Agenda of Māori Consultative Committee

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

Reports from standing committees

Māori CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 19 March 2019

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.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors White / Taylor

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.

c. Note that the tender come back to Council for approval, including financial costs.

The division was declared carried by 7 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Councillors Dalton, Brosnan, Hague, Price, Taylor, White and Wright

Against: Councillors Boag, Dallimore, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine and Wise

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

The following points were raised during the discussion on this item:

· Managing the costs of this project is a very high priority. A further $3M to the LTP provisions has been allowed for to provide some flexibility in recognition of the shifting construction market; this has not been formalised in future years at this point as it remains to be seen what bids are received from any tendering process.

· Some Councillors indicated strong concerns with regards to the affordability of the project, when considered against a number of other large pieces of work due to be undertaken.

· These Councillors also suggested that some cost figures provided (such as for the Onekawa site development) may be inadequate for the works required.

· A full contamination survey has been undertaken for the Prebensen site and no issues were identified.

· In regards to geotechnical considerations, the Prebensen site is no worse than the Onekawa site. The Design-Build contractor will also undertake their own further geotechnical assessments, and will take all factors, including the water table level, into account in the design of foundations and excavation.

· The critical success factors were developed in discussion with Council, and emphasis placed on accessibility and “value for money” based on the clear feedback from elected members.

· The Onekawa Park Working Group has not yet been established; Terms of Reference will be drafted and membership confirmed at the appropriate time in the wider project.

· The list of people that will be engaged with in regards to the Onekawa Park development is indicative only at this point, and is not exhaustive.

· The project as a whole has been taken to the Māori Consultative Committee on several occasions.

· It was reiterated that the decision in front of the Committee is whether to proceed to tender, not which site to use as that decision has already been taken; tenders will be brought back to Council, at which point Council can assess the costs which will have been refined through the tender process.

· Aquatic facilities have been the number one concern raised in the community surveys over several years.

· Although some councillors felt that the decision should be left until after the election, others noted that it is this Council that has received all the information, that has participated in the workshops and that has made the decisions to date, and it was important to continue to take ownership of the project.

Officers will confirm whether the $500K budgeted for the demolition of the buildings at the Onekawa site allows for any management of contamination required.

Officers will provide an outline of Council’s anticipated debt levels against comparable other Councils.

Deputy Mayor White proposed a minor amendment to the Officer’s recommendation, which as it was supported by the seconder to the motion, was captured as part c to the Committee’s recommendation.

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)

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

2. Elected Members' Remuneration - 2019 Information Update

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	713356
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Devorah Nícuarta-Smith, Team Leader Governance

2.1 Purpose of Report

To present to Council an information update on the 2019 process provided by the Remuneration Authority, the national body charged with matters in relation to elected members’ remuneration.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / White

That the Finance Committee:

a. Receive the information update on the 2019 elected members’ remuneration process provided by the national Remuneration Authority.

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

In 2018, the Remuneration Authority (‘the Authority’) advised of changes to be made to the approach to elected members’ remuneration following a two year review and consultation process with Councils.

An updated communication has now been received from the Authority which provides greater clarity on the new process such as it impacts for the 2019/20 year and following the 2019 Local Government Elections.

2.3 Issues

Following the review, the Authority implemented phase one of three stages to its approach – an adjusted remuneration allocation based on the resizing and ranking of Councils based on an expanded number of criteria from previous years.

They also signalled that there would be a move from the existing “partial pool” approach (whereby the Authority determines base councillor pay but each council has a pool to "top up" remuneration for councillors holding positions of responsibility) to a full pool approach.

This new approach, which takes effect following this year's election, means that each council is allocated a pool related to the ranking of the council on the new size index, and then the incoming council proposes to the Authority the councillor base pay and the additional pay for positions of responsibility.

The Authority have set a minimum base pay level which applies to all councils, but many councils may choose to set the base pay above this as part of their allocation process.

It should be noted that the total pool does not apply to the remuneration of Mayors (or Regional Chairs or community board members where those exist). The Authority will continue to set remuneration for these positions directly.

At the end of June 2019, the Authority will release its determination which will be presented in two parts in recognition of the election year. The Authority has provided its proposed remuneration allocation for Part 1 (1 July 2019 to day of official election result declaration), and total councillor pool for Part 2 (day after official election result declaration and onwards) in advance of their final determination to aid councils in preparing for the budgetary implications of the change.

It should be noted that these figures may change as the Authority works towards their final determination.

Proposed 2019/20 Determination Part 1

Effective from 1 July 2019 up to and including the day the official result of the 2019 election of members for the Council is declared.

Current (2018/19) annual remuneration for comparison:

Proposed 2019/20 Determination Part 2

Effective from the day after the date on which the official result of the 2019 election of members for the council is declared.

Post- Election Allocation Process

Change to proposed approach outlined in 2018

In 2018 the Authority suggested that each outgoing council would be asked to consider the quantum of the pool allocated and let them know prior to July 2019 how they proposed that the pool be distributed following the election. They acknowledged that incoming councils might need to change those proposals and said that provision could be made for that. However, on further reflection and after some feedback, the Authority have decided not to ask outgoing councils to make a proposal and the sole responsibility for this will now sit with the incoming Council.

How the pool will work

The pool approach will start after the 2019 local government election and, following that, each council will be allocated a pool at the beginning of each triennium.

The dollar amount of the annual pool being considered for Napier City council is outlined in the green table above – this may change as the Authority works towards its determination in June 2019, but is a useful ball park figure for budgetary purposes.

The pool will cover remuneration for councillors only. Mayor and regional council chair remuneration will continue to be set by the Authority, as will remuneration for community boards for the time being.

In the remaining two years of the triennium the Authority will make Determinations that may include adjustments based on a narrower set of indicators relevant at the time, but will not resize the councils.

Timeline

· By 1 July 2019: Council will be advised of the exact dollar figure of the full councillor pool to apply from the day after the election result is declared.

· 1 July 2019: The July 1 Determination will include the minimum base councillor remuneration for your council following the election. It will also include the revised remuneration for the Mayor to take effect from the day after the date on which the official result is declared.

· By 20 November 2019: Incoming councils will decide on the distribution of the pool and will send their proposals to the Authority.

· Important considerations in this process are:

o Base councillor remuneration must NOT be set below the minimum prescribed in Part 2 of the July 1 2019 Determination, but can certainly be higher if it fits within the pool.

o Positions that a council decides to remunerate may include those on outside groups to which a councillor has been formally appointed by a councils - i.e. the remuneration is not necessarily solely attached to official council committees. Councillors are expected to be involved in a variety of community and cross-council groups as part of their basic role but, in some cases, if the extra work involved is extraordinary it can be recognised in remuneration.

o Any remuneration for councillors serving as directors on CCOs should paid directly by the company and will not fall within the ambit of the councillor pool.

o Councils MUST spend the whole of the pool allocated. The quantum for each council has been set by the Authority following a comprehensive review of the relative size of workloads of all councils and it would be unfair to elected members to withhold any of the available remuneration.

o The pool does not apply to non-elected people who are appointed to be members or chairs of council committees. The Authority cannot legally prescribe remuneration of payments for non-elected people.

o Councils may distribute the pool using ratios rather than dollar figures. For example, they may decide that a committee chair should be paid 1.5 times that of a councillor without additional responsibilities. A calculation tool has been provided should Council choose this approach.

· Mid-December 2019: The Authority will check the proposals of all councils and send the assembled list to the Parliamentary Council Office for inclusion into a formal amending Determination.

· Their aim is to have the first amending Determination published by mid-December so councils can incorporate the new figures into their pre-Christmas payroll runs.

· It is important to note that all amending Determinations related to the councillor pool will be backdated so that the confirmed final level of base remuneration will take effect from the day after the date on which the official result of the 2019 election was declared by public notice and remuneration for positions of responsibility from the day after the council formally votes to confirm the recommendation.

· By 18 December 2019: If the information is not submitted on time to include in the first amending Determination, it will have to wait for a further amendment which the Authority anticipates will be in late January 2020 at the earliest, and most likely February 2020.

Other notes

The Authority will be consulting on the issue of potential childcare subsidy for elected members in 2019, and are currently concluding an updated approach to community boards.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

As the Mayor’s total remuneration, and the total pool from which councillor remuneration is allocated, are both set by the Remuneration Authority at a national level, this matter does not trigger our Significance and Engagement Policy, and no consultation of other kinds are required.

2.5 Implications

Financial

Council must budget appropriately to meet the expectations on elected member remuneration outlined by the Authority.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To receive the updated information from the Remuneration Authority in relation to elected members’ remuneration.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

To receive the updated information from the Remuneration Authority in relation to elected members’ remuneration.

At the Meeting

In response to a Councillors question in relation to the status of Council’s investigations into the living wage, it was advised that a report has recently been received and is under review. It will be brought to a workshop once finalised.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

Reports from Community Services Committee held 2 April 2019

1. Submission of Remit Application to Local Government New Zealand - Housing

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	713591
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Carswell, Manager Community Strategies

1.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval to submit a Remit application to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) for them to approach the Government to seek funding support for the operation, upgrade and growth of local authority social housing portfolios.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Wright

That the Community Services Committee:

a. Approve the submission of the Remit application regarding Social Housing.

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow the remit to be submitted at the April 2019 Zone 3 meeting.

Carried

Council Resolution

Councillors Wright / Brosnan

That Council:

a. Approve the submission of the Remit application regarding Social Housing.

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

Councillor Maxine Boag requested that a Remit application be made to LGNZ regarding Council’s housing provision given the lack of support from central government for this activity and the current model’s lack of sustainability for the continued provision of housing in Napier, but also among many councils across New Zealand.

This Remit supports LGNZ’s current work programme in this area. LGNZ recently facilitated a forum with central government agencies and local authorities to focus on how councils could be supported as key providers of community (social) housing. The Remit requests that the matter is now treated with urgency as more and more councils opt out of this activity.

1.3 Issues

Councils entered into the community housing sector in the 1960s, and again in the 1980s, when the government provided capital loan funding (interest suspended). Councils’ rent setting formulas varied across the country, but all provided subsidised rents. While the stock was new, this income was adequate to maintain the homes, however, now, decades on, and with housing nearing end of life or not fit for purpose, significant investment is required. Income from rents has not been enough to fund renewals, let alone growth to meet demand.

The government introduced Income Related Rent subsidy (IRR) in 2000 for public housing tenants, later extending this to registered Community Housing Providers. Essentially the IRR allows tenants to pay an affordable rent related to their income, while the housing provider receives an agreed market rent for the property. Being able to generate market rental income is the most successful sustainable model for the provision of community housing. Providers receive an adequate income to cover the cost of providing housing, to fund future renewals and to raise capital for immediate asset management. Councils are excluded from receiving this subsidy, and so are their tenants.

Demand for housing is increasing, and as the population ages, demand for low cost retirement housing will continue to increase. Already in Napier demand exceeds current supply.

Councils around the country are having to make decisions about whether or not they continue to provide housing. Many have opted out, while others have entered into complex arrangements in order to secure the IRR subsidy.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

This Remit application is required to gain support at either a Zone meeting or with five councils confirming support, before going to LGNZ’s Annual General Meeting for consideration. This Remit application has been shared with Hastings District Council who will discuss it at their Remit Workshop on 19 March 2019.

1.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications in submitting this Remit application.

Social & Policy

Should this Remit application, and subsequent approach to government be successful, there is a greater chance councils will be able to sustain the provision of housing for those in need. However, Council will need to put policies in place so that this situation does not occur again in a few decade’s time.

Risk

Other councils may not support the Remit. However, there are a significant number of councils that are facing the same issue as Napier City Council with regards to the provision of housing and this Remit aligns strongly with LGNZ’s Housing 2030 initiative and work programme. Central government have indicated they wish to work with local authorities to look into this issue.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Submit the Remit application (preferred option)

b. Do not submit the Remit application

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

Following Council’s approval to submit the Remit application the following steps will be undertaken:

1. Present the Remit application at the next Zone meeting on 4 April 2019.

2. Following support at the Zone meeting, submit Remit application to LGNZ by 13 May 2019.

3. Remits discussed at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting on 7 July 2019.

At the Meeting

The following points were made in discussion:

· It is believed that this remit provides a sensible and sustainable way to address issues faced by Councils in the social housing space.

· The remit meets the theme of “localism” strongly supported at the 2018 LGNZ conference, which advocates for local government being best placed to support local communities.

1.8 Attachments

a Remit Application - Council Social Housing Provision

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

Annual General Meeting 2019

Remit Application

Council Proposing Remit:

Napier City Council

Contact Name:

Wayne Jack

Chief Executive

Phone:

06 834 4159

Email:

waynej@napier.govt.nz

Remit passed by:

Proposed Remit: That LGNZ approach the Government to seek funding support for the operation, upgrade and growth of local authority social housing portfolios.

The nature of the issue

Social housing, especially for older citizens, is a strategic issue.

New Zealand communities are facing an extremely serious housing affordability crisis that has resulted in the country having the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world. Current policy settings are failing to adequately address the issue.

Local government is the second largest provider of social housing in New Zealand, however, since1991, successive governments have failed to adequately recognise the contribution we have and are making. Unfortunately, existing policy actively discriminates against councils meeting local housing needs resulting in a gradual reduction in the council owned social housing stock. With Housing New Zealand focussing its attention on fast growing urban areas, social housing needs in smaller communities are not being met.

The issue is becoming more serious as baby boomers retire – the current social housing is not designed to address the needs of this cohort – a role historically provided by councils with support from central government in the form of capital grants.

The issue has already become urgent for Aotearoa New Zealand and its communities.

Link to LGNZ Policy and Work Programme

This remit supports LGNZ’s Housing 2030 policy and programme, in particular the Social Housing and Affordable Housing work streams. Housing 2030 is one of LGNZ’s four strategic projects. This remit reinforces and supports that initiative.

LGNZ recently hosted a Social Housing workshop with both local and central government agencies to discuss the issues and opportunities and the future role councils could play in the provision of social housing. There was agreement that a partnership approach that recognises local situations with a range of options for support from government (both funding and expertise) would be most suitable.

The level of work, if any, already undertaken on the issue by the proposer, and outcomes to date

As the proposer of this remit, Napier City Council, has undertaken an S17A Review of its own provision of community housing, with further investigation underway. In addition, both at a governance and management level, we have taken part in numerous conferences, symposiums and workshops on the matter in the last two years. We lead a local Cross Sector Group – Homelessness forum and take part in the Hawke’s Bay Housing Coalition. We have provided housing for our community for over five decades, supplying just under 400 retirement and low cost rental units in Napier.

The outcomes of any zone or sector meetings which have discussed the Issue

The Housing 2030 initiative has been discussed at all Zone meetings.

Suggested actions that could be taken by LGNZ should the remit be adopted.

This remit supports, as a matter of urgency, the further investigation by central government and LGNZ of the opportunities identified at the workshop and any other mechanisms that would support councils provision of community housing in New Zealand.

It is designed to strengthen LGNZ’s advocacy and would provide a reason to approach the Government in the knowledge that local government as a whole is in support.

Background

Councils provide in excess of 10,000 housing units, making it a significant provider of community housing in New Zealand. Councils began providing community housing across the country, particularly for pensioners, in the 1960s when central government encouraged them to do so through capital loan funding. In the 1980s, this occurred once again and was applied to general community housing developments. Council’s rent setting formulas varied but all provided subsidised rents. While the housing stock was relatively new, the rental income maintained the homes, however, now decades on, and with housing at the end of life, significant investment is required. Income from rents has not been enough to fund renewals let alone growth to meet demand.

The government introduced Income Related Rent subsidy (IRR) in 2000 for public housing tenants and it was later applied to registered Community Housing Providers. This mechanism allows tenants to pay an affordable rent in relation to their income, while the housing provider receives a ‘top up’ to the agreed market rent for each property under the scheme. In effect, housing providers receive market rent through this mechanism. Being able to generate market rental income is the most successful sustainable model for the provision of community housing. Providers receive an adequate income to cover the cost of providing housing, to fund future renewals and to raise capital for immediate asset management. Councils are excluded from receiving this subsidy, and so are their tenants.

Current Issue

The current situation is a perfect storm. Council housing stock is nearing or at the end of life, many homes are unfit for purpose, all requiring major capital investment. At the same time, councils are excluded from being Community Housing Providers who receive the IRR subsidy, so are unable to fund the capital work required to the existing housing stock through rental income, let alone to fund growth in order to meet growing demand.

Our population is ageing. Demand is already strong for council community housing, with the future demand far exceeding supply.

Because of the significant demands councils have to provide other public infrastructure, many councils have or are considering opting out of housing provision. Others are entering into complex arrangements in order to secure the IRR subsidy to support continued provision of housing.

A New Approach

At the Social Housing workshop, among other opportunities, a tenant centric policy was discussed. Rather than housing provision being supported according to who is providing the home, support could be provided according to the needs of the tenant. The tenant’s rent would be set according to their income situation and they could be matched to an available home that meets their needs. Specialist support would still be available through specific providers, but all providers would have access to the same funding mechanisms (like is the current case with Community Housing Providers).

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

2. SUBMISSION OF REMIT APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND - LIABILITY TO BUILDING DEFECTS CLAIMS

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	716495
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Wayne Jack, Chief Executive

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval to submit a Remit application to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) to take action as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2014 report on “Liability of Multiple Defendants” to limit the liability of councils in New Zealand in relation to building defects claims.

	Committee's recommendation Councillors Price / Wise That the Community Services Committee: a. Approve the submission of the Remit application regarding liability of councils in relation to building defects claims b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow the remit to be submitted at the April 2019 Zone 3 meeting. Carried
Council Resolution		Councillors Wright / Brosnan That Council: a. Approve the submission of the Remit application regarding Social Housing. Carried

2.2 Background Summary

Building consent authorities in New Zealand (Councils) are disproportionally affected by defective building claims, which are not limited to “leaky building” claims. Claims which include allegations involving structural and fire defects are increasingly common, both for residential and commercial properties.

In its report on joint and several liability issued in June 2014 the Law Commission recommended that councils’ liability for defective building claims should be capped. However, no further work has been taken on progressing this recommendation.

The proposed remit is aimed to focus MBIE and the Government on implementing the Law Commission’s recommendation. This includes requesting that a joint working party with LGNZ, MBIE and Ministry of Justice bet set up to:

· share information,

· draft proposed amendments to the Building Act and/or a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill, and

· draft content for a cabinet paper to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability for building defect claims be capped.

2.3 Issues

The courts have held that Councils will generally have a proportionate share of liability in defective building cases in the vicinity of 20%. However, because councils are generally exposed to the full quantum of the claim, when other parties are absent (for example whereabouts unknown, deceased, company struck off) or insolvent (bankrupt or company liquidated), which is the rule, rather than the exception, Council is left to cover the shortfall. The Law Commission report recognised that councils in New Zealand effectively act as insurers for homeowners, at the expense of ratepayers.

The cost to ratepayers of the current joint and several liability system is significant, disproportionately so. Although this was recognised in the Law Commission report in 2014, no substantive steps have been taken by central government to address the issue or implement the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability should be capped.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

This Remit application is required to gain support at either a Zone meeting or with five councils confirming support, before going to LGNZ’s Annual General Meeting for consideration.

2.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications in submitting this Remit application. Should this Remit application, and subsequent approach to government be successful, Council’s liability to future building defects claims would be limited.

Social & Policy

There are no social or policy implications in submitting this Remit application.

Risk

Other councils may not support the Remit. However, there are a significant number of councils that are facing the same issue as Napier City Council with regards to building defects liability claims and this Remit aligns with the recommendations of the Law Commission in 2014.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Submit the Remit application (preferred option)

b. Do not submit the Remit application

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

Following Council’s approval to submit the Remit application the following steps will be undertaken:

1. Present the Remit application at the next Zone meeting on 4 April 2019

2. Following support at the Zone meeting, submit Remit application to LGNZ by 13 May 2019

3. Remits discussed at the LGNC Annual General Meeting on 7 July 2019.

At the Meeting

It was confirmed that the intention is to both put forward the remit and work with LGNZ and central government, while also managing risk in developments directly as well.

It was agreed that the ratepayer should not have to bear the burden of workmanship that is below par.

2.7 Attachments

a Remit Application - Limit Council liability to building defect claims

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

Annual General Meeting 2019

Remit application

Council Proposing Remit:	Napier City Council
Contact Name:	Wayne Jack, Chief Executive
Phone:	06 834 4159
Email:	waynej@napier.govt.nz
Fax:	N/A
Remit passed by: (zone/sector meeting and/or list 5 councils as per policy)
Remit:
LGNZ calls on central government to take action as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2014 report on “Liability of Multiple Defendants” to limit the liability of councils in New Zealand in relation to building defects claims.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

1.1. In its report on joint and several liability issued in June 2014 (the Law Commission report)^{^[1]} the Law Commission recommended that councils’ liability for defective building claims should be capped. Building consent authorities in New Zealand (councils) are disproportionally affected by defective building claims^{^[2]}.

1.2. The government in its response to the Law Commission report^{^[3]} directed the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to further analyse the value and potential impact of the Law Commission’s recommendations, including capping liability of councils, and report back to their respective Ministers.

1.3. The MBIE website suggests that a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill would be consulted on in 2017 and final policy approval obtained from Cabinet^{^[4]}. That Bill, according to the MBIE website, would be aimed to amend the Building Act 2004 to cap the liability of councils and protect consumers by introducing provisions driving greater uptake of home warranty protection. However no progress appears to have been made towards drafting or introducing this Bill into Parliament. At a recent rural and provincial local government meeting in Wellington, MBIE advised that no further action is being taken to progress any capping of council liability.

1.4. This proposed remit is aimed to put pressure on MBIE and the Government to follow the Law Commission’s recommendation to limit (ideally, by capping) councils’ liability in respect of defective building claims.

2. Background

2.1. Defective building claims are prevalent throughout New Zealand, both in large centres and small. They are not limited to “leaky building” claims. Claims which include allegations involving structural and fire defects are increasingly common, both for residential and commercial properties.

2.2. The courts have held that councils will generally have a proportionate share of liability in defective building cases in the vicinity of 20%^{^[5]}. However, because councils are generally exposed to the full quantum of the claim, when other parties are absent (for example whereabouts unknown, deceased, company struck off) or insolvent (bankrupt or company liquidated), which is the rule, rather than the exception, Council is left to cover the shortfall^{^[6]}. The Law Commission report recognised that councils in New Zealand effectively act as insurers for homeowners, at the expense of ratepayers^{^[7]}.

2.3. Other liable parties such as developers, builders and architects can potentially reduce their exposure through insurance and wind up companies in the event of a large claim. Developers often set up a dedicated company for a particular development and then wind that company up following completion.

2.4. Councils on the other hand can no longer access insurance for weathertightness defects (a “known risk”)^{^[8]}. They have no choice about whether to be involved in the design and construction of buildings, as they have a legislative role as building consent authorities in their districts. They make no profit from developments and cannot increase their fees to account for the level of risk. Yet they are often the main or sole solvent defendant in defective building claims (last person standing).

2.5. The cost to ratepayers of the current joint and several liability system is significant, disproportionately so. This was recognised in the Law Commission report in 2014, but no substantive steps have been taken by central government to address the issue or implement the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability should be capped.

3. Relationship to the current LGNZ Work Programme and its objectives

3.1. The current LGNZ Work Programme for housing includes an objective of the regulatory and competitive framework of continuing advocacy to Government for alternatives to current liability arrangements. Clearly this remit fits squarely within and would assist to progress that objective.

4. The level of work already undertaken on this issue and outcomes to date

4.1. The Law Commission report was a result of concerns raised primarily by LGNZ and councils around New Zealand about the effect of joint and several liability in relation to the leaky homes crisis. Prior to release of the report, LGNZ and a number of councils around New Zealand, including Auckland Council, Christchurch City Council, Hamilton City Council, Hastings District Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Tararua District Council, Waipa District Council staff, Wellington City Council, as well as SOLGM and BOINZ all filed submissions advocating for a change to the status quo.

4.2. The Law Commission report, as discussed in more detail above recommended that councils’ liability be capped. It was understood from the Government’s response to the Law Commission report and from MBIE (both discussed above) that this recommendation was being progressed in a meaningful way. This was further supported by MBIE’s submission to the Law Commission prior to the release of the Law Commission report, in which it stated that^{^[9]}:

a. Provisions in the Building Amendment Act 2012 not yet in force, in particular the three new types of building consent limiting councils’ liability “are likely to be brought into force within a reasonable time after the Commission completes its review of joint and several liability”. MBIE stated that the Law Commission should take the impact of these changes into account in preparing its report. However, these provisions are still not in force.

b. “The Government has instructed the Ministry to explore options for the consolidation of building consent authorities as part of the Housing Affordability agenda and ongoing reforms in the construction sector. Issues regarding the liability of a central regulator, as well as that of territorial authorities, will be fundamental concerns as consolidation options and other measures to increase productivity in the sector are explored”. This does not appear to have been progressed.

4.3. It was only in the last month or so that MBIE has now advised that the recommendation that councils’ liability be capped would no longer be progressed.

5. Outcomes of any zone or sector meetings which have discussed this issue

5.1. TBC

6. Suggested actions that could be taken by LGNZ should the remit be adopted

6.1. We consider that LGNZ could form a joint working party with MBIE and the Ministry of Justice, and possibly the relevant Minister’s (Jenny Salesa’s) staff to explore limiting councils’ liability for building defects claims, including:

a. Disclosing and considering the following information (whether by way of OIA requests and/or as part of a working group):

i. MBIE documents relating to its consideration of the Law Commission report and the reasons why it is no longer progressing the capping of council liability.

ii. Ministry of Justice and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to the Law Commission report and to proposed capping of council liability.

iii. MBIE and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to implementation of s 17 of the Building Amendment Act 2012.

b. Drafting proposed amendments to the Building Act and/or a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill (this work may have been started by MBIE^{^[10]}, so this task should await the outcome of the information gathering exercise above).

c. Drafting content for a cabinet paper regarding the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability for building defect claims be capped.

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

3. Support of Hastings District Council Remit Application to Local Government New Zealand - Alcohol Harm

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	715928
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Michele Grigg, Senior Advisor Policy

3.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s support for Hastings District Council’s (HDC) Remit application to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) asking them to identify opportunities and actively advocate on national policy changes to reduce alcohol harm.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Taylor

That the Community Services Committee:

a. Endorse Hastings District Council’s Remit application to LGNZ about reducing alcohol harm.

b. Agree that a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow the remit to be submitted noting NCC’s endorsement at the April 2019 Zone 3 meeting.

Carried

Council Resolution

Councillors Jeffery / Hague

That Council:

a. Endorse Hastings District Council’s Remit application to LGNZ about reducing alcohol harm.

Carried

3.2 Background Summary

Twenty-nine percent of Hawke’s Bay adults drink at harmful levels compared to 21 percent nationally, and this rate is increasing over time (HBDHB, Health Equity Report 2018). In 2011, Napier City and Hastings District Councils developed a Joint Alcohol Strategy (JAS), which was revised in 2017 to cover the five year period 2017-2022.

The revised Strategy’s aspirational vision is a safe and healthy community free from alcohol related harm. Objectives of the Strategy are:

· Demonstrate leadership to reduce alcohol harm

· Foster safe and responsible events and environments

· Change attitudes towards alcohol to reduce tolerance for alcohol harms.

During development of the revised Strategy, a JAS Advisory Group comprising two nominated Councillors from each Council, was established. Councillors White and Price represented Napier City Council on this Group.

The purpose of the Advisory Group was to review and consider feedback arising from engagement with stakeholders and the public on the draft revised JAS and to provide advice and recommendations to each Council on finalising the Strategy. During their deliberations, the Group asked Council Officers to add the following item to the Strategy Action Plan (once developed):

· “Council to submit a remit to LGNZ Conference to support stronger measures to reduce alcohol related harm nationally.”

The Remit is being prepared by HDC. The Remit is seeking LGNZ support to advocate central government to make changes to relevant policies and legislation that influence alcohol-related harm in New Zealand. Effective national-level strategies and interventions that prevent or minimise alcohol-related harm include:

· Pricing and taxing

· Regulating the physical availability

· Raising the purchase age

· Restrictions on marketing, advertising and sponsorship

· Drink-driving countermeasures

· Treatment and early intervention services.

· (Babor et al, Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. Oxford University Press)

The proposed Remit builds on the Remit application submitted by Councillor Maxine Boag in 2018, asking that “LGNZ seek the Government’s agreement to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 so that Local Alcohol Policies are able to more accurately reflect local community views and preferences.” Communication by HDC with LGNZ indicates the 2018 Remit has not been progressed. The current Remit broadens but also reinforces the earlier one.

3.3 Issues

Alcohol harm is also a significant issue at the national level. Alcohol leads to a range of problems, including health issues, death and injury, violence, family harm, suicide, assault and anti-social behaviours.

Local-level activities aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm need to be supported by change at the national level.

3.4 Significance and Engagement

Napier City Council’s support will assist HDC to progress their Remit application at the upcoming Zone meeting, before going to LGNZ’s Annual General Meeting for consideration.

The vision and objectives of the Napier and Hastings JAS also strategically align with the goal to reduce alcohol related harm identified by the two safe communities (Safer Napier and Safer Hastings).

3.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications associated with supporting HDC’s Remit application.

Social & Policy

Should the Remit application and subsequent action by LGNZ be successful, there is a greater likelihood of change towards reducing the harms caused by alcohol in our community.

Risk

Other councils may not support HDC’s Remit, however the likelihood of this is low given the passing of the 2018 Remit on alcohol harm submitted by Councillor Boag and the impact of alcohol-related harm requiring national-level response in other jurisdictions in New Zealand.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Support HDC’s Remit application (preferred option)

b. Do not support HDC’s Remit application.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

Following Council’s approval to support HDC’s Remit application, the following steps will be undertaken:

1. HDC present their Remit application at the Zone meeting on 4 April 2019.

2. Following support at the Zone meeting, HDC submits the Remit application to LGNZ by 13 May 2019.

3. Remits discussed at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting on 7 July 2019.

Note: The HDC Remit is being developed and will be tabled at the meeting. Its contents reflect the information provided in this report.

At the Meeting

The following points were made in discussion:

· It is important to ensure that alcohol harm continues to be addressed and this remit raises another aspect of the issue from a local government perspective.

· It was noted that there is a risk that responsible drinkers may be inadvertently penalised and care should be taken that it is harmful levels of drinking that is directly targeted.

· It was noted the background to this remit may not be the appropriate context to advise that “Hawke’s Bay is renowned as wine region”.

3.8 Attachments

Nil

4. Hawke's Bay Museums Trust Collection Management Agreement

Type of Report:	Contractual
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	715942
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

4.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval to enter into a new Management Agreement with the Hawke’s Bay Museum Trust (HBMT) for a period of one year while the Hawke’s Bay Regional Collection Joint Working Group conducts its review of governance and operational arrangements of how the collection is to be maintained and governed.

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor Wright

That the Community Services Committee:

a. Approve that Napier City Council enter into a one-year Management Agreement with the Hawke’s Bay Museum Trust.

Carried

4.2 Background Summary

The MTG, on behalf of Napier City Council, provides for care, protection, access, storage and development of the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust regional collection by way of a Management Agreement between the Council and the Trust. The term of the current agreement is for three years from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019.

A Joint Working Group comprised of Napier City Councillors and officers, Hastings District Councillors and officers, and HBMT board members, has been established with the purpose of facilitating a review of the governance and operational arrangements of how the collection is to be maintained and governed. Specific objectives of the working party are to make recommendations to the respective councils and the Trust on the most appropriate and fit for purpose ways of achieving;

1. Regional museum - explore the concept of a regional museum and the implications moving forward.

2. Funding transparency – review management and funding arrangements to ensure funding requirements are transparent.

3. Levels of service expectations – review and make recommendations to all stakeholders for increased transparency of levels of service expectations.

4. Appropriate storage – identify most cost effective and fit for purpose storage arrangements.

5. Access to collection – set KPIs that encourage access to, and display of, the regional collection.

6. Service performance standards – review and make recommendations to the Trust for increased transparency of service performance standards included in the Statement of Intent.

7. Governance options – explore and make recommendations on the most appropriate governance options for the care and protection of the regional collection and/or running of the regional museum.

4.3 Issues

The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust met on the 25February 2019 to discuss the renewal of the Management Agreement. At the meeting, the Trustees agreed that in light of the review underway by the Joint Working Group, that it is recommended that the Management Agreement is rolled over for one year commencing 1 July 2019. This will allow time for the objectives of the review to be met and Council will have clear direction on how the regional collection will be governed and managed into the future.

4.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

4.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

4.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve that Napier City Council enters into a one-year Management Agreement with the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust while the Joint Working Group carry out its review of governance and operations.

b. Negotiate with the Trust to enter into a further three-year term Management Agreement.

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

The attached Management Agreement between Napier City Council is due to be presented for signing at the next meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust on Monday 29 April 2019. The preferred option is for Council to enter into a one-year Management Agreement with the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust while the Joint Working Group carry out the governance and operations review.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

4.8 Attachments

a Management Agreement 2019/20

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

DATE:

29 APRIL 2019

HAWKE’S BAY MUSEUMS TRUST

AND

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

MUSEUMS COLLECTIONS

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

Addresses for notices:

HB Museums Trust

PO Box 123

NAPIER

Napier City Council

Private Bag 6010

Hastings Street

NAPIER

Phone: 06-835-7579

Fax: 06-835-7574

1. Parties

This agreement is made by:

1.1 Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust (“HBMT”) and

1.2 Napier City Council (“NCC”)

2. Background

2.1 HBMT are the owners and guardians of the collection for the people of Hawke’s Bay.

2.2 NCC owns and operates the facility known as MTG Hawke’s Bay (MTG) which houses the collection owned by HBMT. This includes the Faraday Centre.

2.3 This Management Agreement relates to the provision of services by NCC to HBMT to ensure the proper care and management of the collection.

2.4 NCC and Hastings District Council have agreed to jointly fund the costs of holding maintaining and administering the collection, including HBMT governance costs. This Council funding is provided by way of grants to the HBMT who in turn pay NCC under this Management Agreement. This agreement is subject to the continuation of Hastings District Council and Napier City Council funding.

3. Term

3.1 The term of this agreement shall be for one year from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

3.2 Notwithstanding clause 3.1 this agreement may be terminated or amended with the mutual agreement of both parties provided that any such termination or agreement shall be recorded in writing.

4. Obligations of the HBMT

The HBMT shall be responsible for:

4.1 Retention of funds from the funding Councils’ grants to provide for:

- Legal Fees

- Accounting Services

- Management and Secretarial Services

- Audit Fees

- Meeting Expenses

- Sundry Trust expenses

4.2 Creating policy with respect to access to the collection;

4.3 Providing income funds (where available) and applying its bequest capital for accessions to the collection in keeping with any accession conditions specified with the bequests

4.4 Providing income funds (where available) and applying its bequest capital to conservation of the collection in keeping with any conservation conditions specified with the bequests;

4.5 Arrange Trustee Liability Insurance for the Trustees of the HBMT;

4.6 Care and Collection Policies;

4.7 Policy for accessioning requests;

4.8 Policy for de-accessioning approvals;

4.9 Monitoring the Management Agreement;

4.10 The setting of key reporting targets with respect to the collection;

4.11 The setting of reporting requirements in agreement with NCC;

4.12 HBMT shall provide six-monthly and annual reports to Napier City Council and Hastings District Council in the prescribed format.

5. Obligations of NCC

NCC shall, within the funding levels provided by HBMT:

5.1 Cause a full valuation of the collection to be undertaken every three years with such valuation to be reviewed annually;

5.2 Arrange insurance of the collection to the value determined in accordance with clause 5.1 with such insurance providing cover for the collection at MTG Hawke's Bay, the Faraday Centre or any such other place as the collection or any part of the collection is located from time to time.

5.3 Provide necessary staff to meet agreed levels of service to ensure proper care and maintenance of the collection as detailed below:

Protection

This will be achieved through:

a. Storage – appropriate storage to accepted Museum Industry Standards (MIS)

i. Pest Control

ii. Storage Media

iii. Shelving

iv. Air quality

b. Security – appropriate security to accepted MIS

i. Alarm Systems (Burglary, fire)

ii. Alarm Monitoring

iii. Access Systems

iv. Insurance (loan items, owed items)

c. Records Management – appropriate records management to accepted MIS

i. Vernon database

ii. Other records

Quality

a. Conservation – appropriate conservation to accepted MIS and consistent with HBMT collection policies

b. Accessioning - appropriate accessioning to accepted MIS consistent with HBMT collection policies

c. De-accessioning - appropriate de-accessioning to accepted MIS consistent with HBMT collection policies

Access

a. Exhibitions – collection available to Hastings City Art Gallery and MTG Hawke’s Bay and other institutions as appropriate within accepted MIS

b. Research – Collection made available through MTG Hawke’s Bay as appropriate within accepted MIS.

c. Archives – Archives made available through MTG Hawke’s Bay as appropriate within accepted MIS

Development

a. Bequests – To actively foster bequests

b. Fundraising - To work with the MTG Foundation to provide funding.

c. Reserves – To appropriately manage accession reserves.

d. Relationships - To appropriately manage relationships to allow the collection to develop appropriately, in particular but not restricted to

i. Funding Councils

ii. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

iii. Te Roopu Kaiawhina Taonga, and

iv. Friends of MTG Hawkes Bay

5.4 Provide the information and reports necessary to enable HBMT to fulfil its reporting obligations under Clause 8.1

6. Financial

6.1 The financial management of the trust is to be kept completely separate from all other aspects of Napier City Council. Napier City Council will provide financial and administration services, including monthly management reports, and HBMT will be charged for all direct costs and a share of related overhead costs. Napier City Council will invoice HBMT monthly for reimbursement.

7. Joint obligations of HBMT and NCC

7.1 HBMT and NCC shall comply with all statutes, regulations and by-laws applicable to the facilities under its control (MTG Hawke’s Bay and Faraday Centre)

7.2 In all cases, issues arising will be resolved in the spirit of mutual co-operation.

8. No Assignment Without Consent

8.1 Neither party may assign, or otherwise dispose of the whole or any part of its interest under this contract without the prior written consent of the other party.

9. Disputes

9.1 Amicable Resolution: The parties hereby acknowledge their desire that all questions or differences whatsoever which may arise between the parties concerning this Contract or its subject matter or arising out of or in relation thereto and whether as to interpretation or otherwise be resolved amicably by bona fide discussion between them.

9.2 Mediation: However, if any question or difference referred to in Clause 9.1 (the dispute) is not resolved either party may at any time invoke a mediation process, as follows:

9.2.1 Mediation Notice: either party may by written notice (the “Mediation Notice”) to the other party, require that the dispute between the parties be referred to mediation. A Mediation Notice shall set out the nature of the dispute, but need not detail the background or the party’s position in relation to the same; and

9.2.2 Obligation to Resolve Remains: a Mediation Notice shall not derogate from the obligation of the parties to seek resolution of the dispute by consultation and negotiation; and

9.2.3 Appointment of Mediator: the parties shall in good faith endeavour to agree upon and appoint a person as mediator to consult with the parties and assist the parties to reach agreement in respect of the dispute by no later than seven days from the date upon which the Mediation Notice was given; and

9.2.4 Mediator to Settle Procedures: if a mediator is appointed, he or she shall, in consultation with the parties, settle a timetable and the procedures to be adopted during the mediation. The decision of the mediator on any such timetabling and procedural matters shall be binding on the parties and, in particular, the mediator shall be entitled to call any meeting between the parties at such times and places as the mediator considers appropriate; and

9.2.5 Parties to Endeavour to Reach Solution in Good Faith: the parties shall attend all meetings called by the mediator and at such meetings shall conduct their negotiations in good faith, and shall use their best endeavours to reach an agreed solution which is acceptable to both parties. While the parties may, if they wish, have the assistance of legal counsel in such negotiations, all proceedings of the mediation shall be conducted on a “without prejudice” basis – in that nothing that transpires during the course of the negotiations (other than any settlement or supplementary written agreement between the parties) is intended to or shall in any way affect the rights or prejudice the position of the parties to the dispute or in any subsequent adjudication, arbitration or litigation or other legal proceedings of any kind. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing and merely by way of example:

(a) any opinion given, report produced and terms of settlement proposed or recommended by the mediator or either party shall not be disclosed to the adjudicator, arbitrator or court; and

(b) the fact that information of whatsoever nature was made available to the mediator does not mean that privilege or confidentiality is waived for any subsequent adjudication, arbitration or litigation or other legal proceedings of any kind; and

(c) the fact that the accuracy of information or the validity or meaning of documents was not challenged during the mediation does not preclude challenge in subsequent adjudication, arbitration or litigation or other legal proceedings of any kind; and

9.2.6 Mediator Has No Power of Decision: the mediator shall have no power of decision on any matters other than timetabling and procedural matters; and

9.3 Resolution of Unresolved Disputes: Subject to the provisions of this Clause 10.3 if any question or difference between the parties:

9.3.1 As to Interpretation of Application: as to the interpretation of the provisions of this Contract or as to their application in any particular circumstances (including any liability thereunder or any damages thereby arising); and

9.3.2 Arising from Failure to Agree: arising from the parties’ failure to agree;

is not resolved by written agreement between the parties upon the expiration of 20 Business Days from the date upon which the Mediation Notice was given (irrespective of whether or not the parties agreed upon the appointed mediator pursuant to Clause 10.2.3, the question of difference shall be resolved by the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties or, failing agreement, of an arbitrator appointed by the President for the time being of the New Zealand Law Society and every arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, it is acknowledged and agreed that the award of the arbitrator shall contain reasons for the same and that the costs of and incidental to the reference and the award respectively shall be at the discretion of the arbitrator, who may determine the amount thereof or the basis upon which the same shall be ascertained.

10. Miscellaneous

10.1 Non-waiver: Failure by either party to enforce any right or obligation with respect to any matter arising in connection with this Contract shall not constitute a waiver as to that matter or any other matter either then or in the future. Any waiver of any such right or obligation under this Contract shall only be of any force and effect if such waiver is in writing and is expressly stated to be a waiver of a specified right or obligation under this Contract.

10.2 Governing Law: This Contract shall be construed and take effect in accordance with the domestic laws of New Zealand.

10.3 Regulation: During the term of this Contract, each party shall comply with and observe all applicable regulations and statutory requirements for the time being in force.

10.4 Amendment: There shall be no amendment or modification of the provisions of this Contract except by a supplementary written agreement between the parties.

10.5 Notices:

10.5.1 In Writing and by Facsimile, Mail or Other Delivery: any notice, request, offer, advice, consent, approval, invoice or other communication required by this Contract to be given by any one party to the other, shall be given in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given if sent by facsimile delivery to that party at the number set out in the Address for Communications section at the front of this Contract (or such other number or for the attention of such alternative person as may subsequently be notified by that party for such purpose) or by letter delivered by mail or otherwise to that party at the address set out in the Address for Communications section at the front of this Contract (or such other address or for the attention of such alternative person as may subsequently be notified by that party for such purpose); and

10.5.2 Receipt of Facsimile: any such communication sent by facsimile shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the time of completion of the delivery of the facsimile and generation of a confirmation of receipt of the facsimile, provided that if the facsimile delivery occurs at a time other than between the hours of 8.30am and 5.30pm (inclusive) on a Business Day, the communication shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at 8.30am on the next succeeding Business Day and provided further, if the facsimile delivery occurs prior to 8.30am on a Business Day, the communication shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at 8.30am on that Business Day; and

10.5.3 Receipt of Mail and Other Delivery: any such communication sent by letter delivered by mail or otherwise shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee:

(a) if sent by mail (including by any document exchange system or which the addressee is a member), 48 hours after the envelope containing the communication was posted; or

(b) if personally delivered (whether by courier or otherwise), at the time of delivery;

provided that if such time of receipt is not between the hours of 8.30am and 5.30pm (inclusive) on a Business Day, the communication shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at 8.30am on the next succeeding Business Day and provided further, if the time of receipt occurs prior to 8.30am on a Business Day, the communication shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at 8.30am on that Business Day.

10.6 No Precedent: Nothing in this Contract shall operate or be taken by either party to be a precedent as to the form or substance of any new (or supplementary) terms and conditions or other contract which may be entered into between the parties.

10.7 No Third Party Rights: Except as specifically mentioned in this Contract the parties do not intend to create rights in or grant remedies to any third party as a beneficiary of this Contract and all covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements herein contained shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

10.8 Further Acts: Each party agrees that it will from time to time sign, execute, procure, pass and do all such further documents, acts, matters, resolutions and things within its power as may reasonably be necessary to effect the provisions of this Contract.

10.9 Commencement Date to be Effective: This Contract shall have effect from and including the Commencement Date.

DATED this day of 2019

SIGNED for and on behalf of )

HAWKE’S BAY MUSEUMS TRUST )

SIGNED for and on behalf of )

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL )

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

6. Safer Napier programme - annual update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	713588
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Michele Grigg, Senior Advisor Policy

6.1 Purpose of Report

To provide a summary of the 2017/18 year of the Safer Napier programme, including key highlights and benefits to Council and Napier.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Brosnan

That the Community Services Committee:

a. Note the Safer Napier programme update.

Carried

6.2 Background Summary

Napier has been an accredited Safe Community since 2010. Safe Communities is an international concept that recognises safety as a universal concern and a responsibility for all. It creates ways to increase action on community safety (in all its forms) through greater collaboration and cooperation between non-government organisations, the business sector, and local and government agencies.

Forty three organisations, agencies and groups have signed the Safer Napier Memorandum of Commitment agreeing to be part of the programme and to work together to improve community safety in Napier. Safer Napier was successfully reaccredited in 2015.

The vision of the Safer Napier programme is ‘Napier is a safe and healthy city’. There are five goals to achieve this:

· People are injury free in Napier

· Napier is free from crime

· Napier roads are safe for all

· People in Napier keep themselves safe

· Napier is free from alcohol and addiction related harm.

A key strength of Safer Napier is the collaborative working relationship between signatory organisations, which is supported by a part-time contracted Coordinator and Council staff. The programme is overseen by a Safer Napier Strategic Group of representatives from 17 of the signatory organisations (Attachment A). Mayor Bill Dalton is the programme’s ambassador.

The programme is part of the Safe Communities Foundation of New Zealand and the international safe communities network. It also has strong links with counterparts in Hawke’s Bay – Safer Hastings, Safer CHB, and Te Wairoa He Hapori Haumaru (Wairoa).

Safer Napier is a high priority for Council in meeting its goal to support and improve community safety.

Programme Planning

As an accredited Safe Community, data analysis, evaluation and priority setting form the foundation of the programme. The planning process begins each year with a workshop for the signatory organisations. The workshops are hosted by Safer Napier and attended by about 60 representatives who come together to identify ongoing and emerging safety issues under each goal area, and priorities for the year ahead.

Every two years the programme holds a Celebrate Safer Napier event for Napier residents. Each event has a safety theme (2017’s theme was ‘We’re Water Safe’) and is free to attend. The event provides an opportunity for the public to not only learn about key safety messages but to also identify their safety concerns/issues which feed into the upcoming action plan. The next Celebrate Safer Napier event is being planned for Spring 2019, with a possible focus on child safety.

The Safer Napier Strategic Group considers this feedback, along with issues identified in the workshop and the latest data to determine direction of the annual plan including priority actions and target population groups.

Programme Scope

Projects delivered to achieve Safer Napier’s aims are many and varied. The Safe Community Foundation of New Zealand (SCFNZ) have noted that projects delivered by Safer Napier demonstrate a range of issues, interventions, and outcomes based on effective strategies.

The programme’s annual 2017/18 report illustrates the diversity of projects being delivered in each goal area. These (and other programme documents) are available on Council’s website (#safernapier).

Each year a user-friendly summary is also published in the free community newspaper to profile the programme to the public (Attachment B). A selection of highlights from the last year include:

· Kaumātua Ironmāori: Working with Te Timatanga Ararau Trust in 2017 and 2018 to promote key safety messages on fall prevention, fire safety and home safety at their kaumātua event.

· Safe as Houses: Adaptation and extension of Napier’s flagship project into Napier City Council’s retirement villages to check on fire safety and emergency preparedness and to promote safety in the home and neighbourhood.

· Tools for the Teenage Years: Revision of this well-established resource for parents, whānau and caregivers using a strengths-based approach to raise awareness of a wide range of issues affecting teens.

· Water Safety: Renewed focus on water safety, including the risks and dangers in our marine and river environments, through the 2017 Celebrate Safer Napier Day and investment into Surf Lifesaving patrols and water safety signage/information.

· Alcohol Harm: A strategic approach to the alignment of activities through the recently revised Napier and Hastings Joint Alcohol Strategy with the aim of reducing alcohol-related harm in the area. As part of this, the effective ‘One for One’ promotion has become embedded into Hawke’s Bay’s large event calendar.

Programme Value

Safer Napier is a collaborative model involving Council, agencies and organisations working together to achieve its common vision. Its strengths include buy-in from a number of partner and signatory agencies, dedicated funding (from Council’s Long Term Plan) for the programme Coordinator, and a high programme profile within Council activities.

The programme operates under a comprehensive implementation framework. This is established in the five-year Strategic Plan which sets out the programme’s vision and ongoing focus. Operationalisation of the strategic vision is achieved through an annual action plan, a communications plan, and an evaluation plan. Evaluation of programme and project performance is undertaken using the Results Based Accountability framework (RBA) to measure progress.

Recognition

Safer Napier is recognised as a leading safe community program both internationally and nationally. In 2016 it won the World Health Organization’s Western Pacific Regional Office Healthy Cities Recognition for Violence and Injury Prevention Award (the only accredited safe community in New Zealand to date to achieve this recognition).

Over the last five years, three of Safer Napier’s key personnel have won SCFNZ awards in recognition of their commitment and leadership – Safer Napier Coordinator Liz Lambert, Safer Napier Manager Natasha Carswell, and local ACC representative Sally Phelps.

6.3 Issues

Sustainable funding for the programme, including for the Safer Napier Coordinator, is a key challenge. We are currently in the position of off-setting project funding to maintain viable coordination. Additional project funding is sought externally. This is also an issue for other safe communities around the country who have been reaccredited and therefore no longer receive ACC coordination support.

6.4 Significance and Engagement

Feedback and input from a range of sources ensures transparent annual action planning and appropriate identification of target groups and prioritisation of activities.

A snapshot of the programme’s achievements is published annually in the free community newspaper.

6.5 Implications

Financial

Council’s LTP includes funding for delivery of the Safer Napier programme through a part-time contracted Coordinator ($39,600 per annum). ACC only provides programme funding to newly accredited safe communities. This ceases once a community becomes reaccredited (after five years) as is the case for Safer Napier, which is operating without any external programme funding. Coalition partner agencies are often not in a position to fund the programme and funding sources for projects remains variable.

The programme remains viable through ongoing support from Council in the form of staff time and LTP funding. Council also provides safety-related funding through its service agreements with the following community organisations:

· Surf Lifesaving NZ - $47,000 per annum

· Napier Safety Trust (CCTV) - $45,000 per annum

· Napier Community Patrol - $47,000.

These further support Council’s goal of improving community safety.

Social & Policy

Community safety remains a key priority for Napier residents. The 2017 Social Monitor survey found 93.8% of respondents feel the safety of themselves and other family members is average or better. This was similar to the percentage recorded in the previous survey (94.3% in 2014). In both surveys, a large number of comments were provided about specific safety concerns.

Safer Napier’s programme reach extends year-on-year through the inclusion of additional target population groups and new or extended projects and initiatives. This ensures the programme remains relevant and responsive, and has continued impact as new and emerging issues arise in the community.

Risk

As mentioned earlier, Council is the primary funder for delivery of Safer Napier and many of its ‘flagship’ projects and events. Continued identification of funding through the Long Term Plan is essential for the programme’s ongoing sustainability.

6.6 Options

The option available to Council is as follows:

a. Note the Safer Napier annual summary.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors it was advised that:

· A number of different programmes are underway under the umbrella of Safer Napier, including some with a more regulatory focus.

· Neighbourhood Watch have a part to play in the wider approaches to safety and have recently expanded their own offerings to include responses to street safety, post-burglary support and so on.

6.7 Attachments

a Safer Napier Strategic Group Members

b Safer Napier Summary 2017/18

Māori Consultative Committee - 09 April 2019 - Open Agenda

Māori Consultative Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 26 February 2019
Time:	3.04pm-4.12pm
Venue	Council Chamber Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Present	Piri Prentice (In the Chair), Mayor Dalton, Councillor Tapine, Tiwana Aranui, Te Whetū Henare-Winitana and George Reti
In Attendance	Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Councillor Boag, Strategic Māori Advisor, Communications and Marketing Manager
Administration	Governance Team

Karakia

George Reti opened the meeting with a karakia.

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Joan Plowman, Chair and Mark Cleary, Trustee - Napier Pilot City Trust

Joan and Mark addressed the committee and spoke to the rejuvenated vision, mission and strategic plan of the Napier Pilot City Trust [tabled at the meeting]. This work has been completed through a series of workshops involving up to 40 members of the Napier community. The Trust aspires to Napier becoming an inclusive society where all members of the community are treated with fairness and kindness, including access to quality employment and active participation by all members of the community.

The Trust are holding a re-launch on 24 April 2019 and a hīkoi from Tangoio Marae to Pukemokimoki Marae on 28 April 2019.

The work of Pat Magill in this space was recognised by the Committee and it was noted that the Trust would like to increase their Māori representation.

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

The Chief Executive advised the Committee members that the Director Community Services will be Acting Chief Executive during his upcoming leave.

The Mayor noted that discussions are underway in relation to the 2019 Civic Awards. Council would appreciate input from the Committee regarding potential nominees.

Confirmation of minutes

Mayor Dalton / T Aranui

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2018 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Reports from standing committees

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee held 19 February 2019

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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

Councillor Tapine spoke to previous discussion had by the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee on this item.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor clarified that the grant is to assist the Napier Sailing Cub with the cost of upgrading the breastwork around the sailing club.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

It was noted that Council will move to a ward-only system from the next election.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive advised that other Councils are now moving to random order of candidates’ names on voting papers.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Strategic Māori Advisor spoke to the item, noting that updating the Roll of Honour (ROH) has been a large piece of work undertaken with the assistance of external researchers and archivists. The number of names has doubled from the number listed on the original ROH. Through this work some Māori names have been identified for correction and the Committee were asked to review the names and advise of any discrepancies. It was noted that records for Māori soldiers in particular are very poor.

In response to questions and discussion from the Committee it was clarified that the ROH does not recognise service. The criteria for the ROH is names of those that died within the official government period of the conflict. The Chair noted his dissatisfaction that service would not be recognised on the ROH.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

It was noted that the War Memorial is still in the planning stage, but as the community has indicated that they would like to see interactive elements, there are opportunities for technology to be used in some manner to ensure the younger generation feel connected to this space and possibly to recognise others involved in those conflicts.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor clarified that the aquatic strategy is currently underway with a new facility to be built at Prebensen Drive. In the short term there is a shortage of swimming lanes, especially for learn to swim programmes. Council has agreed to assist with the cost of upgrading the Greendale Pool, with funding being subject to the Greendale fundraising committee obtaining a signed contract for the works.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

There was no discussion on this item. The Mayor noted that the road stopping is an operational matter.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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 Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor noted that the real challenge is around limiting the amount of waste that ends up at the landfill. New environmental requirements mean that the cost to build a new landfill will be enormously expensive. It was acknowledged that education will be key to delaying this for as long as possible.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors 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

Reports from Regulatory Committee held 19 February 2019

1. NCC and Napier City Business Inc Events 2019

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	694616
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a resolution of Council to allow trading in a public place to occur at Napier City Council and Napier City Business Inc events in Napier city until the end of October 2019.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Chief Executive noted that this recommendation provides approval for food carts to trade in the CBD as part of Council or Napier City Business Inc events until 31 October 2019, which they are currently unable do under the bylaw.

In response to questions it was noted that Council will assess whether a change to the bylaw is required.

Māori Consultative Committee's recommendation

Councillor Tapine / Mayor Dalton

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

Carried

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Tapine

That the Regulatory Committee:

a. Approve the sale of food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to the public on public land within the city centre as part events held by either Napier City Council or Napier City Business Inc until the 31^st October 2019.

Carried

General business

The following matters were raised and discussed during a round table discussion at the request of the Chair.

Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy (Matariki REDS)

The Committee requested an overview of Matariki REDS. The Chief Executive confirmed that he would provide an presentation/update to the Committee at the next Māori Consultative Committee meeting.

Appointments to the Māori Consultative Committee

Clarification was requested as to how members are appointed to this Committee due to concerns being raised amongst other groups around the current representation.

It was clarified that although members are appointed by the Mayor, this has been done in consultation with Piri. A conscious decision was made to not appoint representatives of different parts of Māoridom but rather to have good people from within the Māori community around the table.

The Strategic Māori Advisor noted that Council as a whole is going through an evolutionary process in relation to cultural competency. He advised that Council want better representation and to be more responsive to mana whenua but needs their involvement to achieve this, and although Council has made some big improvements in this space over the last two years there is still a lot of work to do.

It was noted that Local Government across New Zealand is experiencing issues with Māori engagement. Napier City Council has large cultural aspirations but recognises that these will only be achieved through working together.

The Committee agreed that appointments to the Māori Consultative Committee were best to be discussed and agreed upon by the current committee members with recommendations to be put forward to the Mayor. The Strategic Māori Advisor confirmed that he would assist in facilitating this.

Terms of Reference

It was noted that the new Terms of Reference are yet to be confirmed and an update was requested from officers. The Strategic Māori Advisor confirmed that he will provide an update on the Terms of Reference at the next meeting.

Art Deco Weekend

The 2019 Art Deco Weekend was discussed with the lack of Māori involvement noted by the Committee; however, the Māori section of the fashion parade and the pōwhiri were both highlighted as successes. Officers noted that the Art Deco Trust are currently reviewing their capacity etc. and Council may be in a position to assist the Trust with their cultural responsiveness.

Other

· The Strategic Māori Advisor noted that the ASB Building is now under new ownership with the owners looking to restore the Māori motifs featured in the building.

· It was noted that the NZ Planning Institute Conference will be held here in Napier this year and the Committee members were asked to advise the Strategic Māori Advisor if they wish to attend. A Māori focus day will be held on 2 April 2019 specifically for kaupapa Māori in the planning space.

· In response to comments from the Committee as to whether Napier holds any records around how marae and hapū groups assisted at the time of the earthquake, the Strategic Māori Advisor noted that he had recently attended a hui on marae resilience. He relayed how the Parewahawaha Marae in Bulls had captured their own korero on what they had done in the past, including where they lived and why they lived there.

Tiwana Aranui closed the proceedings with a karakia at 4.12pm.

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

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

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

[1] Law Commission, Liability of Multiple Defendants, Report 132, June 2014 (Law Commission report) at p 20 http://r132.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/uploads/NZLC-R132-Liability-of-Multiple-Defendants.pdf.

[2] See, for example, Wellington City Council’s submission to the Law Commission ahead of the Law Commission report, in which it notes that the council’s contribution as a percentage of the settlement sum on single dwellings had, by 2010-2011, increased to 65%, https://lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/submissionAttachments/IP32%20Submissions%20part%203.pdf; Law Commission report, above at n 1, including at pp 5, 12 and 45.

[5] Body Corporate 326421 v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 862 (Nautilus) at [324].

[6] Law Commission report, above at n 1, including a pp 47, 54-55.

[7] Law Commission report, above at n 1, at p 20.

[10] See MBIE website here: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/cross-government-functions/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-systems/building-regulatory-system/

which references a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill including to amend the Building Act 2004 to cap the liability of councils. It is unclear how far advanced (if at all) this Bill is.

Committee Members	Piri Prentice (In the Chair), Councillor Apiata Tapine, Tiwana Aranui, Te Whetū Henare-Winitana and George Reti
Officer Responsible	Director Community Services
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Māori Consultative Committee Meeting Tuesday 21 May 2019

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 9 April 2019
Time:	3.00pm
Venue:	Council Chamber Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

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