and noted that Council officers were asked to assess whether the allocation for the Community Services Grants scheme could be increased from the current rate of $1.60 per population head.

It was decided to increase the population amount to $1.80 with increases calculated annually and to apply CPI adjustments per year. The result being an increased allocation of funding each year for community and voluntary organisations providing support services to Napier residents.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Substitute Motion

Councillors Boag / Jeffery

The Community Services Committee:

a. Increase the allocation to the Community Services Grants scheme using a combination of population and CPI adjustments and increasing the per head allocation to $1.80.

Carried

2. White Night - Provision of Food Trucks

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	623967
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a resolution of Council to allow the sale of food and drink to the public within Herschell Street as part of the White Night event on the 20^th October 2018.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor spoke to this item noting that Council authorisation is required for food stalls to operate within the CBD for events, as this is not normally a permitted activity.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Hague

The Community Services Committee:

a. Resolve to allow the sale of food and drink to the public within Herschell Street at the White Night event on Saturday 20^th October 2018.

Carried

3. Youth Policy Review - Public Feedback

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	620996
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jessica Wilson, Community Advisor

3.1 Purpose of Report

To advise Council on the process undertaken in reviewing the Youth Policy and to request approval to release the draft Strategy (attachment one) for stakeholder and public feedback prior to adoption by Council.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Manager Community Strategies noted that the Youth Council presented the Youth Policy Review, which will be going out for consultation shortly.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Hague / Tapine

The Community Services Committee:

a. Approve the release of the draft Napier Youth Strategy for stakeholder and public feedback.

Carried

PRESENTATION

Council officers presented an update on the McLean Park wayfinding and branding project to the Māori Consultative Committee.

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

· Māori greetings are used on gate signage, the main entrance sign and the main plinth sign.

· The intention was to be very clear and use simple signs; where appropriate, icons have been used.

· Council officers acknowledge the history around the name.

· Council are looking to develop a policy for the use of Te Reo Māori and how we can incorporate this into Council facilities.

The meeting closed at 4.11pm.

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

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

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

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 23 October 2018
Time:	3.00pm
Venue:	Council Chamber Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Committee Members	Piri Prentice (In the Chair), Councillor Apiata Tapine, Tiwana Aranui, Te Whetu Marama Henare-Winitana and George Reti
Officer Responsible	Director Community Services
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Māori Consultative Committee Meeting Tuesday 4 December 2018