Extraordinary Meeting of Council

Open Agenda

 

Meeting Date:

Tuesday 4 June 2019

Time:

9.00am

Venue:

Large Exhibition Hall
Napier Conference Centre
Napier War Memorial Centre
Marine Parade
Napier

 

 

Council Members

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

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive

Administrator

Governance Team

 

Next Council Meeting

Tuesday 9 July 2019

 

 


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 04 June 2019 - Open Agenda

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Apologies

Mayor Dalton

Conflicts of interest

Announcements by the Acting Mayor

Announcements by the management

 

Funding applicationS

Speakers

Time

Name

Organisation

9.05am

Peter Dunkerley

HB Knowledge Bank

9.15am

Genevieve Bennett

Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay

9.25am

Mark Aspden

Sport HB

9.35am

Deborah Burnside

Jervoistown Residents

 

DELIBERATIONS

Agenda items

1      Amendments to Funding Policies and Fees and Charges............................................... 3

2      Submissions on the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document................................ 59    

 


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 04 June 2019 - Open Agenda                                                                                                                              Item 1

Agenda Items

 

1.    Amendments to funding policies and fees and charges

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

750774

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Jane McLoughlin, Corporate Planner

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

To present to Council submissions received on proposed amendments to funding policies and changes to fees and charges for consideration. 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Adopt the amended Revenue and Financing Policy as attached in Attachment A, noting,

i.      that the proposed targeted rate for Whakarire Ave has been removed from the amended policy.

b.     Adopt the amended Rates Remission Policy as attached in Attachment B.

c.     Adopt the amended Fees and Charges for 2019/20 as attached in Attachment E. 

 

 

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

1.2   Background Summary

On 2 April 2019, Council adopted the amended Revenue and Financing Policy, and Rates Remission Policy to be consulted on with Napier residents. 

As outlined at the 2 April Council meeting, any change to Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy and Rates Remission Policy require Council to follow the principles of consultation as outlined in section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.   Any consultation to these policies is separate to, but can be undertaken in conjunction with, consultation on the annual plan.

In parallel with the consultation on the annual plan, officers consulted on the proposed Revenue and Financing Policy and Rates Remission Policy.  The consultation was done in parallel to the consultation on the Annual Plan, between 8 April to 13 May.

Individual submissions are provided in the attachments to this report.  


 

Rates Remission Policy - Community feedback

Summary of feedback

Council received 9 submissions.  Submitters were asked whether they agreed/disagreed with the proposed changes to the policy and they were provided with an opportunity to write a comment.  Of the 9 submitters, 

89% - agreed with proposed changes to the policy

11% - disagreed with proposed changes to the policy.

 

Of the 2 submitters that clicked they disagreed with the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy, both submitters commented on topics not directly-related to the Rates Remission Policy – e.g. on wanting a chlorine-free water network in Napier and, 1 submitter commented on not agreeing to the rates increase. 

Of the 8 submitters that clicked they agreed with the proposed changes, 4 submitters provided comments including:

 

·     Proposed changes seem sensible (1 submitter)

·     For transparency, there should be public reporting on the level of remissions each year. (1 submitter)

·     Rates rebate scheme should be more clearly advertised and residents should be able to apply online.  (1 submitter)

·     Ratepayers living on cross lease sections should not pay a full amount of rates each. (1 submitter)

        For individual submissions refer to Attachment C.

 

        Management information and comment

On advertising the rates rebate, Council will make further information available through a range of methods to ensure that those that need this rebate the most are aware that it is available.

On application of rates to cross-lease sections, Council notes that rates are determined by the services that are received either directly or as a uniform annual general charge.  From Council reviews, multiple properties on a cross-lease require the same level of service as those that are not on a cross-lease.

Council recommendation

        That Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Rates Remission Policy.  

 

        Revenue and Financing Policy – Community feedback

Summary of feedback

Council received nine submissions.  Submitters were asked whether they agreed/disagreed with the proposed changes to the policy and they were provided with an opportunity to write a comment.  Of the nine submitters, 

11% - agreed with proposed changes to the policy

89% - disagreed with proposed changes to the policy.

Four out of the nine submitters, are residents of Whakarire Ave and submitted on the proposed targeted rate for the Whakarire Revetment. All of these residents wrote that they disagree with the proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy. For ease for decision-makers, all the feedback from residents from Whakarire Ave, whether through the annual plan, or revenue and financing policy consultation, has been attached to the annual plan consultation report, and a recommendation for consideration by Council.  

Council are reminded that they are to make any recommendations to the Revenue and Financing Policy prior to adopting the annual plan. 

The proposed targeted rate for Whakarire Revetment has been removed from the Revenue and Financing Policy attached to this report.  

The remaining five submitters who are not residents of Whakarire Ave, commented on the following:

·     Funding sources for Whakarire Revetment (2 submitters)

·     Agree with targeted rates, but disagree with increasing general rates for animal control (1 submitter).

For individual submissions refer to Attachment D. 

 

        Management information and comment

The Whakarire Revetment is funded from the Harbour Board Land Endowment Reserve.  The cost of the Whakarire Revetment that was included as an inflated cost in Long Term Plan 2018-28 (i.e. $1.7m).  Costs are not anticipated to get to $3.7m as noted by one of the submitters. 

Council recommendation

That Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy and remove the proposed targeted rate for Whakarire Ave residents from the Policy. 

       

        Fees and Charges

No submissions were received that touched on the proposed changes to fees and charges. 

In addition to the proposed changes to fees and charges as outlined in the 15 March and 2 April Council meetings, a couple of additional fees have been raised by officers to ensure that cost recovery targets provided for in the Revenue and Finance Policy are met. 

The new fees include: Bayskate and Taradale Community Hall. 

Taradale Community Hall

The Taradale Community Hall has been recently refurbished, it currently has no charge for venue hire.  To ensure consistency across Council facilities, Officers have assessed the appropriate charges for the facility based on factors such as: size of hall/room, and facilities on offer.  Proposed charges are:

1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020

Taradale Community Rooms

Fee (incl GST)

Group 1 - Profit-Making Organisations and Family Gatherings

Hourly charge

$24.50

Morning or Afternoon

$67.50

Evening

$100.00

Whole Day

$140.00

Group 2 - Community, Hobby & Sports Groups

 

Hourly charge

$20.00

Morning or Afternoon

$55.00

Evening

$75.00

Whole Day

$100.00

 

Bayskate

Officers have been reviewing the business revenue streams of BaySkate and as a result have some proposed changes to the fees structure. 

The commercial reality of providing this service means that revenue needs to be a constant focus in order to meet targets set in the Revenue and Financing Policy. 

The proposed increases to facility hire and annual membership have been benchmarked against industry pricing for similar recreation facilities in New Zealand (e.g. Kilbirnie recreation centre). 

The proposed increase for community services card holders is to incentivise customers towards an annual membership. 

        Key changes proposed for 2019/20 are:

1.3   Issues

N/A

1.4   Significance and Engagement

Targeted engagement occurred with residents of Whakarire Ave.  For further information, refer to the Annual Plan report on this matter.  

1.5   Implications

Financial

Under Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, community facilities must recover between 0-19% of its costs from fees and charges. The introduction of the new fees and charges for Taradale Community Rooms will align with the recovery model under the Revenue and Financing Policy.  

BaySkate is required to meet its recovery targets set under the Revenue and Financing Policy which is 40-59%.  The proposed introduction of fees and charges will enable to the policy requirements to be met.

Social & Policy

Officers are currently reviewing its overall membership structure and once full financial implications are known, will be brought back to Council for consideration. 

Risk

N/A

1.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Approve the amended policies, and fees and charges.

b.     Make further amendments to the policies and fees and charges based on public submissions.  

 

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

Option A, approve the amended policies, and fees and charges for 2019/20. 

 

1.8   Attachments

a     Revenue and Financing Policy

b     Rates Remission Policy

c     Rates Remission Policy - Individual Submissions

d     Revenue and Financing Policy - Individual Submissions

e     Fees and Charges for 19/20 (Under Separate Cover)   


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 4 June 2019 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 4 June 2019 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 4 June 2019 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments c

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 4 June 2019 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments d

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 04 June 2019 - Open Agenda                                                                                                                              Item 2

2.    Submissions on the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

751752

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

Jon Kingsford, Director Infrastructure Services

Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

Natasha Carswell, Manager Community Strategies

Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

Catherine Bayly, Manager Asset Strategy

Jane McLoughlin, Corporate Planner

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To present the submissions received on the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document for Council’s consideration.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.    Adopt the following officer recommendations, including any changes and/or additional recommendations arising from the deliberations and consideration of all submissions to the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document:

 

i.      Waste Management:

That Council proceed with the part pay option, that is, 

1.     using reserves of $1.3 mil to absorb the increased cost of the kerbside recycling service over the next three financial years, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22. 

2.     For 2019/20, seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) will be used from the capital reserve, and the remainder of the increased cost of $683,000 will be paid from rates.

 

ii.     Disaster Relief Trust:

That Council proceed to establish the Trust.

 

iii.    Whakarire Targeted Rate:

1. That Council agree to delay the project to provide the opportunity                                         to re-engage with affected parties as to the necessity, final form and                                   funding options of the proposed revetment, and withdraw the proposed                             targeted rate component of the project from this annual plan.

2.   That Council agree that the funding allocation for the Whakarire Ave        Rock Revetment as outlined in the Long Term Plan (as $1.737 mil for     2019/20), be moved to the 2020/21 financial year and inflated        accordingly for LGCI price movements.

3.   That Council note funding for the project will remain as a Loan- HBHB      Endowment Land income, which is repaid through general rates, until such time that Council makes a formal decision on a targeted rate for      Whakarire Ave residents.

 

iv.    Water projects:

That Council proceed with bringing forward water related capital projects of $7.8m, and

1.     Council endorse the change of the funding source for all 3 Waters projects in the capital programme for 2019/20 which are currently funded by rates, to be funded by loans-rates to better reflect inter-generational equity of the investment ($860k).

2.     That Council work with the Ministry of Health to develop a community education campaign to inform the community of the risks of managing network water supplies, the need for chlorine and the potential health impacts of chlorination.

 

v.     Provincial Growth Fund:

That Council note that officers will report back on the success of applications to the Provincial Growth Fund.  

 

b.    Note the following commitments from the Council Projects Fund for 2019/20.

       Requests committed during the year

1.           Taradale Community Pool Trust $50k

2.           Enviroschools $15k

3.           Napier Community Advice Bureau $30k

 

c.    Consider funding requests to the annual plan and provide direction to Council Officers. 

 

d.    Direct officers to prepare the Annual Plan 2019/20 document in accordance with the recommendations above (a-c). 

 

e.    Direct officers to advise the submitters of Council’s decision in relation to their       submission at the time of the adoption of the Annual Plan 2019/20 on 28 June 2019.

 

 

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

2.2   Background Summary

Overview of the process to set the 2019/20 budget to date

Council’s ten year plan (commonly known as the long term plan or LTP) for 2018-2028 was adopted in June 2018 after community engagement. The LTP is Council’s key document which enables transparency with the public – it describes the community outcomes Council plans to contribute to, the services Council plans to provide to the community, and forecasts the costs of those services.  Council engaged with the community for the LTP including the goals being pursued, expected timeframes and trade-offs. 

The LTP is an intention’s document, and sometimes plans change for a variety of reasons.  Each year Council has to set an annual budget.  To do that, Council must consider what (if any) changes need to occur from what was projected in the LTP for the financial year in question.  Council officers then need to assess any proposed changes against the criteria of significance and materiality. 

Council’s must consult with the community on any significant and material changes from the Long Term Plan and the annual plan.

The process to develop council’s annual budget for 2019/20 involved a series of workshops with Councillors to set direction on the budget.  These seminars occurred on 18 December, 29 January, 31 January, 28 February, 5 March and 19 March.  Councillors were provided with cost pressures and efficiencies that could be made, and set direction to stay within the financial caps as outlined in the Financial Strategy.

On 15 March and 2 April, Council was presented with those changes that officers deemed significant and material and were provided with an opportunity to direct what type of engagement occurred on each topic. 

Council’s approach to engagement with the community

A consultation document was adopted by Council on 2 April which included a number of topics, some which asked for particular feedback on an option, and others which were informative, but provided the submitter with an opportunity to provide further comments. 

Submitters were also provided with an opportunity to comment on any topic they would like.  

Consultation matters were:

·     implementation of enhanced kerbside recycling and rubbish collection services,

·     water projects,

·     Regional Disaster Relief Trust,

·     the Whakarire Revetment, and

·     applications to the Provincial Growth Fund.

 

The Consultation Document also signalled the timing changes to the capital works programme.

The Consultation Document formed the basis for community engagement and focused on the key proposed changes for 2019/20.  More detailed information was also provided in supporting information. 

The consultation period with Napier residents was between 8 April and 13 May.  Attachment A provides a Consultation Report with more detailed information. 

        Council’s consideration of feedback from the community

The Council is required to consider all submissions to the Annual Plan 2019/20 and recommend:

·     Any changes to the Plan, and

·     Council’s response to the submissions. 

The following approach has been used to ensure decision-makers are well informed about feedback received on the Annual Plan 2019/20:

-      Staff with specific subject matter expertise have considered feedback relevant to their own area and:

read through each submission and considered it and written a management response. 

summarised the issues raised to ensure decision-makers understand community views.

-     Individual submissions have been put into a separate attachment so decision-makers can read through an entire submission from a person/organisation (Attachments C and D refer). 

-      For each consultation topic, this report has the following sections:

Summary of feedback – submissions have been put into relevant themes. 

Officer’s information and comment – Officer’s consideration of feedback and any comments.

Officer’s recommendation – outlines whether the Officer’s recommendation remains the same or is different from that proposed in the consultation document.

 

Overview of feedback received from the community

A total of 218 written submissions were received from Napier residents, of which, 14 were from an organisation or group.  Four groups made a funding request.  Seven submissions were received in hardcopy form.  Of the submissions received, respondents had the choice on whether they responded to some or all of the consultation topics, which has resulted in some topics having higher number of comments.

There were 77 of attendees at 3 ‘Have your say’ events.  All attendees were also given the opportunity to provide a written submission.  ‘Have your say’ events provided a qualitative source of feedback to consider alongside the quantitative analysis of written feedback.

 

Of the 218 submissions, the following table shows the overview of results: 

Consultation topic

Number of submissions

Community preference

Number of comments

Waste management

 

103 submissions

Part pay from now – 70%

Full pay from now – 30%

73 comments

79 comments on future of kerbside recycling service

Water Supply

193 submissions

Disagree – 66%

Agree – 22%

Neutral – 11%

168 comments

Regional Disaster Relief Trust

113 submissions

Set up – 56%

Neither option – 25%

Don’t set up – 19%

33 comments

Whakarire Revetment

107 submissions

Neutral – 53%

Agree – 33%

Disagree – 14%

40 comments

Provincial Growth Fund projects

105 submissions

Agree – 55%

Neutral – 34%

Disagree – 10%

34 comments

Other

56 submissions

N/A

56 comments

 


 

Waste Management – consultation topic

The Council sought the views of Napier residents on 2 options for paying for the increased costs of a kerbside recycling service:

a.       Part pay from now

b.      Full pay from now

103 submissions were received on the topic of waste management, of which 73 submitters provided comments in support of their submission, and an additional 79 comments were received on the topic of future of kerbside recycling. 

        Overview:

        Part pay from now – 70%

        Full pay from now – 30%

        Summary of submitter’s comments

The majority of submitters expressed support for part pay from now.  Residents expressed particular concerns around environmental outcomes and opportunities for Council to focus on waste minimisation – to advocate that waste should be minimised, and that the management of waste and recycling services should also minimise waste.  The table below shows a summary of comments received.  

Organisation submitters on this topic

Tu Tangata Maraenui Trust, Clean Earth, Hapi Ora Ltd, Grey Powers Napier and Districts, and the Care of Creation (Catholic parish) all submitted to the plan.

 

Theme of feedback

Key points

Waste minimisation

Council should encourage waste minimisation, advocate for central government changes to promote waste minimisation, or make/advocate for regulations on waste minimisation (34 submitters)

-     for incentives/regulations or focus on waste minimisation, so that there is less waste overall (13 submitters).

-     Council to advocate for changes to central government policy on waste products in particular to regulate or incentivise producers or distributors of waste to produce less (8 submitters)

-     wheelie bins for rubbish collection should be smaller to encourage residents to put less rubbish out (7 submitters)

-     regulation of packaging distributors (6 submitters)

-     awareness programmes (1 submitter)

Rates affordability

The cost of kerbside recycling collection services is very expensive, particularly for low income/fixed income ratepayers (18 submitters)

-     options for reducing cost burden of the service on low users and those on fixed income (5 submissions)

-     should retain use of reserves for other things (4 submitters)

-     competitive tender required (2 submitters)

Recycling outcome is important

Important that waste being collected is actually recycled (10 submitters)

Recycling options

Recycling options (20 submitters)

-     Other recycling options including a treatment plan, reducing receptacles, local contractors to provide the service, not council  (10 submitters)

-     Status quo kerbside recycling (7 submitters)

-     Service for green waste (3 submitters)

Wheelie Bins

Wheelie Bins (17 submitters)

-     wheelie bins for rubbish collection should be smaller to encourage residents to put less rubbish out (7 submitters)

-     wheelie bins for recycling seen as a positive (7 submitters)

-     wheelie bins seen as negative (3 submitters)

 

79 submitters on Waste Management provided their thoughts on the future of kerbside recycling. The key themes were similar to that of Waste Management as outlined above, with more focus on central government policy leadership, Council support for awareness programmes, penalties for packaging distributions, and only doing recycling if it is economically viable.  In addition, the idea of a recycling depot was mooted.

-     Focus should be on waste minimisation (47 submitters)

Penalties for packaging distributors (11 submitters)

Ensuring good recycling outcomes (9 submitters)

Advocating for central government policy leadership (8 submitters)

Council to support awareness programmes (4 submitters)

 

-     Rates affordability/viability (9 submitters)

Recycling service expensive and should only be done if economically viable

 

-     Other recycling options (14 submitters)

Recycling depot (6 submitters)

More recycling (4 submitters)

Status quo (3 submitters).

 

Waste Management Information and comment from Council officers

In consideration of the feedback received from submitters, Officers provide the following comments:

Waste minimisation

During the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan engagement, the community told us that enabling waste minimisation was important to them.

Overseas products

While Council recognises that many products are imported without obstacles and a penalty system would make recycling much more prevalent, in reality New Zealand as a whole accepts many non-recyclable items from overseas. A nationwide change is required so we do not end up being a dumping ground for imported single use materials which cannot be recycled. At the moment, the consumer has the most power by not selecting a particular product. 

Council do not have regulatory ability to stop non-recyclable plastics coming in to the city boundary and require producers to have only recyclable material.  Even if it did, the purchase price of items would become very expensive or items would not be on the shelf.

        Reducing plastics at source

Council absolutely supports the statement that the production of plastics needs to be reduced at the source. The consumer has a lot of power in this equation by making the right choices and modifying habits, and this will send a clear signal to producers of those plastics and the organisations that sell residents items in plastics.  We will ensure an awareness programme is provided to Napier residents.  This has already started with the reduction in accepted plastics to the ones that actually have a good chance of being recycled. 

We also work to engage with national decision makers to endeavour for this to happen, and this requires a national collaborative approach which can be driven by local Councils. 

There are many ways to incentivise a reduction of non-recyclable products being disposed of. Consumers are very powerful in that if we all change our habits slightly and work together to reject packaging at the source or purchase items only in recyclable containers (or better still, no container at all) the message will quickly get back to the retailers, suppliers, and plastics manufacturers.

        Clarity over what can be recycled

Council will also undertake a public education campaign where we outline what is and is not recyclable. Our recycling collector will be armed with pamphlets and stickers to guide residents if too many non-recyclables are placed out for collection. We are aware that recycling covers a lot but the best way to think about it is: recycle food-grade and janitorial (household cleaning) grade only, that is anything that has had food, drink or non-toxic household products in it like glass bottles, tin cans, or plastics 1 or 2. Ultimately, the campaign will highlight the power that every consumer has to not purchase non-recyclable items.

The cost of recycling services/affordability

While Council recognises that recycling is a service costly to ratepayers and Council, the proposed costs were included in the joint consultation between Napier and Hastings and for this reason have recommended the additional costs associated with the service be brought in over a three year period.

If Council did not offer recycling, then those items would be sent to the landfill and this too is also costly to run and operate.  There is also a risk that if Council stopped providing a kerbside recycling service, it may be very difficult to incentivise some residents to recycleSo on balance, Council’s position is that it is the responsible things to do to provide a kerbside recycling service as it mitigates against rising costs of landfills, and has a better environmental outcome for Napier.

When items are recycled, they are turned into new items. When items are landfilled, they take up precious space which cannot be regained. It is everyone’s duty in Napier and Hastings to extend the life of our Omarunui Landfill as much as possible.

Council recognises that we have fixed-income households.  Napier City continues to have one of the lowest rate’s levels across New Zealand. The rates increase for the annual plan has been kept within the rates affordability benchmark as agreed in the Long-Term Plan 2018-28.  Council’s proposal to utilise reserves in the first year provides a lower cost to the rate for 2019/20.  For low income earners, a rates rebate is available if they meet the criteria. 

Council also recognises that recycling is seen as a core function of Council and this was supported by the feedback received during the consultation with public on the Joint Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2018, and in subsequent surveys of public feedback on recycling services, Napier residents have provided feedback that there is strong support for Council delivering a recycling service.   Council also sees the provision of a kerbside recycling service as a key role in assisting to minimise waste to the landfill, it may be perceived as costly, but it is the responsible thing to do.

Regulation changes

Council has also experienced changes to regulations that cause the cost of some services to increase at a higher rate that cannot be contained.  This has been a specific issue for the recycling industry.  Council continues to focus on other areas where we can drive our costs down to help offset those that we are unable to do so.  Council went through a process of identifying savings as part of the Annual Plan setting process.

Service delivery

The waste and recycling market is small and to attract interest in a contract it is important to be flexible. Council is too small a client to make demands on the market, especially for recycling.  We know the bigger contractors are after efficiency and want to reduce manual handling.

The kerbside recycling collection contract is currently out for tender which seeks an outcome of collecting the best recycling yield through methods that are safe, reduce damage to property, satisfy most of the people of our city and provide good data provisions to enable us to measure and manage better. The receptacle of the recycling contractor’s choice to enable these outcomes will be assessed for appropriateness as part of the evaluation. This risk for the people of Napier is that if Council prescribe the method and receptacle, there may not be a contractor who is willing to provide the service at all, to meet those requirements, hence the reason for the outcome-based tender approach.

For the current recycling tender, it is outcome based, seeking to achieve the best outcomes for the largest number of customers, rather than being prescriptive in how we ascertain how the service is delivered - the methodology will be provided by the tenderers who will advise the best means of dealing with difficult streets, such as those on the Hill.  This service offering will depend on the overall cost of the service and the feasibility to deliver a tailored service.  Council will be responsible for the best decision for the community as a whole.

Tenders are open to all contractors – large, small, local, and international as we have procurement rules to follow. This is an opportunity for all providers to submit a competitive quote to Council for the kerbside services, but also enables non-priced attributes to be proposed which in some cases are weighted against priced attributes.

Non-recyclable plastics are no longer being collected at the kerbside, however the costs of running the recycling business, driving the trucks past the kerbside, employing staff, repairs and maintenance and so forth are all still required to pick up the paper, cardboard, grade 1 and 2 plastics, glass bottles and jars and tin and aluminium cans.

It is not recommended that Council consider a discount structure for the kerbside recycling service, as this is complicated and the market viability is changeable. 

Recycling outcome

Status quo is not an option as the current cost for the recycling service is unsustainable as the costs have increased significantly, and the market has dictated health and safety requirements, for example, recycling in bags is not allowed due to the safety implications of residents putting broken glass in plastic bags causing injury to recycle workers.  We are also mindful of complaints on the current service. 

Hawke’s Bay has a very good circular economy for cardboard and paper that is utilised for apple trays and tin and aluminium for recycling.   Glass is colour sorted at the kerb to get the best colour recycling available in the New Zealand market.  

Plastics 1 & 2 are recycled within New Zealand where possible, however plastics 3-7 are problematic worldwide. The quantity of recyclables not provided for in Council’s service, being grade 3-7 plastics will surface as a result of the recent change in acceptance criteria. Most people have a reasonable amount of grade 5's, but not much of the other types.

Commercial kerbside recycling services exist, but are generally focussed on business customers. In this market a lot of changes with regards to acceptance and price-levels had already occurred. 

Council have looked into delivering the kerbside recycling service itself however it is more cost-effective and efficient for a specialist contractor to provide a service that they specialise in and have the custom-built plant and equipment for.

Ever-changing markets            

Markets for recycling are changeable. Acceptance and prices can change very quickly and this forces recyclers to find new markets for their product all the time. By collecting the valuable recycling materials and keeping them clean and separated, the best markets can be maintained. Collecting particular items that have no market or value through the recycling service puts the viability of the entire service at risk. When the market changes, the service can change again, which means the acceptance criteria can either grow or shrink.

Refuse wheelie bins

The original proposed size for wheelie bins for rubbish was 80L in the Joint Waste Minimisation and Management plan 2018. Due to the extra amount of plastics after the move to accept 1 and 2 only and concerns that 80L would not be enough from the industry (especially around the festive season), Council has reintroduced the idea of the 120 litres. This is roughly the same capacity as the 2 x 60 litre bags that customers can put at the kerbside currently.

Wheelie bins for waste collection will not suit everyone. In residential Napier it is unlikely that a contractor will be willing to collect bags of rubbish in the future due to health and safety concerns with bags. Council’s responsibility is to provide a service fit for the majority of the community, the majority of the time.

As part of the introduction of the new system for refuse, a fortnightly option (i.e 60L per week) or a lift-count using new technology (i.e. less than 26 lifts per annum), resulting in discounted rates, are being investigated as well. This would help the smaller users and incentivise reduction of waste. It will however not be half of the full service cost as the truck will drive the whole route every week.

 

Organics Collection Service

    Council are not currently looking at a full city, kerbside organics collection as there are adequate alternative options available including very cost effective and flexible options provided by commercial collectors:

·     Council provides a drop off service at the Transfer Station to enable compostable material to be disposed of.

·     Hawke’s Bay has a commercial composting facility in Awatoto which accepts both domestic and commercial compostable material seven days per week.

·     Many residents compost at home, or have the commercial green-waste service mentioned before.

    Council officers are intending to incentivise both composting at home and the uptake of a commercial green waste collection service to promote diversion of compostable material from the landfill. 

 

Officer’s recommendation

That Council proceed with the part pay option, that is,

1.     using reserves of $1.3 mil to absorb the increased cost of the kerbside recycling service over the next three financial years, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22. 

2.     For 2019/20, seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) will be used from the capital reserve, and the remainder of the increased cost of $683,000 will be paid from rates.

 

Officers will be developing an awareness programme as part of the WMMP to assist consumers to understand their power of choice in selecting products to consume, and that this awareness programme is going to be rolled out. 

Officers will write to the Minister of Local Government with residents’ concerns that central government policy leadership is needed on the issue of minimising products into New Zealand that are not able to be recycled. 

 

       


 

Water Projects – new and existing projects delivered earlier

193 submissions were received on the topic of water, of which 168 submitters provided comments in support of their submission.  This was the highest amount of submissions received on any of the consultation topics in the Annual Plan and reflects the high level of public interest in Napier’s water network, in particular, that residents want a water network free from chlorine.  

Overview:

Disagree - 66%

Agree – 22%

Neutral – 11%

       

Key organisation responses

Care of Creation (Catholic parish), Awatoto Development and Grey power support the changes to the Annual Plan.

Hapi Ora Ltd and Guardians of the Aquifer disagree with the changes to the Annual Plan.

 

Summary of submitter’s comments

Of those that clicked they disagree with the changes, the majority added comment that they wish to see a chlorine-free water network returned to Napier City.  The actual bringing forward of projects wasn’t a topic that submitters referred to as something negative.  So although majority said they disagree with the proposed water programme changes, this is due to the water programme retaining chlorination.


 

Theme of feedback

Key points

Chlorine-free water network in Napier City

137 submitters stated their preference for chlorine-free water in Napier, with only 3 submitters stating a preference to continue chlorination.  Key reasons for removal of chlorine included, submitters reported:

-     just don’t like chlorine in the water (72 submitters)

-     experiencing health issues due to chlorine (56 submitters)

-     if other places can do it such as Christchurch, and Netherlands model, why can’t we? (22 submitters)

-     question on why are we selling our unchlorinated water overseas, if it’s good enough for them, why not us? (14 submitters).

-     not enjoying the taste of chlorine (11 submitters)

Water policy

Napier needs to set direction on water better (12 submitters):

-     Values water as a precious resource. (3 submitters)

-     Don’t sell our water/give it away (3 submitters)

-     Incentivising water use e.g. stormwater/greywater (3 submitters)

-     Planning for city development (4 submitters)

-     Mitigating adverse affects to Ahuriri Estuary (2 submitters)

 

Napier City Council’s submission to itself

Given the proposed recalibrated programme for water, Officers then reviewed the funding sources in the LTP for 3 waters e.g. Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater.  Officers have submitted on the Annual Plan 2019/20 to change the funding for the 3 Waters capital projects, which are currently funded by rates, to be changed to be funded by loans-rates to reflect the inter-generational equity of this work.

Information and comment from Council officers

Chlorine-free water network

Council is required to manage our supply risks through the development of a Water Safety Plan (WSP) as mandated by New Zealand's Drinking Water Standards. Chlorine is provided to manage the risks of contamination within our pipes and reservoirs and is included in our WSP which is approved and signed off by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board via their Drinking Water Assessor.

Council's priority is provision of safe drinking water. There are no guarantees that the water is and always will be of a high quality from our aquifer. Source water aside, the chlorine mainly addresses the risk of contamination within our network and is part of a multi-barrier approach specified in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards and strongly advocated for following the Havelock North Water Inquiry.

The risk of contamination is not necessarily related to the condition of infrastructure. Brand new infrastructure would be subject to exactly the same risk, e.g. earthquake that causes infiltration to the network systems.

Chlorine has been proven to be the most effective treatment for water supply networks for two main reasons:

•     It treats the water for pathogens (bugs).

•     It disinfects the pipes and reservoirs.

 

The use of chlorine as both an effective treatment barrier and to provide residual disinfection is best practice worldwide and is cost-effective.  Initial costs to look at a chlorine free network are proving to be uneconomic (5- 10 x the annual cost plus ten years of increased rates to change the network estimated at around $150 m +).

Council is aware that Central Government is reviewing the regulations relating to Drinking Water. All indicators are that multi-barrier treatment processes and residual disinfection will be a mandatory requirement within the reticulation network. The Ministry of Health are looking at having a mandatory disinfection residual as part of the Central Government Drinking Water Standards, and chlorine meets this requirement.

        Dirty water

Dirty water is caused by build-up of biofilm on the inside of pipes (this happens in all water networks, not just ours).  Chlorine helps to break biofilm down, as does change in water flow in the network.

        The network is still adjusting to having chlorine and changes to bores.

More cleaning of the network has been undertaken as a consequence, which has led to increased instances of dirty water as we are unable to flush individual service lines. Customers are made aware of potential operational works that might lead to dirty water and advised to run their taps to clear this.

        Why can’t we have a chlorine-free network in Napier

The use of chlorine as both an effective treatment barrier and to provide residual disinfection is best practice worldwide and is cost-effective. Officers have looked at our options and initial cost estimates to look at a chlorine free network are proving to be uneconomic (5-10 times the annual running cost plus ten years of increased rates to fund the capital projects required to change the network is estimated around $150 m +).

        Chlorine and health

Council do have sympathy for the very small minority of people in Napier that are unfortunate enough to be experiencing adverse effects as a result of chlorination. Chlorination mainly addresses the risk of contamination within our network and is part of a multi-barrier approach specified in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards.  Council have a Health and Safety responsibility not to put the elderly, young or sick at risk. 

We will ask the Ministry of Health to address the larger concerns raised around chlorine derivatives and safety in water supplies, they are best placed to review the current research. Major health bodies such as the World Health Organisation indicate that the linkages are not clear. Testing in our network has shown that the majority of derivatives are at levels that are “undetectable”.

        Chlorine is unpalatable

Two de-chlorinated water stations are to be provided in Napier. The first will be available in Anderson Park from June this year.

If the chlorine taste is unpalatable, it is recommended to leave the water in a jug for a few hours or in the fridge overnight to allow the chlorine to dissipate. Alternatively a bench top water filter is an effective way to remove chlorine.


 

Setting direction on Water

Water demand management is an area that we are exploring at the moment and requirements can be included as part of our water management plan. 

Council has no plans at present to require developers to include greywater reuse.

Selling Water

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is responsible for issuing water takes from the Aquifer and Napier City Council has no control over this.

Cruise Ships

Cruise ships are supplied with water from Napier City’s network via the Port. This connection is metered and the water is paid for. Not all of the ships fill up here and the overall water usage is very small.

 

Officer’s recommendation

That Council proceed with the officer’s recommendation to bring forward the water projects as outlined in the 2 April 2019 paper.

Council endorse the change of the funding source for all 3 Waters projects in the capital programme for 2019/20 which are currently funded by rates, to be funded by loans-rates to better reflect inter-generational equity of the investment.

That Council work with the Ministry of Health to develop a community education campaign to inform the community of the risks of managing network water supplies, the need for chlorine and the potential health impacts of chlorination. 

 


 

Establishment of the Disaster Relief Trust

113 submissions were received on the topic of setting up a Disaster Relief Trust, of which 33 submitters provided comments in support of their submission. 

        Overview:

        Set up – 56%

        Don’t set up – 19%

        Neither option - 25%.

        Key organisation responses

Tu Tangata Maraenui Trust and Grey Powers Napier and Districts submitted to this topic. 

Summary of submitter’s comments

The majority of submitters expressed support for setting up the trust.  Key themes from all submitters included:

-     there is a need to set up a trust (9 submitters)

-     suitability of governance arrangements questioned and ensuring that the funds are ring-fenced (8 submitters)

-     the Trust is seen as another layer of bureaucracy which is unnecessary ( 6 submitters). 

Themes raised through submissions

Council’s consideration of feedback

There is a need to set up a trust 

Council sees the need to establish a trust to receive and administer funds only when there is an emergency in Hawke’s Bay.  If an earthquake did take place, then others around the country may like to support the cause and this provides an avenue to do so. 

Suitability of governance arrangements questioned including ensuring that the funds are ring-fenced

The reason for involving all Councils across Hawke’s Bay in a regional trust is that an emergency may cover all areas e.g. earthquake.  For that reason, and our requirements under the Local Government Act for setting up a council controlled organisation, all Councils must consult on its establishment. 

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council manages civil defence for the region and as such the costs that transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council were removed from the Napier City Council activity with the exception of training and preparedness requirements.  Napier City Council does not collect rates for the activity of civil defence. 

Unnecessary layer of bureaucracy

The Trust is not expected to be an active Trust and therefore is not a drain on resources and only minor costs are anticipated to establish the Trust.  It is an entity available in the event of an emergency.  

 

Officer’s recommendation

That Council proceed with the officer’s recommendation to set up a trust and advise the other Councils in Hawke’s Bay of this decision.


 

Provincial Growth Funding applications

105 submissions were received on the topic of Provincial Growth Fund, of which 34 submitters provided comments in support of their submission. 

        Overview:

        Agree – 55%

        Neutral – 34%

        Disagree - 10%.

        Key organisation responses

Tu Tangata Maraenui Trust, Grey Powers Napier and Districts, and Napier Pilot City Trust submitted to this topic. 

 

Summary of submitter’s comments

Of the 34 comments provided, the majority of submitters expressed they saw the Provincial Growth Fund as an opportunity for Napier.  Key themes included:

-     the fund is an opportunity for Napier (14 submitters)

-     on the Aquarium (5 submitters):

why is this level of spend on an Aquarium a priority when compared with issues such as social housing, pools, and water (3)

is the expansion of the Aquarium in its current location wise given natural disasters and climate change (2)

-     Council should ensure this opportunity keeps rates affordable and should ensure its plans are transparent around ratepayer contributions (4)

-     Any applications should focus on residents, not tourists (3)

-     The benefits of any applications should be applied equitably across residents (3). 

 

Information and comment from Council officers

The following table outcomes Council’s consideration of feedback received through submissions. 

Themes raised through submissions

Council’s consideration of feedback

Opportunity for Napier 

Applications for feasibility studies have been submitted for various projects across the city. Council is waiting for the government announcement later this year to learn if Napier has been successful.

Council is taking the opportunity to secure funding for strategic projects which will untap Napier's economic potential and improve the lifestyle of its residents.

On the Aquarium

Education around sea level rise and other climate change impacts will be a core component of the expanded Aquarium and it is considered the current location is optimal for delivery of these messages for the next 30 years and beyond.  The detailed business case is yet to be completed and further consultation with the community will follow. 

Rates affordability and transparency

Applications to the Provincial Growth fund are non-rates funded.  

Focus on residents

Applications for feasibility studies have been submitted for various projects across the city including Activate Maraenui, Inner Harbour Developments, and Westshore which have a large benefit to residents.    

Equitable benefits

The application on Maraenui is focused on those particular residents of that area and ensuring that there is investment into Maraenui in addition to what is already outlined in the Long Term Plan.    

 

Officer’s recommendation

Council will continue to submit applications to the Provincial Growth Fund.

There is no officer’s recommendation for this topic as it was an inform piece. 

 

       


 

Whakarire Revetment - funding

The funding of Whakarire Revetment was a consultation topic in the consultation document for the annual plan, and it was also the subject of targeted engagement with Whakarire Ave residents under the Revenue and Financing Policy due to the proposed introduction of a targeted rate which would incur cost to those residents. For more detail on the consultation process with residents refer to the Consultation Report in Attachment A, and for detail on residents’ feedback, Attachment B refers.  

In the annual plan consultation, 107 submissions were received, including feedback from 3 residents of Whakarire Ave, 40 comments were made. 

        Overview:

        Neutral - 53%

        Agree – 33%

        Disagree – 14%

 

        Summary of submitter’s comments

The majority of comments made considered that the owners should pay more due to the direct benefit to their properties of the revetment. 

Key themes included:

•     Owners should pay more as they are getting direct benefit for their properties (15 submitters)

•     Not sure, don’t know what a revetment is, don’t know what this topic is all about (8 submitters)

•     All ratepayers should pay (3 submitters)

•     Type of rate (3 submitters)

•     Coastal Hazards Funding – (3 submitters)

Council to approach Port of Napier as a significant contributor to erosion to contribute funding (1 submitter)

Precedent the proposed funding arrangements has for future coastal work and whether a 97/3% split is actually the right type of split (2 submitters)

How Council defines affordability, particularly when Whakarire Ave properties are amongst highest valuations in Napier City (1 submitter)

•     Revetment itself (5 submitters)

Revetment won’t work (2 submitters)

Residents wanting to be part of the design process (3 submitters)

       

Feedback from Whakarire Ave residents

Residents provided feedback via the Revenue and Financing Policy consultation and the Annual Plan consultation.  The following section summarises the feedback received through both consultation processes from those residents.

There are 12 properties on Whakarire Ave which face the sea in which the revetment is proposed.  Of those 12 properties, 7 residents provided feedback and a further resident said they had provided feedback so Council officers followed up on this as no feedback had been received.  4 properties have not provided feedback.


 

Of the feedback received from residents,

86% - disagree

14%   - neutral.

Key themes from residents:

-     Oppose revetment (5 residents)

-     Oppose funding split (5 residents)

-     Oppose consultation of revetment regarding resource consent (4 submitters).

For more detailed information provided by residents, please see Attachment B which provides the actual submissions provided by residents.   

Whakarire Revetment Information and comment from Council officers

The feedback from Napier residents has raised issues of who benefits, with several Napier residents raising that the residents of Whakarire Ave should pay more than what is currently proposed with the funding split, the implications for future coastal funding, and affordability of such a project.

However, feedback from those impacted residents who live along the properties at Whakarire Avenue are mainly against the proposed public/private benefit split. 

Officers recommend that Council undertakes further investigation on the matters raised on the revetment and engage further with the residents to discuss their concerns, and then bring the matter back to Council. 

Implications for the 2019/20 annual plan are, the revetment is no longer constructed in 2019/20, and the timing of this project is pushed out to 20/21.  Funding was allocated for this project of $1.7m funded for 2019/20 through an internal loan from the HBHB endowment income account, and therefore, there is no cost-saving or negative financial implications arising from this decision.  There are likely to be additional costs to construction as a result of any project delay, so a LGCI adjustments should be made to the project to push this out a year. 

Council after considering further information will be able to make a final decision on whether to proceed with the revetment.  Any material change from the existing consultation could be included in the consultation on 2020/21 Annual Plan. 

Officer’s recommendation

That Council agree to delay the project to provide the opportunity to re-engage with affected parties as to the necessity, final form and funding options of the proposed revetment, and withdraw the proposed targeted rate component of the project from the 2019/20 annual plan.

That Council agree that the funding allocation for the Whakarire Ave Rock Revetment as outlined in the Long Term Plan (as 1.737 mil for 2019/20), be moved to the 2020/21 financial year.

That Council note that the project remains within the Long Term Plan, and the funding will remain as a Loan-HBHB Endowment Land income which is essentially general rates until such time that Council makes a formal decision on any particular funding component by way of a targeted rate on Whakarire Ave residents. 

 


 

Other

56 residents provided Council with feedback on their topic of choice. 

Summary of submitter’s comments

Of these, key themes included:

-     Community engagement (15 submitters)

Great (2 submitters)

Could be improved (12 submitters)

-     Rates affordability (10 submitters)

-     Social housing (8 submitters)

-     Focus on ratepayers and essential services over tourism (7 submitters)

-     In addition, other topics included – new subdivision connectivity, equitable services, stormwater, aquarium, Allen Berry reserve, Jervoistown, Maraenui, elderly, war memorial, pools, civic building, climate change. 

 

Information and comment from Council officers

There were many general comments, questions and feedback provided by the community under the open question section.  The following covers of the questions or feedback sought sought:

Themes raised through submissions

Council’s consideration of feedback

Botanic Gardens/Better ownership within the community for verges

We have supported several community gardens in Napier.  There are also several groups and individuals who look after areas they are interested in.  We recently held a 'Love your Neighbourhood' competition and one of the three prize winners wants to start up a community orchard on a piece of green space on roading reserve.  We will be running this competition again next year.

Disability Access across Napier

The Napier Disability Strategy has been drafted.  This Strategy has a focus area on improving access to Council facilities and services.  Consultation has closed on the Strategy and is being collated, with a final Strategy coming to Council for adoption.  It aims to make Napier - A city for everyone', promoting inclusiveness and access for all.

Council staff location – please return to old library building

The Civic building was declared surplus by Council through a resolution.  Council are working through a business case to determine the most cost effective and efficient option for Council staff going forward including returning to the old library

Sub division and land use

The Napier District Plan review will provide the opportunity to assess subdivision and land use planning for a successful city.  Proximity to amenities is one of the many considerations of land use planning. Council is currently conducting a Connectivity study which seeks to improve the provision of alternative modes of transport within the city. We note there is a resource consent application for a neighbourhood commercial development in Te Awa.

Community engagement

There was a question around the public minutes – these are now more comprehensive that they were previously and available on our Council website. 

There was concern that we aren’t listening to our community – we have increased the number of opportunities that our community have to speak to Council, which includes during the year, during community events and to Councillors directly.  We continue to use multiple channels to make sure that we have a good reach for consultation.  We acknowledge that not all decisions or recommendations come with a unanimous vote, however this is the democratic process.

There was feedback that the information was submitted online and they did not have access – support is provided through our libraries for those that do not have access to their own computer.

Public hearings

A submitter wanted us to reinstate hearings.  There is a move away from these formal settings, as there is also feedback that our residents feel quite overwhelmed in those environments.  For this reason, we held 3 successful “Have your Say” community events where Councillors, council officers and our residents were provided with the opportunity to talk about their matters directly with Councillors and the Acting Mayor.  These meetings were recorded and actions noted and available in our report.

Jervoistown residents

Noted that they appreciated the support from Council, however were concerned with boy racers, trucks, speeding drivers, and an increase in burglaries and drone observations.  They are seeking funding for CCTV cameras

Maraenui social housing required for community living in motels and over crowded whanau homes – seeking lobbying of government

 

Social Housing – Council officers are working with HNZ to implement the Activate Maraenui Plan subject to support from Central Government.  In addition we are advocating for Central Government to support Councils to upgrade and expand stock and to provide support so Council housing can be sustainable.

Public safety

Napier is part of an international accreditation programme that promotes community safety.  We work a range of government and community organisations, business and the community to improve community safety together.  Council also funds a range of agencies, activities and projects that contribute to community safety.

Community housing

Council provides just under 400 units for community housing for those on a low income.  Central Government provides social housing through Ministry of Social Development.  Council also funds an outreach service who work with rough sleepers to connect them to housing and social services.

Social services

Council supports a range of community organisations and social services that assist those in need.  We also regularly make submissions to government supporting and advocated for funding and services that meet our community's need, including a recent submission to the Mental Health Inquiry supporting more effective provision of mental health and addiction services in the community

Focus on essential services – not “show case “projects

Council provides a cross section of services for the entire community – our capital plan provides information on all our spend areas

Higher density, solar panels, water storage and sustainable communities

The District Plan review provides the planning framework which will allow for a variety of densities across Napier.  Environmental excellence is also one of the Principles of the District Plan.  This includes improving water quality of our stormwater to achieve a cleaner Estuary. 

Library – whats happening?

A rigorous process is currently being undertaken on the selection of a site for the new library.  A short listed number of sites are currently going through a due diligence process before coming back to council for a decision.

Dive pool – can we have one?

The new swimming pool will be indoors and the 25m by 25m pool will be deep enough to bomb safely (2m deep).  No dive boards are planned for the new facility however use of inflatables for diving/bombing purposes will be considered.

Fixed income earners and rates increases

There are rates rebates available to those on low fixed incomes to financially assist in these cases – residents can call our customer service centre for more information

Rates increase above CPI – and fixed incomes

Council recognise that there are many ratepayers on a fixed income and council officers continue to focus on being more efficient in the provision of its services.  For those that are on low fixed incomes, they may be entitled to a rates rebate.  Further information is available on our website and through our customer services.  We will be pushing this information out further to the community.

Unfortunately not all the cost that Council incurs are subject to a CPI movement which tend to relate to consumer goods only and does not include and construction costs that may move in a different manner to CPI.

Real innovative business should be funded so our children have a future

Council is taking the opportunity to secure funding for strategic projects which will untap Napier's economic potential and improve the lifestyle of its residents.

Drug problem in Napier

Council partners with appropriate central government resources in support of those impacted by drugs where help is sought or controls are necessary

Sea level rise and climate change

Education around sea level rise and other climate change impacts will be a core component of the expanded Aquarium and it is considered the current location is optimal for delivery of these messages for the next 30 years and beyond.  The detailed business case is yet to be completed and further consultation with the community will follow. 

Maraenui development

A concept plan has been developed and officers are seeking government funding through the Provincial Growth Fund. 

Overbridge across expressway at Prebensen Drive for walking/cycleway network.  Would like safe crossing for new pool if possible

This would be a significant project requiring an estimated $2-3 million dollar investment and consents. To date no investigation has been undertaken and we are unable to review the proposal in the available timeframes. 

Marine Parade – trucks access

With regard to the new signals at the port, this is an NZTA controlled road and the signals were introduced in conjunction with Kiwirail following two incidents between trucks and rolling stock.  This project was supported by Council due to the associated improvements for cycle and walking safety.

While Council would prefer to see lower numbers of trucks using Marine Parade, they do so as legal users of public road, and are fully entitled to travel on any road without a weight restriction. There are no proven regulatory measures for limiting truck use which could be applied in this instance.  However, Council is continuing to upgrade the Marine Parade environment and to this end speed tables are to be constructed between Vautier Street and the Soundshell. This may further discourage some heavy vehicles from choosing this route above others.

Intersection on Meeanee and Guppy needs reviewing for those turning into Guppy as can’t see oncoming traffic

Issues with this intersection are known and some improvements are programmed for the coming year. 

Have proper Treatment plant with settlement ponds

We assume the treatment ponds relates to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Ponds are one solution using very limited, superseded technology and regardless of how well constructed and maintained such ponds might be, they would always pose a risk as a source of polluting the aquifer below. The current stages of the Wastewater Treatment Plant that we have involve screening and settling, grit removal, biological treatment and cultural cleansing, followed by dilution by ocean water, all of which have been approved as methods of treatment by our environmental regulator as suitable. In the 2017-2018 Compliance Monitoring report we were fully compliant with every resource consent condition imposed by the regulator. In relation to stormwater treatment ponds, this is what is proposed in the Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge masterplan, the information gathering phase of which has already commenced. We have a team of staff and contractors that are smoke testing and using subsurface cameras to ascertain unauthorised and incorrect connections to wastewater or stormwater services. We have an Environmental Solutions Team which measure and monitor all of the Council's resource consents, engage with communities (particularly industry in relation to their discharges of contaminants to our stormwater network) and are progressively blocking unauthorised discharges and seeking control of contaminants at the source. Council convey water - this water is often polluted by poor processes or infrastructure on private sites which we continue to address. Council through the rewriting of the Stormwater Bylaw, the Engineering Code of Practices and the review of the District Plan rules which are all happening currently will address the current controls we have over such examples.

 


 

Funding requests/support

Through the annual plan consultation, the following community organisations are requesting some form of funding support from Council and are speaking to their request. 

 

Name

Nature of Request

Amount Requested

Jervoistown residents

Support for the resolution of illegal dumping in the area

Not specified

Sports Hawkes Bay

Not specified

Not specified

Allen Berry Reserve

Not specified.

Not specified. 

Biodiversity HB

Annual contribution to Endowment Fund and

operational costs

Not specified

HB Knowledge Bank

To contribute to ongoing operational costs

Not specified

 

Council Project Fund previously committed funding against the Annual Plan 2019/20 allocation of funding.

 

Name

Request

Amount Requested

Comment from Council officers

Taradale Community Pool Trust

To provide funding to undertake necessary upgrade works associated with the Taradale School Pool – meeting with Council during the year

$50k

Council Project Fund

Enviroschools

Year 2 of funding as committed in the Long Term Plan.  

$15k

Council Project Fund

Napier CAB

To assist with rent provision for the CBD

$30k

Council Project Fund

 

The following table shows the balance of Council Project Fund for 2019/20:

 

Carry forward 18/19

$19,800 (subject to approval)

Fund Allocation 2019/20

$200,000

Total Available Funds 2019/20

$219,800

Applications Pre-allocated 2019/20

 

Taradale Community Pool Trust

$50,000

Enviroschools (year 2 of 3)

$15,000

Napier CAB

$30,000

Balance available 2019/20

 

$124,800 (includes carry forward)

Applications received for 2019/20 awaiting recommendation after assessment

 

Basketball HB

$30,000

Creative Arts Napier

$30,000

 

 

 

The proposed increase for 2019/20 has been consulted on, so to manage the overall increase for 2019/20 requests for funding should be considered within the Community Grant fund or Council grant fund where possible for one off initiatives.

 

2.3   Issues

N/A

2.4   Significance and Engagement

Consultation was carried out between in accordance with Council’s significance and engagement policy and the Local Government Act 2002 (section 76AA).

Targeted engagement was undertaken with affected residents of Whakarire Ave.

2.5   Implications

Financial

The LTP states the proposed rates increases over a ten year period.  Changes to the Long Term Plan have been included in this Annual Plan 2019/20 and relate to cost increases associated with recycling and waste related costs.  As a result the proposed increase in rates for 2019/20 has moved from 5.1% to 6.4%.

Rates affordability

Rates affordability is a theme that has come out of the consultation from the public, across all consultation items, particularly:

-     rates increases disadvantages those on fixed incomes such as elderly more than it does higher income earners.  

-     rates increases are at a higher rate proportionally to wage increases and CPI.  

-     the affordability of the ongoing costs of the recycling service, and noting the increased cost to rubbish collection commencing in 20/21 which will be ongoing. 

-     are there mechanisms to assist those on fixed incomes to be able to afford the ongoing rates increases such as rates rebates, or different ways of applying charges to low users of waste/recycling services.

Council recognises that providing affordable and sustainable services to Napier residents is a key challenge.  Council does note that in comparison to other Councils, Napier’s rates remains low.

In the LTP 2018-2028, the adopted Financial Strategy (page 88) sets out the total limit to rates income increases at a maximum of LGCI plus 5% per annum.  There is a proportionately larger rates increase up to the 5% mark plus LGCI from 2018/19-2021/22, and thereafter it falls to just above 4%, going down to 3% in outer years.    The 2019/20 Annual Plan has been delivered within these financial benchmarks.

Officers have considered the funding of the 3 waters projects and inter-generational equity and recommended a change to loans. 

Social & Policy

The Annual Plan 2019/20 aligns with the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Risk

As outlined in the Council reports on 15 March and 2 April, the following risks were noted as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20:

-     Strong Construction market demand​ – pressure on capital programme

-     Climate change – Central Government requirements

-     Government Healthy Home requirements

-     Living wage/Min Wage changes

-     Wellbeing legislation

-     Insurance market (costs escalating as market making a loss)

-     Outstanding detailed seismic assessments on Council owned buildings

-     Provincial Growth Funding – impact to current programme of work, pressure to get work completed before Central government elections

-     Timing of sections sold for Parklands development

-     Elections and new Council requirements

-     Limited general reserves

-     Year end provisions for leaky claims

-     Rates increase in 2020/21 as a result of bringing forward water projects is 0.7%.  Council would consider this increase during the preparation of the Annual Plan 2020/21.

-     Implementing WMMP waste recommendations will result in an average rates increase of 1% for 2020/21.

-     Provincial Growth Fund projects and ongoing costs

-     Provincial Growth Fund projects and cap on Government support.

 

It is noted that the capital expenditure programme is significantly higher than previous years.  To deliver the programme will require additional internal resources as well as the ability of the construction market to deliver these projects during a period of relatively high demand.  This demand may impact on number of tenders received, project cost and timing of delivery. 


 

 

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Adopt the proposed resolutions to enable the development of the final Annual Plan.

b.     Amend the proposed resolutions to enable the development of the final Annual Plan.

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

Adopt the proposed Annual Plan resolutions to enable the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Consultation Report (Under Separate Cover)

b     Individual Submissions - residents of Whakarire Ave (Under Separate Cover)

c     Individual Submissions - Guardians of the Aquifer (Under Separate Cover)

d     Individual Submissions - Annual Plan (Under Separate Cover)