Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of Council

Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 26 September 2019 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Napier Disability Strategy

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	836238
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Mackie, Manager Community Strategies

1.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval to adopt the finalised Napier Disability Strategy, which incorporates the feedback on the draft strategy received from the community and key stakeholders.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Adopt the final Napier Disability Strategy

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

1.2 Background Summary

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

1.3 Issues

The strategy focuses on the provision and delivery of Council’s activities and services. It sets out six key focus areas that contribute to the strategy’s overall vision that Napier is a City for Everyone’. Under each focus area, there is a key goal with aims that enable the goal to be achieved over time. The six focus areas are:

· Getting around

· Getting involved

· Being included

· Having fun

· Being safe

· Having work

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

Actions have been developed as a result of a series of community workshops in addition to focus groups with Council staff. The actions will be prioritised with timeframes and details confirmed through the development of an annual implementation plan.

The strategy deliberately uses ‘every day’ and approachable language to support the principle of inclusiveness.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter is significant for a moderate proportion of the population, with 27% of people in Napier living with a disability. This strategy also impacts on their whanau, caregivers and service providers. The engagement approach aligned with the disability community’s premise of ‘nothing about us without us’. A reference group of people with a lived experience of disability was established from the outset. The group met regularly during the development of the strategy and took a significant role in the initial consultation with the sector.

Engagement with the disability sector was through NDAG and the specifically established reference group (Napier Ability Plus) and through community workshops and focus groups. The draft strategy was developed during this process.

Council approved the draft Napier Disability Strategy for release for community wide feedback on 19 February 2019. The draft strategy was made available in a range of formats including NZ Sign Language, Easy Read (pictorial), audio and plain text. The draft was distributed for feedback through a variety of channels including via the Napier Disability Advisory Group membership, a media release, the Say it Napier website, the community distribution list and directly to key stakeholders.

Twenty-nine responses were received via the Say it Napier website feedback form with the Office for Disability Issues (ODI) and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) providing written feedback. The majority of those responding on the feedback form had a lived experience of disability or worked in the sector.

All of the 31 respondents agreed with the strategy’s vision and focus areas. Within the online feedback, there were some suggestions about including other organisations in the implementation of the strategy. These suggestions will be passed on the NDAG for invitation onto the group. The online feedback also identified specific actions that can be included in the implementation plan, for example, including an infinity swing in Napier and providing accessible change facilities.

The written submissions from the two organisations provided some useful suggestions which have largely been incorporated into the proposed final strategy or will be dealt with in the implementation plan.

The feedback was considered by the Napier Disability Advisory Sub Group. The full list of responses from the online feedback and two organisations is appended along with the sub committee’s response.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The actions in the strategy will be prioritised for implementation over a five-year period with implementation plans established each year. The majority of actions focus on changing the way Council engages and provides services and information to the disability community. Improving access to the built environment, particularly retro-fitting could incur additional costs that will need to be built into projects with any additional funding sought through current Council mechanisms. Some projects may attract external funding. The strategy will be overseen by existing staff in the Community Strategies team.

Social & Policy

This is Napier’s first Disability Strategy. It acknowledges a significant proportion of our current population (higher than the national average), while anticipating a growing disability community. The strategy requires that all areas of Council consider how accessibility and inclusiveness can be increased within activity areas. It is aligned to Council’s Vision and Outcomes for Napier. It has a strong relationship with the Positive Ageing Strategy currently being finalised.

Risk

The implementation of the strategy across Council will require all areas of Council to be cognisant of the strategy when planning and providing services, facilities and information. An internal interdisciplinary project group will be established to assist the Community Strategies team to oversee its socialisation and implementation across Council. This group will liaise with and be advised by the NDAG and the Napier Ability Plus groups.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Adopt the final Napier Disability Strategy, noting the changes made as a result of the feedback received through the consultation process (preferred).

b. Reject the final Napier Disability Strategy, and adopt the draft Napier Disability Strategy.

c. Reject the final Napier Disability Strategy.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The proposed final strategy was developed in collaboration with both the disability sector and people with a lived experience of disability. It incorporates the feedback received throughout the consultation period. The strategy has clear alignment with the New Zealand Disability Strategy and is supported by the Office for Disability Issues. The development of annual action plans will provide flexibility as the strategy is implemented.

1.8 Attachments

a Disability Strategy amended post consultation ⇩

b Response table to Organisations feedback ⇩

c Disability Strategy - online consultation comments ⇩

d ODI Disability Strategy Feedback.pdf ⇩

e HBDHB Disability Strategy Feedback ⇩

Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 26 September 2019 - Open Agenda Item 3

3. Revenue and Financing Policy review - step 1

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	841788
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

3.1 Purpose of Report

To endorse step one of a two step process to review Council’s Revenue and Financing policy as required under section 101(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Endorse the step one analysis for the Council activities as set out in the ‘Activity Summary for step one’ schedule to be provided to the incoming Council for final adoption.

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

3.2 Background Summary

A review of Council’s Revenue and Financing policy is currently underway. The review process is a two step process and takes a first principles approach. Step one is now complete.

The first stage of the review involved a series of 5 Council seminars to assess and document the current Council’s view for each activity on the following (as required under section 101(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002):

· Community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes

· Distribution of benefits – who gets the benefit whole/part of community or individuals?

· Period the benefits are expected to occur

· Extent actions or inactions contribute to need to undertake the activity (exacerbators)

· Costs and benefits of funding the activity separately from other activities

It is important to note that step one should be completed before any modification occurs as part of step two. Step one is also known as a Funding Needs Analysis (FNA).

As part of the completion of this step the Council has selected its preferred funding tools for both operational and capital expenditure for each activity. For some activities the Council has identified a percentage of either public good or private good, and for other activities, it has not. At this stage it is important for Council to confirm the tools it intends to be used and the rationale for the selection of tools, not the allocation between either public good or private good. The rationale and some content has been updated to better reflect the requirement of the LGA rather than Council’s intent.

Step two requires Council to consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the community. This provides Council with significant scope to modify which funding tools are used and the impacts on identifiable groups. This step can only be completed after Council has formally adopted step one and has considered the impacts on the community. This step will be considered by the new Council after the October elections.

Therefore, Council is required to consider, modify if required and then adopt the attached schedule of its activities, before it considers the impact of these allocations on its community.

3.3 Issues

Once Council has endorsed/adopted step one or the Funding Needs Analysis (FNA), the new Council must complete the following steps before any changes to its Revenue and Financing policy including changes to the impacts of rates, can be implemented.

1. Model the rates impact on the FNA

2. Consider the overall impacts of step 1 and update the FNA

To undertake this step the Council should have a preferred option. The FNA (Step 2) is also a requirement of section 101(3)(b) LGA.

This is an opportunity for the council to step back from the individual funding activities to consider the overall allocation of liability including impacts of rates, debt and fees and charges in the community. Ultimately, this is a political judgement. Step two involves looking carefully at the funding choices developed in step one and being clear about the reasons for modifying them.

A council must not only complete the two-stage process but also be able to show that they have done so AND that both steps have been fully documented.

3. Model and confirm the preferred rates allocation option

4. Draft Revenue and Financing policy and supporting rating policies

In addition to the Draft Revenue and Financing policy, Council may need to modify its rates remission or postponement policies. It is also possible that other policies including liability management, investment and development contributions or financial contributions may need to be updated.

5. Draft the proposal and supporting information for consultation

Consultation on the Revenue and Financing policy and supporting polices[1] will be required.

For a section 82 consultation the legislation lists essential information which must be included in the proposal. This essential information is:

· analysis of the options;

· copies of any policies that will need to be changed

The proposal is a primary communication document that helps the reader understand the proposal, the options council has considered, how the reader may be affected and why council prefers the proposed option. To be effective, the proposal it must be concise and to the point (while meeting the legal requirements). But it will be useful to have additional information available for those that want to dig more deeply into the matter.

6. Carry out community consultation

This is a formal step required to set a lawful rate, whether through a section 82 (LGA) consultation or section 83 (LGA) SCP.

The key things for compliance are that the proposal must contain:

· the proposal; and

· the reasons for the proposal

In an effective rating review the proposal should be a clear statement about which rates are changing. This statement should describe how rates are allocated currently and how it is proposed to allocate them in future.

The proposal should also include a summary of the other options considered and give reasons why the council considers those options aren’t the best way forward for the community. These reasons may link back to the reasons given for the review at the start of the process. The status quo should be one of the options discussed, along with reasons why staying with it would not be appropriate.

7. Hear submissions

8. Update and amend policies after considering submissions

9. Adopt new policies

10. Set the rates

3.4 Significance and Engagement

Step one forms the basis for the Revenue and Financing Policy with the second step requiring separate consultation as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

3.5 Implications

Financial

No financial implications for step one.

Social & Policy

The Revenue and Financing policy will be updated at the completion of this review with effect 1 July 2020.

Risk

That the incoming Council do not endorse stage one which may impact on the timing of the funding review and consultation process.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Endorse the step one analysis for the Council activities as set out in the attached schedule to be provided to the incoming Council for final adoption.

b. Amend step one analysis and endorse.

c. Leave the matter on the table for the incoming Council (this would put the timing of the review and consultation at risk as the incoming Council would be required to complete the step one analysis in its entirety).

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

Endorse step one analysis for the Council activities as set out in the attached schedule to be provided to the incoming Council for final adoption.

3.8 Attachments

a Activity summary for step 1 ⇩

Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 26 September 2019 - Open Agenda Item 4

4. Water Supply Compliance and Programme Delivery

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	844523
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Catherine Bayly, Manager Asset Strategy

4.1 Purpose of Report

To advise Council regarding receipt and content of the attached Report:

Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008/18) and duties under Health Act 1956 for the period 1^st July 2018 to 30 June 19.

To summarise the current focus in Council’s water improvement programme.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Endorse the report titled ‘Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008/18) and duties under Health Act 1956 for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019’.

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

4.2 Background Summary

Compliance report

Council received the updated compliance report:

Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008/18) and duties under Health Act 1956 for the period 1^st July 2018 to 30 June 19.

This report was received the 10^th September 2019 and confirms Council’s Water Supply has achieved full compliance for 2018/19. The Drinking Water Assessor (DWA) made the following comments when the report was submitted:

“Commendation is given for the effort Napier City Council has put in to improving the supply infrastructure to gain interim secure status on their bores and once again demonstrating compliance with the Drinking Water Standards and the Health Act.

Moreover, Napier City Council has continued to improve the management of the risks on the supply both through adoption of a Water Safety Plan which is maintained in a ‘Living Document’ fashion and the use of a residual disinfection (chlorination) to manage the risks presented within the reticulation”.

To maintain ongoing compliance, Council will require a high level of ongoing operational funding, resource and commitment.

The Water supply is compliant with the Drinking Water Standards (DWSNZ) in all areas, including; bacterial, protozoa, cyanotoxin, chemical and radiological compliance for the treatment plants, bores and distribution zone (as applicable).

In the report the following was stated:

There have been no transgressions in the distribution system since the introduction of chlorine – suggesting that the risks attached to the distribution system that allow the ingress of potentially pathogenic bacteria are being adequately managed.”

During the compliance period, NCC was required to undertake 184 water samples for bacterial compliance. The minimum requirements were exceeded and a total of 520 samples were collected.

For the 2018/19 year Council’s network has had interim bore security status. The DWA asked for water age testing for all of the bores to be undertaken in April 2019. This is over and above the requirement of the DWSNZ and Council agreed to this approach. Once these results are submitted and reviewed by the DWA this should enable us to gain secure status.

Implementation Audit

The implementation assessment for 2018 was undertaken in February 2018 and this year’s Implementation Audit is taking place between the 24th and 26th September. This will assess the work we are doing against the implementation elements of the Water Safety Plan.

Next Steps – Water the No. 1 Priority

Following an extraordinary meeting of Council (4th June) Council voted unanimously to confirm that water is our number one priority. $7.8m worth of water related capital projects were brought forward in the programme to reflect this.

An external review to establish the requirements to go Chlorine free was put forward with a budget of $200,000 to complete the review.

Independent Review of Current Plans

In March 2019, Beca Limited were engaged to undertake a high level review of our planned programme to address water quality issues in our network. The team consisted of a water quality specialist and other well respected industry professionals.

The main results from this investigation noted the following:

Many different methods have been used to control biofilms and often requires the use of a variety of tools, rather than a single “best” tool, and the relative effectiveness of a control practice may be site specific. Options include:

· Providing disinfectant residuals

· Pipe cleaning using such techniques as flushing or pigging.

· Reservoir management and cleaning

· Infrastructure replacement and repair

· Water quality control (nutrients, carbon, manganese and iron)

· Control of contamination from materials and equipment

· Optimising system hydraulics to avoid dead ends and low velocities

· Cross-connection control and backflow prevention.

The report discussed the number of water complaints and noted that NCC has higher levels of complaints about water clarity compared to other Councils. The Consultant contacted Hastings DC who indicated that they had a 3 to 4 month period of increased dirty water following the introduction of chlorine. Initially their Free Available Chlorine (FAC) levels showed large variations requiring the need to change chlorine dosing rates. Their network has stabilised. The other factor to note is that their manganese levels are lower than Napier’s.

Routine water quality sampling in the network has not measured detectable levels of iron or manganese, however these are elevated within dirty water samples. This suggests that these materials are contained within a biofilm on the inside of the pipes which sloughs off and/or is biochemically released during certain conditions (for example with added chlorine). Although manganese is low in our water source it is potentially at levels that will exacerbate dirty water issues. This will be addressed in the design of our treatment plants.

The report made the following conclusions and recommendations:

Source and Treatment

Further investigations into source water quality will inform operational practices (e.g. priority order for bore operation) and the potential of different areas in the aquifer to supply additional good quality water. Any such changes should be informed by network modelling. To achieve significant improvements in water clarity specific treatment targeting manganese is recommended. One common approach to reduce manganese levels is to provide chemical oxidation of manganese through chlorination with subsequent single stage dual media filtration consisting of greensand and anthracite.

Source and Treatment – Actions Underway

A multi-criteria process is underway to consider the best location for our two bore fields. A major consideration for bore field location is water quality. Further investigation is required to understand water quality at different depths within the aquifer which will assist us in our decision making. Another consideration is the potential treatment required depending upon the location and depth of the bores. Once the bore field locations have been decided, the water treatment required will be defined as part of the Water Treatment Plant design process.

Network Configuration

Changing the water network configuration so bores pump to reservoirs and there is centralised treatment has advantages for water clarity. Chlorination control is likely to improve, and targeted treatment for water clarity parameters such as manganese, is likely to be more cost effective. Avoiding direct pumping into the network should make velocity more consistent and avoid changes of flow direction, reducing sloughing/erosion of biofilms and re-mobilising of sediment and hence improving water clarity.

Network Configuration - Actions Underway

A large proportion of the funding brought forward in the annual plant relates to the development of a gravity fed network to avoid direct pumping.

Renewals

The lack of any direct link between the pipe materials in the system and the locations of the complaints indicate that the pipe renewals program should continue as planned.

Renewals – Actions Underway

Renewals programme is continuing as planned.

Operations

One of the key parameters for controlling biofilm formation and associated impacts on water clarity is stable FAC within the network. We recommend that on-line monitoring at the dosing points and key locations within the network be installed to allow dosing to be optimised and a reasonably stable FAC maintained throughout the network.

Pigging and flushing programmes appear to be effective but are only maintaining current water clarity levels. Additional pigging sites are needed to ensure better coverage of the network. A regular pigging and flushing programme is likely needed long-term.

Operations – Actions Underway

We are closely monitoring FAC and this is showing signs of stabilising across the network (minimum levels are being achieved where previously they weren’t). On-line monitoring is being delivered in a phased approach, with on-line network FAC monitoring prioritised this year. Other on-line monitoring will mainly be associated with the Water Treatment Plants.

An increased pigging programme is being delivered this year and additional pigging points have been installed. Additional pigging points will be installed over the summer months to further enhance our winter cleaning programme in 2020.

Pipe Cleaning Programme

The water pigging programme is well underway with 45% of the zones completed. In total 11 zones have been completed, one is in progress, one has been notified of impending work and 9 are yet to start.

The amount of pipe cleaning undertaken in this programme has increased to around 160km of the network, compared to around 100km last year. Due to the extension of the cleaning programme this year, we are likely to extend into our summer high demand period. A couple of the less impacted zones may be postponed to the start of the next cleaning season if we are not able to complete before water conservation messaging and water restrictions are introduced. High priority areas will have repeat cleaning programmes.

Over the summer the three waters team will look at installing additional network access points in the most impacted streets, for example on high complaint areas with smaller diameter pipes (50mm ridermains). The resourcing and funding required to clean more of the network will be investigated and pulled into the next Annual Plan budget.

Three Waters Programme Manager

Due to workload and capacity, a contractor has been brought in to assist with the programme management of the water capital programme. This will better enable these interconnected projects to be delivered in a timely manner.

Disinfectant Residual Free Network

Early in 2019 an initial high level review of the potential costs to deliver a chlorine free network was completed. To deliver a safe chlorine free network will take decades to implement and will be at significant cost to the community. To supply a residual free network there would need to be a vastly more complex and expensive level of operational practice developed to demonstrate and maintain safety of the supply.

Council has determined that an independent assessment should be undertaken with the assistance of an appropriately qualified/experienced organisation who works with chlorine free networks. To support this resolution, $200,000 has been made available.

Proposed legislation will enforce chlorine disinfection in reticulation networks. There is the possibility of providing a network without chlorine, however the onus would be on the supplier to demonstrate to the regulator that the network is safe. The Ministry of Health has indicated that there are no supplies in New Zealand would currently able to obtain exemption and that this would be a very high bar to meet. Given that the Danish and Dutch models have been proven over decades, it is likely that these supplies would provide an appropriate benchmark to compare Napier’s network too.

A scoping document is currently being complied for the project, with a view to be completed in late November with the tender and engagement of a supplier around February 2020.

Summary

The three waters team and City Services have a large programme of works underway to address water quality issues in our supply, to improve operational control and reduce risk through improved asset management practices.

The full compliance achieved in the 2018/19 Compliance Report indicates that we are heading in the right direction. The Implementation audit may raise other projects and priorities and this will be addressed following receipt of the audit report.

4.3 Issues

N/A

4.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

4.5 Implications

Financial

Capital Projects Summary

Over the next three years there is $29m set aside for water capital projects. These support the overarching strategy to have new secure bore fields with associated treatment plants that can pump treated water to our reservoirs which can then be gravity fed to the network. As noted in the Beca report, this overall strategy will enhance water quality and will also provide us with greater operational control.

The main projects starting over the next few years are as follows:

Project Name	Project Description	Comments	Estimated Cost
2 Bore Fields and Treatment Plants
New bores in Awatoto	New bores in Awatoto	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	$1,050,000
New Taradale Bore Field	New Taradale bore field and dedicated pipe	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	$4,600,000
New Water Treatment Plant	New treatment plants		$1,700,000
			$7,350,000

Dedicated Mains to Treatment Plants
Awatoto Trunk main extension	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	$3,500,000
Church Rd booster to rising main	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	As per Council seminar 18.12.18	$3,000,000
			$6,500,000
Major Reservoir Projects
Replacement of Enfield reservoir	Replacement of Enfield reservoir	Includes land purchase and construction of the replacement reservoir.	$10,300,000
Reservoir inlets and outlets improvements	Reservoir inlets and outlets improvements	As per Council seminar 18.12.18. Improves water quality and safety	$880,000
			$11,180,000
Improved Operational Control
Dedicated water takes from hydrants	Dedicated water takes from hydrants		$95,000
District Modelling Projects			$465,000
Network access points		As per Council seminar 18.12.18. Allows for more cleaning.	$200,000
District Monitoring Project	District metering	As per Council seminar 18.12.18. Provides more operational control of the network.	$1,500,000
Optimise Church Rd booster pump station	Optimise Church Rd booster pump station	Provides for improved operational control.	$400,000
			$2,660,000
			$27,690,000

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

4.6 Options

N/A

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

4.8 Attachments

a Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008/18) and duties under Health Act 1956 ⇩

Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 26 September 2019 - Open Agenda Item 5

5. Interregnum Period Delegation

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002, Local Electoral Act 2001
Document ID:	837317
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Devorah Nícuarta-Smith, Team Leader Governance

5.1 Purpose of Report

To seek a time-limited delegation to the Chief Executive of decision making powers during the interregnum period between councils.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Authorise the Chief Executive to make decisions in respect of urgent matters, in consultation with the Mayor Elect, from 13 October 2019 (that is, the day after the declaration of preliminary results by the Electoral Officer) until the new Council is sworn in

b. Note that any decisions made under this delegation will be reported to the first ordinary meeting of the new Council.

Acting Mayor’s Recommendation

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

5.2 Background Summary

The time between the ending of an outgoing council and the swearing in of a new Council is referred to as the interregnum period.

An incoming Council cannot make decisions or undertake matters of business until they have been sworn in. Under the Local Government Act 2002 there are specific time frames that must be met in relation to the notification of the first, or Triennial, meeting at which this swearing in takes place, which along with logistical considerations contribute to the existence and length of the interregnum period.

On occasion issues can occur which require an urgent decision during this period when the elected members are not yet able to operate in a decision-making capacity.

LGNZ recommends that a time-limited delegation is provided to the Chief Executive to make any decisions of this nature within this period, to ensure that urgent or emergency matters are able to be addressed. It is expected that the Chief Executive will consult with the Mayor-Elect prior to any final decision being made.

5.3 Issues

If delegation is not made for the interregnum it may create unnecessary exposure to risk for Council and the community should an urgent or emergency decision unexpectedly occur during the period that elected members cannot yet make decisions. LGNZ recommends mitigating this risk by providing a time-bound delegation to the Chief Executive.

5.4 Significance and Engagement

This is an operational matter in relation to the transition of Councils under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001, and does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

5.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

As noted above, not providing for decision making in the interregnum period between the outgoing Council and the ability of the new Council to make decisions creates risk for Council and potentially the community should unexpected urgent matters occur during this time.

5.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To authorise a time-limited delegation to the Chief Executive to make decisions in respect of urgent matters during the 2019 interregnum period, in consultation with the Mayor-Elect.

b. To not authorise a decision-making delegation for the interregnum period.

5.7 Development of Preferred Option

It is strongly recommended by LGNZ that delegation is provided to the Chief Executive of a Local Authority during the interregnum period to ensure that any risk created by unexpected urgent decisions is mitigated.

It is expected that any decisions made under this delegation would be made only following consultation with the Mayor-Elect, and that they are reported to the first ordinary meeting of the new Council.

5.8 Attachments

Nil

[1] Excluding liability management and investment policies

Meeting Date:	Thursday 26 September 2019
Time:	2.00pm
Venue:	Council Chambers Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Council Members	Acting Mayor White (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, Wise and Wright
Officer Responsible	Chief Executive
Administrator	Governance Team
	Next Council Meeting TBA

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	832907
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer