Agenda of Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

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

Agenda Items

1. Napier Aquatic Centre Development: Completing LTP Caveats

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	711664
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to fulfil the requirements of the four caveats to the LTP decision to proceed with the development of the “Pools & Play” option at Prebensen Drive.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Note that three of the four caveats outlined during the Long Term Plan deliberations in relation to proceeding with the Aquatic Centre project have been completed:

i. Caveat #1: Post-move development and funding plan put in place for Onekawa Park has been met by the Onekawa Park Development and Funding Plan.

ii. Caveat #2: Outdoor space built-in to the new complex has been meet by the design concepts included in the ‘Napier Aquatic Centre Concept Design Revision 3.0’.

iii. Caveat #4: The site investigations for the new location being completed has been met by the Tonkin and Taylor report (Proposed Napier Aquatic Centre, Prebensen Drive, Napier).

b. Endorse the ‘Scope of Tender’ for the Aquatic Centre project as detailed in this report. This will complete Caveat #3: Scope for Tender agreed by Council before it is tendered.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

1.2 Background Summary

During Council deliberations on the LTP on 6 June 2018, four caveats to proceeding with the proposed 25m x 25m Pools and Play option at the Prebensen Drive location were agreed and ratified via the resolution of 29 June 2018.

The Council resolution was:

That Council proceed with the proposed 25m x 25m Pools and Play option (new location) and retain the allocated $41.3 million for this project in the LTP, subject to the following Caveats:

· Post-move development and funding plan put in place for Onekawa Park

· Outdoor space built-in to the new complex

· Scope of Tender agreed by Council before it is tendered

· The site investigations for the new location being completed.

Vision and critical success factors for Napier’s aquatic development

Across a three-stage process including two seminars with Councillors on 3 August 2018 and 28 September, Councillors developed a vision and critical success factors for Napier’s aquatic development that clarified a strategic framework that connected the development into Napier City Council vision and outcomes. The vision and critical success factors developed and agreed to by Council were:

Vision

· Our facility benefits our community’s health, wellbeing and cohesion and is a source of community pride.

Critical success factors

· Aquatic visitors: Increase the number of people participating in aquatic sport and active recreation

· Community pride: Drive a major increase in community engagement satisfaction with aquatic facilities

· Water Safety: Teach more Napier people to be safe and confident in water

· Balance outcomes: Establish and monitor the right balance of space and utilisation among our four outcome areas

· Value for money: Deliver value for money for our ratepayers and our users

· Social cohesion: Improve social cohesion and inclusivity through ensuring all Napier residents benefit from the new facility.

Summary of caveats

Caveat 1: Post-move development and funding plan put in place for Onekawa Park

· A project plan and a high-level concept design has been completed for the development of the Onekawa site.

· A master plan will be developed as part of this process with community input that recognises and factors in existing amenities.

· This plan will identify the best use of the reserve space to deliver Council outcomes and the specific needs of the local community.

· The timings for the development of this Onekawa Park Development Plan are as follows:

· The process will be similar to the Destination Playground development, which was very successful.

· Included in the LTP budget is:

o $500,000 in the 2019/20 financial year for demolition of existing facility and returning the site to reserve. Project timeline delays have meant that this amount will need to be carried over to the following financial year when the completion of the new facility is now scheduled.

o $700,000 in 2023/24 financial year for implementation of the Master Plan for the reserve. It is intended to bring this forward to Year 1 of the 2021/22- 2031/32 Long Term Plan.

o Dependant on the master planning process and Council’s vision for Onekawa Park and community consultation, Council will have the opportunity to review and allocate any addition funding identified.

Caveat 2: Outdoor space built-in to the new complex

· Similar to the QEII Taiora facility that provides the basis for the facility designs, an outdoor area is included within the design scope.

· The Scope for Tender as included in this document specifies the location of the outdoor space to be included in the tender requirements.

· The outdoor area included within the design is significantly increased in size to take advantage of the size of the site, provide additional customer utility and take advantage of Napier’s climate and sunshine hours.

Caveat 3: Scope of Tender agreed by Council before it goes out

The project team has defined the ‘Scope for Tender’ as the detailed concept design. This provides all the design, dimension and functionality information for the facility. The next step in detail to be developed from the ‘Scope for Tender’ is the employer requirements that comprise the tender documentation. These employer requirements are at a level of detail that includes technical specifications of materials, construction and plant performance. The pool description in the concept design defines the size and depth, the employers requirements then go on to define details such as the flow rates, finish warranty durations, gutter dimensions, water recovery quantities and line widths.

Workshops and discussions with Council and external stakeholders over preceding months have identified specific areas of focus for ‘enhancing’ the QEII Taiora blueprint design to ensure Napier’s Aquatic development is relevant to the needs of our community.

These specific areas of focus were:

· The ability to expand the facility should demand dictate

· The size of the learn to swim pool

· Seating capacity around the main pool

· The specific configuration of the leisure play area

· The configuration and utility of the outdoor space

· The size and functionality of the birthday party room

· The café seating area

· The functionality of the community meeting room

· The screening of the plant and equipment on the roof

· The ability to expand the facility to include a 50m pool or other configuration should future demand dictate.

These requirements have been clarified or included in the Concept Design document attached to this report.

Caveat 4: The site investigations for the new location being completed

· The final report of site investigations for the Prebensen Drive site was completed by Tonkin & Taylor in June 2018.

· The Tonkin and Taylor report (Proposed Napier Aquatic Centre, Prebensen Drive, Napier) is attached to this report.

The value of ‘dry side’ operations

There has been a lot of discussion around the value of the dry-side ‘fitness’ operations included within the Scope of Tender, particularly given the number of gyms within Napier. These include a community fitness space, a group fitness studio and a spin room, as well as dry changing rooms.

These community fitness facilities were identified in the business case and have been included in all plans presented, discussed with and approved by Council since the initial seminars with Global Leisure Group and Create in December 2016.

The rationale for the inclusion of dry-side activities into an aquatic centre can be broken down into two key areas:

· The additional customer and community benefit of the co-location of ‘dry’ fitness services with aquatic facilities

· The financial contribution that these activities can make to help offset the significant operating costs of the aquatic portion of the facility.

Customer and community benefit

For Napier to be ‘a safe and healthy city that supports community wellbeing’ the overriding objective of the incorporation of dry and wet health and wellbeing is to target those at the beginning of their journey towards health and wellbeing.

The co-location of wet and dry health and wellbeing facilities provides additional customer and community benefits through:

· Providing one place to go to for people that want to use water and dry activities to improve their health and wellbeing, improving convenience and reducing customer effort and cost.

· Establishing appropriate spaces for the AquaMax programme successfully run out of the Napier Aquatic Centre.

o The programme currently utilises the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union gym at the rear of the existing facility, the Omni-gym, outdoor space and space around the pool deck to deliver its programmes to participants. None of these is ideal, with the HBRU and Omni-gym facilities restricted by its primary usage, outdoor by weather, dew and seasonality and the pool deck by space, obstruction for other pool users and temperature within the existing facility.

· Providing specific health, fitness and wellbeing expertise in house as part of the facility and the wider sports and recreation area to contribute to the Council outcomes of ‘a safe and healthy City that supports community wellbeing’

o This in-house expertise not only supports customers within the facility, but provides opportunities for community outreach: using these skills in communities, involving the whole whanau and providing inspiration and a helping hand to get moving.

· In addition to the core community health and wellbeing ‘membership’, provides spaces and expertise to support targeted programmes to improve the wellbeing of specific ‘high-need’ parts of our community.

o Examples in this area include Green Prescription, seniors programmes around balance, movement and strength and fundamental movement for zero to five year olds.

Financial contribution to offset aquatic provision costs

Aquatic facilities are expensive to operate. From Sport NZ’s Facility Guide 2016 “Industry facility trends indicate that revenue rarely meets annual operating costs for the majority of community indoor facilities. To ensure the best financial viability and attract potential interest from other funders or investors, any future facility must be designed with components that have the potential to contribute positive revenue streams and the capacity to be profitable. Positive contributions to operating costs can assist in offsetting the net costs of other components and may help in attracting private commercial investment or services delivery interest.”

For these reasons, almost all aquatic developments in New Zealand consider affordability to ratepayers as part of effective facility planning. A key part of this is generating income from the facility through activities such as fitness centres, learn to swim, retail and birthday parties. Of these potential income sources, a fitness centre or gym is the source with the greatest ability to offset the ratepayer contribution to operating costs.

The business case for the proposed option includes a projected $400,000 per year from the dry side, based on conservative membership assumptions. Should actual membership numbers reflect the experiences of QEII Taiora that services a similar size population, then this revenue per year can be expected to be as much as double.

From the Sport NZ’s Community Sport & Recreation Facility Development Guide “While the health and fitness area of the facility could be expected to generate a significant profit, and the sports hall comes close to breaking even on operating costs, in New Zealand the revenue return on costs for an aquatic centre ranges from as low as 25 percent to just over 100 percent, with a mean from the Yardstick benchmarking report at around 55 percent.”

While expenditure in the business case model wasn’t separated by function, the net contribution of the facility can be estimated at $140,000 (at a 35% margin) based on benchmark data of comparable sized fitness centres in similar areas. Over the 30 year life of the asset this equates to a $4,200,000 offset of operational costs that otherwise would be borne by the ratepayer.

A recent relevant example is the EA Networks Centre in Ashburton. Upon completion of the facility in 2015, it was almost immediately apparent that the 521m2 fitness centre was not large enough to cater to community demand. This compromised its ability to maximise the community benefit it was able to deliver and also the financial contribution to offset the contribution from ratepayers. The plan now is add an additional 200m2 of fitness space to the four year old facility at a cost of an additional $500,000. A more detailed case study of the EA Network Centre is attached to this report.

Of comparably sized cities and towns with aquatic facilities, Upper Hutt, Rotorua, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Porirua, Hamilton, and Tauranga have all developed combined facilities with both indoor pools and fitness centres. Only Invercargill and Kapiti have been developed without dry side fitness integrated into the facility.

Of the larger centres, Auckland has 15 facilities with combined aquatic and fitness and four that are pool only (and largely outdoor seasonal pools). All of Christchurch’s aquatic facilities have dry fitness operations, as do Wellington City’s. Auckland Council have a number of facilities (Glenfield Pool and Leisure Centre, Tepid Baths, Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure Centre, Lloyd Elsmere Park Pool and Leisure Centre, Albany Stadium Pool) that are at or near operationally cost-neutral as a primary result of its fitness centres, all while providing free swimming to all under 16 year olds.

Issues

Delays to the project timeline have resulted in cost escalation of 3% that may put pressure on the $41.3 million budget for the project.

1.3 Significance and Engagement

· Considerable community engagement has been undertaken along this journey since the development of the Napier Aquatics Strategy in 2015.

· A communications and community engagement plan has been prepared for the project.

· An external stakeholder group has been formed to provide specific operational input to inform the employer requirements for the tender.

· Community engagement will be conducted for Onekawa Park as specified within the Onekawa Park Development Plan.

1.4 Implications

Financial

See risk

Social & Policy

Delivery of the Napier Aquatic Strategy approved by Council in 2015.

Risk

Cost escalation:

· Construction escalation was estimated to slow at the end of 2018 and flatten at the start of 2019. This has not happened and the costs are continuing to rise in the industry at 3% a year. For Napier’s aquatic project, this translates to $3,000 a day that project cost is escalating. This is outside of project control and unavoidable. This may be further exacerbated by the reducing number of main contractors in the marketplace capable of handling this project. A project specific Quantity Surveyor is currently being engaged to further quantify this aspect and assist in managing this risk.

Programme risk:

· Delays to the project will incur further costs associated with escalation. At present the number of competing main contractors in the market is reducing. Delays to programme may affect the ability to secure a creditable main contractor.

Functionality risk:

· The budget for the project is defined. Cost escalation due to programme delays erodes the available budget meaning that reductions in scope may be required. If these reductions in scope are significant, then the flow on risk is the value engineering process compromises the intended functionality of the facility. Effectively, the greater the delay, the greater the risk that less ‘pool’ will be able to be delivered to Napier’s community.

Reputational risk:

· The reputation of NCC will be adversely affected if the promised functionality cannot be delivered, or if delivery cannot be carried out to stated timeframes.

1.5 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Endorse the scope of tender.

b. Not endorse the scope of tender and undertake further review of the design.

1.6 Development of Preferred Option

The project team will work with Warren & Mahoney to produce the employer requirements for the tender to deliver on the scope for tender as specified in this document. Ongoing involvement from the Project Working Group is anticipated throughout the execution of the project.

1.7 Attachments

a Onekawa Park Development Plan (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b Napier Aquatic Centre Concept Design (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c Enlarged birthday party room (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Report: Prebensen Drive Proposed Aquatic Site (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e Ashburton EA Networks Centre: Case Study (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 19 March 2019 - Open Agenda

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 19 February 2019
Time:	3.00pm – 4.44pm
Venue	Large Exhibition Hall Napier Conference Centre Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier

Present

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

In Attendance

Director Infrastructure Services, Director Community Services, Director City Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Chief Financial Officer, Manager Community Strategies

Virgil Troy - SIL Research

Administration

Governance Team

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Councillor Boag declared her involvement with the Disability Advisory Group in relation to the Napier Disability Strategy in agenda item 1.

Public forum

Napier Disability Strategy

Lynne Gibson spoke in support of the draft Napier Disability Strategy, noting that an inclusive pre-consultation process has taken place with a number of organisations within the disability community. It was noted that the Napier Disability Advisory Group has worked in conjunction with key departments of Council to compile the strategy.

Jacqui Lee of the Napier Hearing Association also spoke in support of the draft Napier Disability Strategy and thanked those involved to date for giving members of the disability community a chance to be heard. The strategy is an exciting and thought provoking opportunity.

Paul Redman and Shelly Te Uki – Napier Sailing Club

Paul spoke on behalf of the Napier Sailing Club (the Club) requesting funding to assist with the cost of the breastwork upgrade. The current state of the breastwork is a safety concern for the Club, which shares their facilities with a number of other water based sports groups. Paul presented photos to Council which highlighted the work required, and noted that the Club also requests support from Council regarding resource consents. Speaking notes tabled at the meeting (Attachment A).

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

· The proposed works have taken projected rising sea levels into account; the sill height has been raised around 250ml to account for this.

· The Club embraces and welcomes public access and are happy for this to be formalised.

· At this stage the Club is only looking at upgrading the 80m wall. There are future plans for an ongoing marina but this will be at the Club’s cost. At that time, assistance from Council may be required regarding consents. It was noted that the new marina would come off the proposed breastwork.

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Councillors Taylor / Boag

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2018 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

Nicki Young, NZ Sign Language Communicator, was acknowledged and welcomed to the meeting.

The Manager Community Strategies spoke to the report, outlining the process undertaken to date in developing the draft strategy through early consultation with a number of groups within the disability community.

Councillors spoke in support of the strategy noting that this is a robust, aspirational document and they are looking forward to receiving community feedback through the consultation process.

In response to questions from Councillors it was clarified that at this stage the strategy is limited to Council services and how those services are provided. Once the strategy has been implemented Council could begin looking at a full community disability strategy.

It was noted that the strategy will also be produced in an easy read/pictorial version.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / White

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

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

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

It was noted that funds are available through the Hawke’s Bay Harbour Board Endowment Land Income Account and Council has a responsibility to spend those funds on inner harbour works.

Councillors were happy to see that public access will be formalised and agreed that this work is essential for health and safety reasons.

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Brosnan

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.

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

A Councillor spoke to the determination, suggesting that there were no grounds for a judicial review or appeal. The determination gave weight to the work completed by Council officers, and also noted that further work was recommended for the next review in relation to ward boundaries and community boards.

Councillors against the change to a ward-only system commented that the system was inappropriate for Napier and reduced the number of elected members that the public could vote for. Those in support noted that the ward only system would simplify the voting process.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Wright

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.

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, the Team Leader Governance confirmed that at the 2016 Local Government elections, Napier was the only Council in the region using the randomised order for candidates’ names on voting papers; however, there have been strong indications from the other Councils in the region that they intend to move in this direction for the 2019 elections. It was noted that although the Government elected not to enforce this it is generally accepted that randomised order is best practice; research suggests that alphabetical order favours candidates at the beginning of the alphabet.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors McGrath / Taylor

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.

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

Councillors acknowledged the hard work of those involved to date to ensure that the roll of honour is as accurate as possible.

In response to questions from Councillors management confirmed that, where possible and practicable, attempts were made to contact the families of those identified to be removed from the roll of honour. A Councillor noted their unease in relation to removing names from the roll of honour where the family could not be contacted.

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Taylor

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.

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

Virgil Troy of SIL Research and the Manager Community Strategies spoke to the report, outlining the consultation process undertaken and noting that 65% preferred the garden option. Although other options were submitted, none of those substantially departed from the concepts consulted on.

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

· The responses did not indicate that preference for an indoor option was diluted by having more than one; there was a clear preference for the garden option.

· The majority of the 172 submissions that had been removed were due to incomplete or unusable responses. 10 were assessed as allegedly being from the same person or double-ups which was validated through checking IP addresses and other methods. It was noted that removing those 10 submissions does not affect the overall result.

· The survey was targeted at Napier residents therefore submissions from outside of Napier were removed. No special requests were made by non-residents in their submissions explaining why they considered their views should be included.

· Over sampling is considered best practice to ensure that enough clean data is achieved to present accurate results.

Councillor Brosnan acknowledged the Chair’s recommendation in the officer’s report and moved a substantive motion which had been prepared in consultation with members of the public actively following the matter, including Guy Natusch. The substantive motion draws on key items taken from the submissions and was assessed against criteria including ‘important elements’, ‘what the community said’ and ‘outcome wants’; these criteria were tabled at the meeting (Attachment B). The intention is that officer’s at the direction of Council, prepare a final design to be adopted by Council in five months’ time.

Management noted that the proposed timeline was of concern given the level of work required and that this may not be practically achievable.

In response to questions, Councillor Brosnan clarified that the new roll of honour would be displayed and the old physical roll of honour would be incorporated into the site in another way based on the recommendation of an appropriate committee. The location of the memorial will still be the floral clock site in accordance with Council’s decision of 27 September 2017, but raised to forecourt level.

Councillors in support of the motion noted the following points:

· This motion is a combination of all three options.

· The direction from Council on 2 October 2018 was to go out for feedback and input on the three options. Councillors noted that it should not be a tick box exercise but rather to receive input into a community-led design.

· Submissions noted a clear desire to pay homage to the original design and return the flame to the building, ensuring the flame is at forecourt level, 24/7 access and providing an area for reflection. This motion recognises that the building and the whole site are key to the memorial.

· This motion provides clear direction to experts to produce something for those sharing the space.

· The concepts are broad enough to still allow flexibility in design.

· This is a good compromise and seems to be one that most can live with. Any problems will be worked through in the design process.

· As a gesture of good faith we should just go for it.

Councillors speaking against the motion noted the following points:

· Council is trying to design by committee.

· The results of the survey were clear, with twice as much support for the garden/landscape option than the next option.

· Concern was expressed as to whether enough of the garden option had been incorporated into the proposal given this was the strongly preferred option through the consultation.

· Giving officers such a prescriptive directive is limiting and denies officers the ability to work with a clear mind.

· The information was only provided to officers and some Councillors at the meeting and it would have been useful to also have a visual to help envisage what this proposal would look like, as was done for the consultation options.

· Further due diligence is required before a final decision can be made.

Some discussion was held around the wording of the motion with minor tweaks being agreed to by the mover and seconder.

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.

Substantive motion

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Wise

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Considers 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.

d. That Council staff take the following design direction to create a final design concept for adoption by Council:

1. That the reinstated Memorial be constructed at forecourt level, on the floral clock site, forming part of the War Memorial Site,

2. That a curved wall, open to the elements, mimicking the ballroom shape and physically connected to the building, display the Roll of Honour,

3. That the Perpetual Flame be built into the existing War Memorial Building Entranceway so that it is visible when entering the building, from the Memorial and externally at night,

4. That water be incorporated into the design that is near to and complements the flame, so that they can be viewed together,

5. That a place/s to sit and reflect be included,

6. That physical access and visual connection to the formal lawn be incorporated,

7. That remembrance artwork be commissioned, to connect the Memorial space with the Memorial Building and lower lawn, uniting the Memorial elements; and that this be given as a brief to the Arts Advisory Group to commission,

8. That landscaping is included that complements and promotes restful contemplation, and unites the Memorial Building with the Memorial elements,

9. That the design include flag poles connecting the Memorial and Memorial building,

10. That WW1 and WW2 Rolls be displayed in a prominent way flowing onto future conflicts such as Vietnam and Boer War Rolls,

11. That the physical original Roll of Honour be respectfully incorporated into the design and that a small committee of appropriate representatives are given this brief, to provide Council a recommendation on ‘how to incorporate’.

e. Note Councils intention to adopt a final design no later than August 2019 and begin construction as soon as practicable in the 2019 calendar year.

The division was declared carried by 12 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For: Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright

Against: Mayor Dalton

Carried

7. Greendale Pool Funding Decision: Council Projects Fund

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	700270
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

7.1 Purpose of Report

To approve a $50,000 grant to Greendale Committee to contribute towards the restoration of the Taradale School Pool (Greendale Pool).

At the Meeting

A Councillor spoke against the motion, noting that Council will end up with two community pools in Taradale and that Council would be supporting the upgrade of a 70 year old pool while planning to replace a 20 year old pool in Onekawa.

Councillors speaking in support of the motion noted the following points:

· The Greendale pool is on Ministry of Education land and initially they were not supporting the upgrade. They have now become involved.

· Funding of $50,000 is conditional upon receipt of a signed tender agreement.

· The Prebensen Drive aquatic centre will be a community pool and offer a variety of other activities whereas the Greendale pool is just a basic pool primarily used for lane swimming.

· Council would be supporting the club in order to support the community, much the same as Council has agreed to support the Napier Sailing Club.

In response to questions, Council officers were unaware whether Sport New Zealand had made any comment regarding the Greendale Pool.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wise / Taylor

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve that $50,000 be allocated from the 2019/20 Council Project Fund to the Greendale Committee to restore the Taradale School Pool, conditional upon the receipt of a signed tender agreement signalling the commencement of the refurbishment work.

The division was declared carried by 12 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Dalton, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright

Against: Councillor McGrath

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

It was noted that the road stopping will vastly improve access to the area and support the new medical centre. The new medical centre will be extended onto the site of the old medical centre.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Boag

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

Carried

9. Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee Minutes 7 December 2018

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	696550
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cheree Ball, Governance Advisor

9.1 Purpose of Report

To present to Council the unconfirmed minutes of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting, held on 7 December 2018.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Tapine / Hague

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting from 7 December 2018.

Carried

The meeting adjourned at 4.31pm to allow the Regulatory Committee meeting to take place before moving into committee.

Councillors Taylor / Hague

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meeting reconvened at 4.44pm following the Regulatory Committee meeting.

Carried

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

Councillors White / Brosnan

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

1. Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee Public Excluded Minutes 7 December 2018

Carried

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

General subject of each matter to be considered.

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.

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

1. Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee Public Excluded Minutes 7 December 2018

7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

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

The meeting moved into committee at 4.44pm.

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

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

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

Attachment A

Refer Public Forum – Napier Sailing Club

Attachment B

Refer Agenda Item 6 – War Memorial Design Options Consultation

Tabled - Motion - Assessment Criteria

Themes: Important Elements:

(Pulled from submissions of special interest groups incl 2 of the designers, RSA’s, historians, and focus group feedback)

- Connected to, in or on the War Memorial Building

- Respectful display of the Roll and Perpetual Flame

- Inclusion of Water

- Place to reflect

- Memorial elements be a visual part of each War Memorial Building user experience

Themes: What the Community said:

- Combination of the 3 designs (liked and disliked elements of all)

- 24/7 accessibility and ease of access

- Place to reflect, have quiet contemplation space

- Something ‘like the original’

- Flame protected from vandalism

- Generally concur with the ‘Important Elements’ themes above

Themes: Outcome Wants

- A community led design and input

- Important elements re-instated

- Special interest groups views weighed heavily

- Not a ‘new’ Memorial design

- Not a ‘side-lined’ ‘distant’ ‘unconnected’ reinstated Memorial design

*Please turn over for assessment of design direction (motion) against these criteria

Design Direction (motion) Assessment

Important Elements:

Connected to, in or on the War Memorial Building

- Roll of Honnor and wall connected to, and Flame in, the memorial building

Respectful display of the Roll and Perpetual Flame

- High quality materials used for the memorial elements housing

Inclusion of Water

- Included in the Flame housing display

Place to reflect

- Seating and ‘quiet’ space included

Memorial elements being a visual part of each War Memorial Building user experience

- Everyone passively entering the building will pass the Perpetual flame, water and see the roll

What the community said - Assessment

Combination of the 3 designs

- Forecourt Option - It is on the forecourt/ part of the site

- Indoor Option - It is attached to and in the building

- Garden Option - It is visually and physically connected to the parade and lawn

24/7 Accessibility and access

- The Roll and Flame will be accessible 24/7

Place to reflect, quiet contemplation space

- You will be able to visit the Memorial without being in the ‘middle’ of an event

- There will be seating, water and connectivity with the parade promoting quiet space

Something ‘like the original’

- The similarities to the original Guy Natusch Memorial include

o Curved external wall housing the Roll

o Every user of the building passing the memorial elements on entry

o Water included

o Reflection space

o Roll open to the elements

Flame Protected

- The flame could not be extinguished

Generally concur with the ‘Important Elements’ list above

- See above

Outcome Wants

- A community led design and input

o The design direction has come 100% from submission input

- Important elements re-instated

o Yes as shown in above assessment “important elements”

- Special interest groups views weighed heavily

o The qualitative feedback from special interest groups has formed the basis of the design criteria

- Not a ‘new’ Memorial design

o The design criteria map the Memorial back to the Memorial site, in a way that is similar (as assessed above) to the original design, and incorporate all of the memorial elements in and on the site

- Not a ‘side-lined’ ‘distant’ ‘unconnected’ reinstated Memorial design

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 19 March 2019
Time:	3pm
Venue:	Council Chambers Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Committee Members	Mayor Dalton, Councillor Price (In the Chair), 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 30 April 2019

Type of Report:	Enter Significance of Report
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	710981
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer