Agenda of Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Napier Disability Strategy - Draft for Consultation

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	697022
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Carswell, Manager Community Strategies

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report summarises the development of the Napier Disability Strategy and requests approval to release it for community feedback prior to its finalisation for adoption by Council.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve the release of the draft Napier Disability Strategy for community feedback.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

1.2 Background Summary

The Napier Disability Strategy has been developed in collaboration with the Disability Sector via Napier Disability Advisory Group (NDAG) and people with a lived experience of disability. The strategy contributes to the New Zealand Disability Strategy and supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as Council’s own Vision and Outcomes.

1.3 Issues

Given Council had no policy or strategy focussing on people with disabilities, this strategy focuses the provision and delivery of Council’s activities and services. It sets out six key focus areas that contribute to the strategy’s overall vision that ‘Napier is a City for Everyone’. Under each focus area are key aims for Council that enable the goal to be achieved over time. The six focus areas are:

· Getting around

· Getting involved

· Being included

· Having fun

· Being safe

· Having work

A snapshot of the strategy can be found on page 8 of the draft attached.

Actions have been developed in each area as a result of a series of community workshops in addition to focus groups with Council staff. The timeframes and details of the actions will be determined following the finalisation of the strategy through an Annual Implementation Plan.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter is significant for a moderate proportion of the population. People with a disability make up 27% of Napier’s population and is growing. This strategy also impacts their whanau, caregivers and service providers.

The principles around working with the disability community can be characterised by the phrase ‘nothing about us, without us’. The approach to engagement built on this principle. A reference group was established at the outset. The group is made up of a range of people with a range of disabilities being represented. The group met at least bimonthly through the development of the strategy and took a significant role in the facilitation of workshops with the disability community. A workshop for service providers was completed along with one for people with disabilities and a focus group for the deaf community. A series of staff focus groups were also held around each focus area to help develop Council’s aims and refine the actions.

Feedback will be encouraged from key stakeholders and the wider community through a four week consultation period.

The draft strategy deliberately uses ‘every day’ and approachable language to encourage the principle of inclusiveness. The draft strategy will be made available in a number of formats including NZ Sign Language, Easy Read (pictorial) and plain text.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The actions in the strategy will be prioritised and completed over a five year period with an annual review. The majority of actions focus on changing the way Council engages and provides services and information to the disability community. Additional costs could be incurred to achieve greater access to the built environment, particularly retro-fitting. These costs can be built into individual project budgets and sought through current Council mechanisms. Some projects could attract external funding. The strategy will be implemented by Community Strategies with existing staff.

Social & Policy

This is Napier’s first Disability Strategy. It acknowledges a significant proportion of our current population (higher than the national average), and anticipates a growing disability community. The strategy requires that all areas of Council consider how accessibility and inclusiveness can be increased within their activity areas. It is aligned to the Council’s Vision and Outcomes for Napier.

Risk

The development of the strategy has identified, that the disability community (not including providers) had a low awareness of Council’s activities, largely due to accessibility to information. However, at the same time, there was significant interest and enthusiasm demonstrated for greater engagement. As the draft strategy is available in a range of formats and will be distributed through providers and other networks, the risk of low engagement with the disability community is reduced.

As the community were part of the development of the draft strategy, it is unlikely that feedback will be incongruent with the strategy, but may identify new ideas which could be incorporated.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Release the draft Napier Disability Strategy for community feedback (preferred)

b. Not to release the draft Napier Disability Strategy for community feedback

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The disability community has engaged well with the development of the strategy. There is an expectation that they will have an opportunity to feedback on the draft that has been developed with their input. In addition, our wider community have not had the chance to provide feedback on this strategy that also has positive impacts for them, particularly our senior population.

1.8 Attachments

a Draft Disability Strategy (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Napier Sailing Club Funding Request

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	698622
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval for a grant to the Napier Sailing Club towards the cost of upgrading the existing breastwork and boardwalk immediately in front of the Napier Sailing Club Clubhouse.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve a grant to the Napier Sailing Club of 50% of the cost of an upgrade to the breastwork and boardwalk in front of the clubhouse, subject to a maximum grant amount of $250,000.

b. That approval of the grant is subject to Council Officers being satisfied as to final design, scope of works, final quote, and compliance with any required consents.

c. That actual payment to the club is to be made only upon Council Officers being satisfied as to physical progress of the works.

d. That funding is to be provided from current Inner Harbour capital budgets, which are funded from the Hawke’s Bay Harbour Board Endowment Land Income Account.

e. To authorise the transfer of the appropriate budget from the Inner Harbour Capital budgets to a Grant budget.

f. That an appropriate variation be made to the current Deed of Lease to secure reasonable public access to the breastwork and boardwalk in front of the clubhouse.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

2.2 Background Summary

The land occupied by the Napier Sailing Club is vested in the Napier City Council as a local purpose (boating club) reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

Council leases the land to the club pursuant to a Deed of Lease dated 12 August 1999. The lease is for 21 years with one right of renewal for 21 years. The club pays an annual ground rent to Council of $10,270 plus an annual dredging contribution of $6,000.

All improvements and structures on both the land and water are owned by the club. The club has responsibility under the lease for maintenance of these.

The existing breastwork and boardwalk immediately in front of the clubhouse is structurally unsound and in urgent need of replacement. The structure has been viewed by Council staff and it is evident that the replacement is necessary. The replacement needs to take into account the increasing regularity of higher tides and associated erosion. The potential Health and Safety issues associated with the current structure is self- evident on viewing and makes this an urgent matter to be addressed.

While legally the Napier Sailing Club has exclusive use of the reserve land, in practice the reserve is open to the public who frequently walk through the grounds and along the boardwalk, bring their families to look at boats, look inside the clubhouse at old photos etc.

The club is very happy for the public to enjoy the views and waterfront offered from this aspect and consider this an important part of the Napier foreshore.

Replacement of the breastwork and walkway is estimated to cost between $450,000 and $500,000. The club has requested a 50% contribution from Council.

Attachment A shows an aerial view of the Sailing Club site with the line of breastwork and boardwalk outlined in bold.

2.3 Issues

Whilst the club is legally responsible for the maintenance of their assets, they do not have the current financially ability to fund the full cost of the replacement. A high-level review by Council officers of the Clubs latest published financial statements supports this view.

The club is of the view that as the breastwork and associated boardwalk is used by the general public as well as club members, there is a public good element involved with the structure.

Council intends to prepare a Master Plan for the Inner Harbour, and the Sailing Club has signalled the need for a new marina to replace the pile moorings in front of the clubhouse. Planning for such a development would be done in conjunction with the Inner Harbour Master Plan. The Napier Sailing Club is an important stakeholder in terms of development of the plan.

Irrespective of the outcome of the Master Plan, the replacement of the breastwork and boardwalk is required with some urgency. Should the proposed marina development progress then the upgraded breastwork would still form an important element of this.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

This grant is not considered significant and would not require any further consultation with the community.

2.5 Implications

Financial

Estimates for this work indicate a cost of between $450,000 to $500,000. The club has requested Council to contribute 50% of the cost. Should Council agree to contribute then it is suggested, that in order to protect Council’s position, this be capped to the lessor of $250,000 or 50% of the eventual cost.

Funding could be provided from the current years Inner Harbour Capital Budgets. These will not be spent by year-end due to the requirement to hold any further non-critical capital expenditure pending the outcome of the Inner Harbour Master Plan. Whilst this obviously takes available funds away from future years, it is believed this can be managed in conjunction with the development of the master plan.

The budgets referred to are funded from the Hawke’s Bay Harbour Board Endowment Land Income Account. The purpose of this Reserve Account is to fund Inner Harbour works and foreshore reserves.

As Council does not own the Sailing Club assets, the funding proposed would require a transfer of budget from Capital to a grant.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

The current state of the breastwork and boardwalk poses a potential health and safety risk if not upgraded in the near future.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve funding as a grant with a cap of $250,000 on the amount. (Preferred Option)

b. Decline to provide funding.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The Napier Sailing Club sees itself as a vibrant, positive part of the Ahuriri and Napier Community. Their facilities are shared with many other local water based groups and the club hosts many local and national events. In addition the club welcomes and provides berthage facilities for visiting vessels to the area.

As previously mentioned the breastwork and walkway, although the responsibility of the club, is used by the public and poses a potential health and safety risk.

The club is not in a current financial position to fund the full cost of the proposed works.

Council provided funding in 2014 of $34,000 to fund replacement of breastwork at the club’s southern ramp. This was on the basis of public use of the area in close proximity to the public walkway.

2.8 Attachments

a Napier Sailing Club aerial view ⇩

b Letter from Napier Sailing Club ⇩

c Funding Request Presentation ⇩

d Engineering Report ⇩

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 3

3. Representation Review 2018 - Local Government Commission Determination

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Local Electoral Act 2002
Document ID:	693953
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Deborah Smith, Team Leader Governance

3.1 Purpose of Report

To bring to Council the determination of the Local Government Commission in relation to the 2018 representation review.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Receive the Local Government Commission determination on the 2018 representation review

b. Note that Officers will make the appropriate arrangements for the 2019 elections in liaison with Council’s election provider

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

3.2 Background Summary

The Local Electoral Act 2001 (‘LEA 2001’) outlines the requirements on local authorities when it comes to their representation arrangements, including the requirement to review these at least every six years (section 19H, LEA 2001). From late 2017, Council undertook the required analysis and proposal process (as per sections 19H, 19K,19L,19M, and 19N of the LEA 2001).

At its meeting on 26 June 2018, following consideration of 37 submissions on its initial proposal, Council resolved that its final proposal for the 2018 Representation Review would be:

That Council adopt a full ward system using the existing ward boundaries, with 12 Councillors and the Mayor, and with no community boards being established.

For the reasons being:

· The full ward system was determined to be the fairest and best representation in accordance with the detailed analysis provided in the officer’s report.

· 70% of submissions received were in favour of the full ward system.

· Increased diversity, visibility and accountability of Council.

· Shared workloads of ward Councillors.

Two objections were received to the final proposal. These objections, along with all relevant documentation generated during the review process, including:

· Copies of the resolutions on the initial and final proposals, and the public notices,

· All submissions made on the initial proposal,

· Information concerning the communities of interest and population of the city, and its proposed electoral subdivisions (wards),

· Copies of any public discussion or consultation documents, and

· Officer’s reports that provide background information and make recommendations.

were provided to the Local Government Commission (‘the Commission’) (19Q, LEA 2001) for their final determination on Council’s electoral structures.

The Commission may make a decision based on the documents alone at its discretion, and has done so in providing its determination for Napier.

The determination of the Commission has now been received (see Attachment A) and will come into force for the 2019 elections (19S and 19Y, LEA 2001).

Although typically determinations of the Commission are accepted by local authorities, Council does have the option to appeal any determination on a point of law, or may request a judicial review.

3.3 Issues

No issues

3.4 Significance and Engagement

Extensive engagement was undertaken with the public on the representation review and associated topics, such as Māori wards and community boards, from late 2017. Further consultation processes took place in April 2018 seeking submissions on Council’s initial proposal, and any appeals or objections to the final proposal for the month following Council’s decision of 26 June 2018.

3.5 Implications

Financial

Budget has already been allocated for the arrangements of the 2019 Local Government Elections in Napier.

Social & Policy

Appropriate communications will be prepared as part of the elections process advising the community and any potential candidates of the electoral structures for the 2019, and encouraging their participation in the election.

Risk

N/A

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To receive the final determination of the Local Government Commission

b. To appeal the determination on a point of law or request a judicial review

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

As the Commission has endorsed Council’s final proposal it is recommended that the final determination be received.

3.8 Attachments

a Local Government Commission determination - 2018 representation review ⇩

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 4

4. Ordering of candidates' names on voting documents

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Electoral Act 2001
Document ID:	694417
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Deborah Smith, Team Leader Governance

4.1 Purpose of Report

To obtain a decision from the Council on the ordering of candidates’ names on voting documents, as per the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Endorse the presentation of candidates’ names in random order on voting documents for the 2019 Local Government Elections.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

4.2 Background Summary

Prior to the Local Electoral Act 2001, candidates’ names were required to be listed on the voting documents in alphabetical order of surname.

Regulation 31(1) of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 now allows the Council to decide on whether the names are to be arranged on the voting documents in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

Alphabetical Order of Surname

Candidates’ are presented by surname, in alphabetical order from A to Z.

Pseudo-Random Order

Under this arrangement, the candidates’ names for each issue are placed in a hat (or similar receptacle), mixed together, and then drawn out of the receptacle, with candidates’ names being placed for all voting documents for that issue in the order they are drawn.

The regulations provide that if a council has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the Electoral Officer must state, in the public notice required to be given, the date, time and place in which the order of the candidates’ names will be arranged. Any person is then entitled to attend while the draw is in progress.

Random Order

Under this arrangement, the names of the candidates for each issue are shown in a different order on each and every voting document, utilising software which enables the names of candidates to be printed in a different order on each paper.

4.3 Issues

Random order for voting papers has been increasingly adopted by local councils. Out of a total number of 118 Territorial Authorities, District Health Boards and Licensing Trusts in the 2016 election, 55 used random order, 54 alphabetical and 9 pseudo-random.

In 2016, Napier City Council opted to use random order. At the time Napier was the only council in the Hawke’s Bay region to do so, but this is considered likely to change for the 2019 elections.

A Government response to the Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on its Inquiry into the 2013 local authority elections did not agree to a recommendation that the order on all ballot papers in local authority elections be completely randomised, but did encourage councils to consider adopting the randomisation of names on ballot papers under the existing provision.

4.4 Significance and Engagement

This item is primarily administrative under the Local Electoral Act 2001 rather than a policy issue and does not trigger the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

4.5 Implications

Financial

Technological developments for the printing of ballot papers has greatly improved for the production of random order voting papers, so that there is no difference in either cost or quality for the printing of alphabetical or randomised voting papers.

Social & Policy

Recent research on voting patterns has also indicated that candidates with a surname starting at the top end of the alphabet may have a slight advantage over others with a lower alphabetical ranking. It is considered better electoral practice to adopt measures that treat all candidates equally.

Risk

N/A

4.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To choose that for the 2019 Local Government elections voting papers, the candidates’ names be presented:

i. alphabetically

ii. in pseudo-random order, or

iii. randomly

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

In view of the evidence outlined above, Option iii is the preferred option, that candidates’ names are listed in random order on the voting papers for the 2019 council elections.

4.8 Attachments

Nil

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 5

5. Napier Roll of Honour

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	697896
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Charles Ropitini, Strategic Maori Advisor

5.1 Purpose of Report

To consider and approve the reviewed Napier Roll of Honour for display at the War Memorial Centre site.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve the Napier Roll of Honour as an official Civic list of war dead for display at the War Memorial Centre site, and:

b. Approve that 15 identified names from the 1995 Roll of Honour deemed by research to have good and legitimate reason for removal are not carried forward to the revised Roll of Honour.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

5.2 Background Summary

A review of Napier’s Roll of Honour commenced in January 2018 as a part of the war memorial project to return the Roll of Honour and Perpetual Flame to the Napier War Memorial Centre site.

Over 24-25 January 2018 three public workshops were facilitated by Council to gain public input to the development of criteria for the Roll of Honour review. At a Council meeting on 29 June 2018, criteria was accepted and a resolution passed for the naming conventions for display of the roll.

The agreed criteria for the research project is:

1) No names from the previous 1995 iteration of the Roll of Honour are to be removed unless there is a very good and legitimate reason for removal.

2) Research criteria is to be applicable within the physical boundaries of greater Napier from the Tūtaekurī River as the Southern boundary to the former Wairoa Borough Council boundary to the North. To be eligible a person must either be:

§ Born in Napier

§ Enlisted in Napier

§ Next of Kin resides in Napier

§ Employed in Napier

§ Educated in Napier

§ Church parish is in Napier

3) Only those that died on active service at home or abroad are to be commemorated.

4) Timeframe for death in service is to be in accordance with the New Zealand Government dates from the official commencement date to the official end date of that conflict.

The 1995 Roll of Honour listed war dead from WWI, WWII and Vietnam. Through the review the list has expanded to also include war dead from the South African War and Occupation of Japan.

Researchers identified 84 errors across the WWI and WWII list. Errors were in spelling, incorrect initials and duplication of names.

A final list of 1058 Napier war dead is now presented (attached). This is an addition of 536 names added to the 1995 list of 522 names.

5.3 Issues

During the 1994-1995 redevelopment of the War Memorial Centre a review was undertaken of the Roll of Honour. The review and research of the roll was completed by members of the Napier RSA with names for display being accepted by ballot.

To start the 2018 review of the roll, researchers identified two distinct groups from the 1995 list as:

a) those with clearly identifiable links to Napier; and

b) those listed that did not have immediately clear links to Napier.

While further research could provide clarity and linkage to Napier for the majority of those listed in 1995, a list of 15 names is identified as having good and legitimate reason for removal, and are presented for consideration.

World War One: Four names recommended for removal:

§ Two people have death dates outside of the official Government end of WWI.

§ Two people have their departure vessel listed as “Hawke’s Bay”. These two people are from Canterbury and Auckland with no links to Napier, and have been identified only through the name of the departure vessel.

World War Two: Eleven names recommended for removal

§ Three names listed have not returned personnel files or information with NZDF or Commonwealth records. The surnames and initials are not recorded on local honour boards and no further information can be obtained for these three individuals.

§ Seven people have death dates outside of the official Government end of WWII.

§ One person is to be removed at the family’s request as the person did not have connections to Napier.

5.4 Significance and Engagement

The draft Roll of Honour was released to the public for viewing and input over November and December 2018.

The Roll of Honour was actively publicised through:

§ Corflute boards displayed at the Napier and Taradale RSAs

§ A double page spread inserted to the Napier Courier

§ The Council website

§ Radio advertisements.

Enquiries were captured directly through Customer Services and forwarded to the research team for scrutiny and addition to the draft list.

In total, 25 individuals made the effort to contribute to the draft list:

§ 19 individuals added, confirmed, or corrected their direct family member’s details. Two names were requested by family to be removed as they did not have a connection to Napier

§ Six interested individuals provided feedback to people they had a connection to, or had researched in their private capacity.

With public contribution and further research, the draft Roll of Honour has been uplifted from 1043 to 1058.

The names of those recommended for removal were not included in this published draft list. There were no enquiries from the public as to their omission.

5.5 Implications

Financial

An expanded reviewed Roll of Honour will have financial implications to the development of any memorial design with allowance required for the full list to be displayed appropriately.

Social & Policy

A Roll of Honour policy will be required to govern the management and future editing of the Roll of Honour. Such policy will be developed in conjunction with a policy for the War Memorial Centre site which protects the heritage and recognises the commemorative elements and community use.

Risk

A known risk is to the accuracy and completeness of the Roll of Honour. While the research team have made every effort to ensure accuracy, it cannot be guaranteed that all Napier war dead have been captured and that all details are 100% accurate.

A risk exists in the communication to families of those recommended for removal and further research efforts would be made to find family members for those who died outside of the official war period.

5.6 Options

The options available to Council for those recommended for removal are as follows:

a. Approve that 15 identified names from the 1995 Roll of Honour deemed by research to have good and legitimate reason for removal are not carried forward to the revised Roll of Honour.

b. Approve that the 15 identified names recommended for removal are carried forward and remain on the revised Roll of Honour.

5.7 Development of Preferred Option

Thorough analysis and research of the 1995 Roll of Honour has been undertaken to ascertain and confirm the links of each individual to Napier. Robust research and cross-referencing has led to these 15 names identified for removal from the reviewed Roll of Honour. The preferred option is therefore to approve the final Roll of Honour as an official Civic list of war dead for display at the War Memorial Centre site with the 15 names identified by research removed.

5.8 Attachments

a Napier Roll of Honour (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda Item 6

6. War Memorial Design Options Consultation

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	699633
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Carswell, Manager Community Strategies

6.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides the feedback received during consultation on concept design options for a War Memorial. It is recommended that Council select an option in order to proceed with development of a concept brief and subsequent construction of a War Memorial for Napier.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Note the feedback provided by the community during consultation on design options for a War Memorial, and

b. Select an option to develop a concept brief and subsequent construction of a War Memorial for Napier.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Notes the community feedback,

b. Reconfirms its decision made on 27 September 2017 to locate the War Memorial at the Floral Clock site, and

c. Provides direction on a design concept.

6.2 Background Summary

The Napier War Memorial Centre building was extended in 2016. As part of this extension, memorial elements were removed and stored pending a decision on a site for their relocation. In July 2017, after considering three site options it was agreed between Council and the presidents of the Napier and Taradale and Districts Returned Service Associations to establish the memorial in close proximity to the Napier War Memorial Centre building on the Reserve. Council resolved to locate the War Memorial at the Floral Clock site on 27 September 2017, and to relocate the Floral Clock to the Sunken Gardens.

Three design options were provided to Council for consideration. On 29 June 2018, Council resolved to release all three designs for public feedback. The design that housed the elements within an annex to the building was subsequently withdrawn by Council at request of the designer, leaving two designs to be released for feedback. Artist impressions and ‘flyby’ videos were created for the two designs for presentation to the community.

Subsequently, a third Indoor design option was offered by Craig Morley, a member of the public, to replace the Annex design that was withdrawn. On 2 October 2019, Council amended its 29 June resolution to include the Mr Morley’s design in the consultation process, noting the video and images provided by Mr Morley were sufficient and did not require any further design treatment to align with the other two concept options.

On 19 November 2018, the following design concepts were released to the community to provide feedback, suggest modifications or to suggest new design options:

· Forecourt Building – a memorial located on the forecourt next to the main building featuring a new separate building containing the Perpetual Flame and an outdoor area for the Roll of Honour.

· Garden – an open air memorial located next to the main building at the site of the Floral Clock, incorporating the Perpetual Flame and Roll of Honour and a reflection pool.

· Indoor – a memorial located within the main building housing the Perpetual Flame and Roll of Honour.

The Roll of Honour research had been undertaken and a draft was released for feedback. This process ran separately but concurrently to the consultation on the design options.

6.3 Issues

The consultation process acknowledged the interest of those with a special interest and of key stakeholders, and also sought feedback from the wider community. In developing the consultation plan, both Returned Services Associations (RSA) Presidents, as leaders of key stakeholder groups, were contacted to ascertain their preference for consultation activities involving them.

Consultation Process

A range of consultation tools were utilised to invite the community to provide feedback including meetings, presentations, community pop-ups, focus groups and digital engagement. Promotion was implemented through a variety of mechanisms including print and digital advertising, radio, billboards, media releases, website and social media. An independent survey was completed to provide a demographically representative response to the consultation matter.

Surveys were available online, at Napier and Taradale Libraries, both the RSAs, at the Napier City Council Customer Services Centre and at the community pop-ups and meetings.

The consultation period was four weeks and was undertaken from 19 November to 14 December 2018.

Details of the consultation activity are included in the War Memorial Consultation Summary attached.

6.4 Significance and Engagement

Any of the three options would constitute minor changes to the Napier War Memorial Centre, a Strategic Asset, which in itself would not trigger the need to consult under the Significance and Engagement Policy. However, the site selected for a new Napier War Memorial is within the very prominent Marine Parade potentially generating an interest for the wider community. In addition, this matter is of significance to specific groups in the community who have a strong connection to those remembered through the memorial, including friends and whānau of the war dead, and members of the Napier and the Taradale and Districts RSAs. While cost is not the key factor for consideration of which option is preferred, the potential cost impacts on rates and/or borrowing supports the decision to consult on the matter.

6.5 Implications

Results

A full summary of the feedback of the consultation activity is provided in the War Memorial Consultation Summary report attached. Respondents could also suggest modifications or new designs. Six drawings and one written description are summarised below. Several photos of memorials were provided – these are appended to the War Memorial Consultation Summary report attached. Additional written feedback was provided by five respondents which is summarised in the War Memorial Consultation Summary report attached with the full feedback appended to that report. The full SIL Research Survey report is also attached. This report provides detail regarding methodology and demographic breakdowns.

Survey Results

The independent survey results and the online (www.sayitnapier.nz) and hardcopy results are combined. A total of 1298 people responded to the surveys. Respondents were able to select more than one option to like therefore results do not add up to 100%. Respondents’ reasons for liking an option and their concerns are consistent with the feedback provided at the face to face consultation activities. The results are in the table below.

Results table:

Design Option	GARDEN	INDOOR	FORECOURT BUILDING
Result	Two thirds like this option (65.5%)	One third like this option (32.6)	Slightly less than a third like this option (28%)
Reasons	Nice, good, beautiful	A rightful place, provides protection from damage	Generally liked it
Main concern	Potential damage through vandalism and weather	Restrictive access	Price

Design modifications / ideas

All drawings were variations of the consultation design concepts, with two that combine indoor and outdoor locations and features. The variations are summarised as follows:

Garden variations

1. Changes to improve accessibility for wheelchair users, provide extra seating for the elderly and suggestions for design features, materials and plantings. Roll of Honour to be placed along the wheelchair ‘slopes’ – a “wrap around” similar to the forecourt option.

Management response: additional / altered features can be considered in any detailed design.

2. June Graham suggests to relocate the Garden option to the forecourt, to include hedging for shelter from the wind, a roof to the pergola structure and for the Floral Clock to remain in its current position.

Management response: choice of materials can be considered in any detailed design. Impact on the use of the forecourt area would need to be considered in any detailed design of this option.

Indoor variations

3. Uses approximately one third of the existing storage room to create a memorial space and extends the storage room by a third into the main hall. New glass doors create a separate entrance onto a piazza style area. The Perpetual Flame could be located inside so that it is visible from outside. It adds features such as statues and flagpoles.

Management response: This concept does not appear to impact on the conference centre activity or current storage availability.

4. Sites the Roll of Honour on the outer wall of the building, suggests signage options to include the Building’s name and the activity name, it locates Perpetual Flame inside the building in front of windows where it can be seen from the outside.

Management response: Locating the Perpetual Flame in the foyer may have an impact on the use of that area when full conferences are operating. The features of this concept could be considered in any detailed design.

5. Provided by Craig Morley. Provides options to relocate storage without extending the building in order to accommodate the original indoor option. Storage location options are as follows:

a. Basement (with a new service elevator)

b. Area between large and small exhibition halls (3 options to achieve from 19 – 39 metres square)

c. Install a mezzanine floor in large exhibition hall

d. Upper level staff area (with a new service elevator) providing 100 metres square

e. A combination of the area in the basement and the upper staff area (service elevator between the three floors)

Management response: The revised concept appears to return the corridor to its current layout maintaining fire egress. All of the options above require the installation of a service lift. The lift would require doors on both sides as openings are different between the floors. Installing a lift requires excavation under the basement to house the mechanics, this could be substantial for a lift servicing three floors. Shaft framing and fire rated walls are also required. The various storage options provide different sized areas for the displaced storage some of which will not address the storage need. The options could be considered as part of any detailed design. The impact of removing or shifting current facilities would also need to be assessed.

Indoor / Outdoor combinations

6. Ray Blewett suggests to locate the Perpetual Flame inside in the foyer so it is easily seen from the front and side. The Roll of Honour would be placed on a new Wall of Remembrance, and the original plaques attached to two new brick memorial arches representing the two World Wars.

Management response: This concept appears to use the current wall area creating little to no impact on the forecourt area.

7. Dorothy Pilkington provided a combined concept in person and attached it to a hardcopy survey. It includes using the space identified in the Indoor Design Concept, but at a reduced size (one third of the storage room) to house the plaques and new elements including art, poetry and digital technology such as touch tables (similar to those in Wairoa). A new wall adjacent and joining the main building, on the forecourt for the Roll of Honour with a circular reflection pool is identified. The Perpetual Flame could be either elevated in the pool (within a glass or Perspex case) or in the foyer of the main building behind the wall of windows facing Marine Parade. The concept suggests a service lift from the basement be installed to keep vehicles off the forecourt allowing for the memorial elements.

Management response: This concept installs a service lift so goods can be received at the basement not via the forecourt, freeing up the forecourt for the installations identified as well as supporting alternative storage within the building. The lift would require doors on both sides as openings are different between the floors. Installing a lift requires excavation under the basement to house the mechanics, this could be substantial for a lift servicing three floors. Shaft framing and fire rated walls are also required. The impact of removing or shifting current facilities would also need to be assessed.

Photos

Seven photos were uploaded with online survey forms. Five were examples of other memorials including one incorporating a Perpetual Flame in the open, three modern designs – two of which use Cortene steel and the other with poppies included on a Roll of Honour. A photo of a field of poppies was provided and a 1957 photo of the Floral Clock with the Napier War Memorial Centre in the background.

Additional feedback

Four people provided additional written comment in support of their preferred option. One person wrote to express their concern about the costs associated with this matter, including the cost to reinstate the memorial elements. Their feedback is summarised in the War Memorial Consultation Summary report attached, which also includes the full written feedback.

Financial

The design and construction costs would be included in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

Social & Policy

The consultation process aligns with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Over 200 people engaged in the face to face consultation activities with over 1200 people providing feedback through the survey. The promotion of the consultation utilised a range of mechanisms to encourage the community to participate.

Risk

There is an expectation in the community that Council will select a concept to progress to detailed design and construction taking into consideration the feedback they have provided. Should this not occur, the community may perceive their feedback has not been part of the decision-making process.

6.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Select a design option for further design development that considers feedback received on that option through the consultation process (preferred)

b. Do not select one of the three design options. The consultation process did not result in any substantively new designs being provided. All drawings were variations or hybrids of the three designs presented during consultation. Selecting a substantively new design would require further consultation.

6.7 Development of Preferred Option

In selecting an option, the feedback received through the consultation process is a factor to be considered in the decision. Whichever option is selected, the main issues raised by the community about that option ought to be acknowledged and, where possible, mitigated.

All of the raw feedback pertaining to the option selected will be collated, summarised and provided so it is considered in the developed concept design process. Modifications will be investigated in terms of cost, operational impacts and ease of development during this phase.

The selected design option and the agreed next steps will be communicated to the community, particularly to key stakeholders.

6.8 Attachments

a War Memorial Consultation Summary (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 05 March 2019 - Open Agenda Item 8

8. Road Stopping - Corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenues

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 1974
Document ID:	696916
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

8.1 Purpose of Report

To confirm the Council resolution of 30 October 2018 to initiate the road stopping process in accordance with the 10^th Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 and subsequent sale of approximately 188m²of the current legal road on the corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenues, to Ahuriri District Health.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Declare the road adjoining 65 Geddis Avenue, as described in the Schedule hereto, to be stopped; and

b. Transfer the stopped road to the owners of the adjoining land, as described in the Schedule hereto, and require the amalgamation of the stopped road with the adjoining land under one record of title.

SCHEDULE

Hawkes Bay Land District – Napier City

Area

Description

Adjoining Land

0.0188 ha

Section 1 SO Plan

530636

Record of Title

HBM3/1138

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

8.2 Background Summary

A Resource Consent has been granted for the redevelopment 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 park.

The road stopping process does not affect vehicle usage of Geddis Avenue or Longfellow Avenue as the land is outside of the carriageway. Footpath use is also still available.

A plan showing the Road Reserve to be stopped is attached.

At its meeting of 30 October 2018, Council resolved to commence procedures for the formal stopping and sale of land on the corner of Geddis and Longfellow Avenues, Napier.

Procedures have been completed in accordance with the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 and no objections have been received.

Council is now required to confirm the original decision.

8.3 Issues

There are no issues.

8.4 Significance and Engagement

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

8.5 Implications

Financial

Nil

Social & Policy

Sale of the land to the adjoining owner will provide enhanced medical services to the community.

Risk

Not applicable.

8.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To declare the road adjoining 65 Geddis Avenue to be stopped, transfer the stopped road to the adjoining owners and require the amalgamation of the stopped road with the adjoining land under one record of title.

b. To not declare the road adjoining 65 Geddis Avenue to be stopped.

8.7 Development of Preferred Option

Option A is the preferred option to give Ahuriri District Health certainty for the medical centre redevelopment.

8.8 Attachments

a Geddis & Longfellow Avenue road stopping area ⇩

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 February 2019 - Open Agenda

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 13 November 2018
Time:	3pm-3.29pm
Venue	Council Chambers Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Present	Mayor Dalton, Councillor Price (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright
In Attendance	Chief Executive, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Director Infrastructure Services, Director City Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager Regulatory Solutions/ Manager Business Excellence & Transformation, Team Leader Transportation, Traffic & Safety Engineer
Administration	Governance Team

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Councillor Wright declared an interest in Agenda Item 3.

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Councillors White / Brosnan

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2018 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Questions from Councillors for Further Action

Item	Requestor	Action	Responsible
1	Clrs Boag/ Hague	Officers to provide comments to Councillors on the LGNZ Three Waters report once they have reviewed the same.	Jon K

Agenda Items

1. Compliance with Current Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand - 2017/18

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	656402
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Santha Agas, Team Leader 3 Waters

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of:

· The outcome of the report received from Central North Island Drinking Water Assessment Unit (CNIDWAU) on compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008) and duties under Health Act 1956.

· The scheduled programme of works in the next 5 years to improve the quality of Napier’s Water Supply network.

At the Meeting

It was noted that at the time of preparation of the agenda, the Central North Island Drinking Water Assessment Unit report on compliance with drinking-water standards had only been received in draft; the final report has now been received and will be brought to Council on 11 December 2018. No significant changes have been highlighted, only wording to make the report more specific to Napier.

A number of Councillors referred to a report recently released by Local Government New Zealand regarding Three Waters. Officers confirmed they would provide comments to Councillors on the report once they have reviewed the same.

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

· Chlorination is important to ensure a multi-barrier approach is taken when addressing the risks to drinking-water. The risk of contamination to Napier’s drinking-water is associated with the reticulation network; this risk is managed through chlorination. Council be non-conforming with the Water Safety Plan if they did not chlorinate to manage the risk of contamination.

· A programme of work is underway at present to build dedicated treatment facilities. With the existing temporary facilities, chlorination dosing is automated based on flow rate but the servicing of those facilities is a very manual exercise currently performed daily by team members.

· Two new dedicated bore fields are to be developed, one within the general Taradale area and the other in Awatoto. Council is looking to retire those bores that could not be lifted above ground and build others in a suitable location within the two proposed bore field areas.

· One additional bore will come online at the end of November once it has obtained interim secure bore status.

· Bore life expectancy is around 50-60 years and of Council’s existing bores, half are around 30 years old. As part of Council’s work programme the existing bores have been assessed for condition and performance and delivered good results.

· All bores were non-compliant for a period due to secure bore status being removed following the Havelock North Drinking Water Incident. Council has now gained interim secure bore status for approximately half of our bores. The non-compliance in the network occurred in the six months preceding the year the report is referring to. There was one week during the period the compliance report covers where Council was non-compliant due to the transfer from in-house water testing to using a contractor. The contractor was unable to sample one bore Council was therefore considered non-compliant for that week. The particular bore in question has never returned a positive ecoli test result.

· The peak water usage demand this month is higher than any day in November last year. Council currently has capacity to deliver to the summer demand, however there is always a risk of bore or pump failures and for this reason it is important to have additional capacity online.

· When forecasting future demand and total water allocation all areas of growth are considered.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Hague

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Receive the update on compliance with current drinking-water standards.

Carried

2. Speed Limit Bylaw Review 2018

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	468094
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Tony Mills, Senior Roading Engineer

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council to commence formal public consultation on the proposed changes to the “’Napier City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012” and the accompanying Statement of Proposal.

The proposed changes follow the introduction of the new “Speed Management Guide” which was developed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to help Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) better understand the risk associated with their roads so that the appropriate speed limits can be set.

Informal public consultation was undertaken to enable the community to have input in to the process at an early stage and the findings are detailed in this report.

At the Meeting

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

· In relation to reducing the school zone speed to 30km/h, Council places a higher priority on achieving the higher levels of safety for vulnerable road users than with remaining consistent with New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) current approach to school speed zone speed limits. All affected zones would be accompanied by flashing signs. A number of peer Councils are closely watching this space. The probability of fatality at 40km/h is 40% with the probability of fatality at 30km/h being 10%.

· 20km/h for the bus layby on Gloucester Street is a low speed limit, but this is standard between carpark and bus areas.

· Further detail and technical data will be made available through the public consultation process.

· It is not possible to be predetermined in the Speed Limit Bylaw review process as the NZTA have final sign-off.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors White / Wright

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Adopt the report from the Senior Roading Engineer titled “Speed Limit Bylaw Review 2018” with the reasons for the decision being:

i. That a bylaw is the only method mandated by the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017

ii. That the right to control speed limits is granted by Parliament to territorial authorities and the limitations proposed are justified limitations in terms of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that there is accordingly no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

iii. That the consultation on the speed limits will allow affected parties and the wider community to fully consider the bylaw amendments proposed having regard to the requirements of the Rule 4.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017

b. Adopt the Proposed Amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 and the Statement of Proposal to commence public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

Carried

3. Lease of Reserve - Napier Free Kindergarten Association Incorporated

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	655792
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

3.1 Purpose of Report

To obtain a Council decision to enter into a new ground lease with the Napier Free Kindergarten Association Incorporated for the Carlyle Kindergarten at the Thackeray Street Reserve.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Resolve to enter into a new ground lease with the Napier Free Kindergarten Association Incorporated for the Carlyle Kindergarten for a term of 15 years with one 15-year right of renewal.

Councillor Wright did not participate in the discussion or voting due to an expressed conflict of interest.

Carried

The meeting closed at 3.29pm.

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

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

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

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 19 February 2019
Time:	3.00pm
Venue:	Large Exhibition Hall Napier Conference Centre Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier

Committee Members	Councillor Price (In the Chair), Mayor Dalton, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright
Officers Responsible	Director City Strategy, Director Infrastructure Services
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Strategy and Infrastructure Committee Meeting Tuesday 19 March 2019