Agenda of Māori Committee

Māori Committee - 12 June 2020 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Wastewater outfall report

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	935283
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Catherine Bayly, Manager Asset Strategy Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

1.1 Purpose of Report

To inform the Committee of an update to the status of the Awatoto Submarine Wastewater Outfall which conveys treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Māori Committee:

a. Receive the update report regarding the wastewater outfall

b. Note the recent Council resolution to:

a. Note the current status of the submarine wastewater outfall:

i. As previously reported, there remains some seepage of wastewater from sealing gaskets which form part of a bespoke fibreglass joint section of the subsurface outfall pipe structure;

ii. Despite efforts, staff have not been able to identify a way to quickly fix this seepage without putting the fibreglass joint at risk of rupturing;

iii. That frequent testing of the coastal waters surrounding the area of seepage continues to show de minimus environmental effect of those waters, caused by this seepage;

iv. That Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) have recently indicated (on 25 March 2020) that Council must take the following actions:
1) Undertake short-term repairs to mitigate the leak from the joint leak by 30 October 2020
2) Provide long-term options for repairing the joint in the outfall pipe by the same date (30 October 2020)

v. That HBRC have informally notified Council of their intention to pursue enforcement action against Napier City Council to cease the discharge at the joint if the timeframes above are not met.

vi. That a further leak has been discovered within 100m of the fibreglass joint. Divers have been to the site with the aim to repair and have found that this is an old repair that has been damaged by an anchor, or other, and will need an additional repair.

vii. Tight timeframes to effect a repair increases the risk associated with delivering a short-term fix, rather than facilitating long-term solutions which will provide better outcomes.

b. Endorse staff to:

i. Seek a variation to the current resource consent to authorise the discharge of wastewater via seepage at a position other than that currently authorised (at the fibreglass joint location);

ii. Seek early provision of funding assigned for later financial years in the Long Term Plan (LTP) to enable the strategic and planned replacement of the wastewater outfall, including better treatment options to facilitate a more highly treated wastewater in the future.

c. Approve funding to be released from Wastewater Reserves to attempt a fix of the two seepages and to start on investigation works for replacement of the outfall ($2m has been put forward in the 20/21 Annual Plan).

d. Approval to attempt the lowest risk repair option of the fibreglass joint to address Regional Council’s repair timelines.

e. Receive the Beca Ltd Report entitled “Napier City Council – Wastewater Outfall – Issues and Options” dated 15 May 2020

1.2 Background Summary

· The 1.54km long wastewater sea outfall pipe was installed in the 1970s. The outfall pipe had issues from early stages due to poor construction methodology and design. The pipe has been installed in two sections and connected with an in-situ joint approximately 700m offshore. Due to a misalignment of the pipe ends at the joint, a fibreglass joint was installed in 1984. This joint is the weakest point of the outfall pipe.

· According to available information, the designed vertical alignment of the pipe was not met during construction. The seaward end of the diffuser settled below the seabed at an early stage after construction, causing issues with performance of the diffuser. Inspection of the pipe has revealed several historical leak repairs to the pipe. Overall, there have been many issues with the outfall pipe and diffuser from the beginning.

· Historically the submarine outfall has not been regularly inspected. As part of recent improvements to planned maintenance, divers inspect the pipeline and diffusers annually. During these inspections, ports of the diffusers are cleaned. However, not all the diffuser ports are functioning due to blockages, missing diffuser parts (damaged by fishing trawlers or logs rolling on the sea bed) or they are buried under an ever-changing seabed.

· In 2018 specialist diving contractors were engaged to undertake a condition assessment over the full length of the outfall pipeline.

· In August 2018, diving investigations found several sticks, pine cones, fishing net and weed inside the outfall.

· The specialist divers found a small leak coming from the pipeline approximately 70 metres from the shore. This leak was subsequently fixed using stainless clamps and rubber sheaths and subsequent assessments have found this to be in good condition.

· The divers also found an area of more significant seepage discharging from rubberised gaskets between a one-of-a-kind custom-built fibreglass joint section, 700m from shore. The seepage has been calculated at approximately 10 litres per second, when normal flow is in the order of 300-400 litres per second.

· Visibility is zero at the site, due to coastal interaction with the river sediment in the area.

· In late April 2020 an additional plume slightly closer to shore from the joint was discovered during a drone monitoring inspection. This seepage is from a previous repair that has now failed. The dive team believe that the pipeline at this point has sustained a significant impact. Divers were mobilised at the start of May and have identified an old repair with a steel clamp and cement bags. There are longitudinal and radial cracks in the pipe under the clamped section and there has been some displacement of the pipe. Although it was intended that a repair be made at that time, this was not possible as the required repair was deemed to be more complex than anticipated.

· HBRC were notified of the second seepage by phone and email on the 5th May 2020.

· Work is underway to legally protect the outfall under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996, (the same piece of legislation that protects the power cables under Cook Strait). This allows much larger penalties for those who are found to have caused damage, than what is currently available.

· The consent for the Outfall expires in 2037

· The capacity of the outfall is currently constrained due to the integrity of the historical repairs. The Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Master Plan that is currently being developed and produced later this year will help to determine future requirements for the full replacement of the outfall.

Systematic seepage detection:

· There is no formal process for seepage detection and for such a challenging coastal environment. It is very difficult to detect small seepages.

· Pressure monitoring is undertaken and recorded, but the nature of the system is such that the operation of the pump and air valve along with the tide and wave action are likely to mask any small seepages.

· There are frequently large movements of sediment in the bay (up to 1.5m) following storms which can bury the pipeline which can also have an effect on monitoring.

Offshore Environmental Monitoring:

As well as monitoring the quality of the raw and treated wastewaters being discharged to the outfall and subsequently the ocean, the Environmental Solutions Team carry out environmental effects monitoring by boat at the authorised discharge site.

Since the discovery of the seepage from the joint in 2018 the Environmental Solutions Team have increased surveillance of the site, including:

· review of footage from the specialist divers;

· scheduled deployment of our drone to provide aerial imagery of any visible plumes;

· additional environmental effects monitoring by boat in set positions immediately above and in a series of positions surrounding the joint;

· bacteriological nearshore sampling along the coast from East Clive to Town Reef to ascertain trends and effects;

· installed cages of mussels which after a period of saturation were analysed for viruses to ascertain impacts of the wastewater outfall and seepage upon human health of those collecting kai moana;

· initiated a variation to the current resource consent to authorise the additional seepage from the joint.

It is this proactive monitoring that has ascertained the second area of seepage, further towards the shore from the joint.

To date, the laboratory analysis of samples collected have shown very little impact caused by the seepage at the joint. Results are variable due to multiple factors at the site, but the following table provides a summary of findings of Faecal coliforms:

Date	Faecal coliforms at diffuser	Faecal coliforms at the joint
27 Aug 2018	N/A	<1 cfu/100mL
12 Nov 2018	700 cfu/100mL	<1 cfu/100mL
12 Mar 2019	500 cfu/100mL	38 cfu/100mL
09 May 2019	3,500 cfu/100mL	30 cfu/100mL
16 Aug 2019	2,100 cfu/100mL	<1 cfu/100mL
06 Nov 2019	<1 cfu/100mL	<1 cfu/100ml
13 Jan 2020	8,100 cfu/100mL	<1 cfu/100mL
29 Jan 2020	11 cfu/100mL	6 cfu/100mL
18 May 2020	Samples still being analysed at time of writing

In addition to this ocean surface monitoring, we have had the divers conduct sampling of waters surrounding the joint to ascertain levels of dilution at the joint, and at 2 metres and 5 metres above and 2 metres and 5 metres away on North, South, East, West headings.

Again, results are variable depending upon ocean swells, currents and pumping rates at the time of the sampling, but do not show significant impacts.

For the nearshore coastal waters monitoring since 2018 the highest recorded levels of Faecal coliforms were 130 cfu/100mL at Short Groyne (adjacent the Hastings wastewater discharge), and 38 cfu/100mL at the joint (as shown above). From a public health perspective, through the possible collection of kai moana at Town Reef, the highest reading to date is 4 cfu/100mL.

The Environmental Solutions Team will continue required monitoring and additional monitoring, and will soon carry out another virus assessment using mussel cages and will continue to build on data including additional subsurface dispersion sampling from the divers when next engaged.

Possible Repair Option:

NCC engaged Beca Ltd to provide an “Issues and Options” report for the main leak on the outfall. All of the options have similar risks, with the most notable being the potential to damage the joint to the point where a large volume of wastewater is discharged at 700m offshore instead of the consented discharge point, 1.5km offshore.

Repairing the fibreglass joint leak has a number of constraints. The main constraints are:

· Available storage at the treatment plant for a shutdown of the plant is enough only for approximately 4 hours at normal dry weather flows. There is a risk of not completing the repair within this time period, only simple repairs can be completed without having additional storage at the plant.

· The fibreglass joint is fragile and any disturbance to the fibreglass or pipe supports during the repair may disjoint the pipe making it difficult to re-joint / re-attach the fibreglass joint.

· This is a pre-stressed pipeline and maintaining the continuity of structural integrity of the pipe during the repair is not easy in a soft, changing seabed.

· Site conditions: Working on the seabed in often zero visibility, weather and sea state.

Council’s Infrastructure team, and the Beca team have identified a number of repair options, these are summarised in the following table:

Repair Option

Indicative cost ($)

Comments

Inserting a caulking cord or hemp into the flanged joints.

Recommended

$200,000 plus

1 week to undertake

Medium risk. Cost is relatively low.

The success of this option is unknown and may be limited. This option can be actioned prior to HBRC’s deadline.

Grout encasement of whole joint including supports

Not Recommended

$500,000

Specialist Construction.

2 months

Medium to high risk. May take a longer time to repair causing storage issues at the plant. This places a large deadweight at two pipe sections, potential for settlement and further damage to the surrounding concrete pipe.

Additional storage at the treatment plant would be required.

Grout filling of the fibreglass box

Not Recommended

$500,000

1 week

High to Extreme risk. Grout may block the pipe and diffusers partially or fully. The structure inside of the fibreglass box has not been confirmed.

Install a PE sleeve liner

Not Recommended

Not costed

3 months

Not currently feasible

Outfall might have to be taken out of service for up to 8 weeks. This option is not viable given the unknown internal pipe condition and obstructions, miss alignment at the fibreglass joint, no storage, and a reduction in internal diameter impacting flow rates.

Install a chamber and new seaward half of the outfall

Not Preferred

$12m estimate

Several Months

It is not advisable to replace half of the outfall without the results of the WW Treatment and Outfall and Master plan. It would be more cost effective to undertake a full planned replacement.

Consent Variation

Underway

$100,000

Enable the fibreglass joint leak to continue until the assets is replaced if the repair is not effective.

Early Replacement of the Outfall

Preferred

$33-$40 million (requires investigation)

12 months plus investigation and consenting period

Investigation works can be started to get the replacement project underway.

The value of the replacement could be $20-$40m, more work is required to develop a reasonable cost estimate.

The lowest risk option for the repair of the fibreglass joint section and associated o-ring seals and bolted sections would be:

· Diving on the pipeline at a time where tidal action, wave action and availability of specialist divers aligned;

· Cessation of discharge of wastewater by shutting down the wastewater treatment plant for a period of time;

· Unbolting the top part of the fibreglass joint section;

· Scraping detritus build-up to enable a smooth working area;

· Inserting greased rope and o-ring seals;

· Re-installing the top part of the fibreglass joint section.

There are significant risks associated with any repair option. Risks associated with the proposed option are identified in section 1.5.

Variation to Resource Consent

· A variation to the current resource consent is nearing completion which seeks to authorise the discharge of treated wastewater at an additional position, being the joint.

· The intention is to conditionally authorise the seepage discharger of treated wastewater at the joint, as Council are not currently legally authorised to do so. This will be a short-term consent to relieve some pressure until a permanent solution to the outfall pipe is implemented.

· An Environmental Effects Assessment has been developed by the Environmental Solutions Team, and this is awaiting an external peer review from a marine ecotoxicologist to enable independence prior to lodging with Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

· This application will proffer under the Augier Principle an emergency response plan which is to be developed both to address any sudden break in the outfall pipe (in any position), but also to address concerns of a breakage caused by the expeditiousness imposed upon Council to enable a short-term repair attempt. The choice of repair type and the methods of said repair, will mean the emergency response plan has to be dynamic enough to address the implications of a failure due to that repair.

· It is likely that lodgement of this application for variation to the resource consent could be made as soon as the week of the presentation of this paper.

Outfall Renewal

The Wastewater Outfall is nearly 50 years old. The recently identified seepage at an old joint is indicative of the condition of the structure and highlights that Council will need to increase expenditure to keep the outfall operational and operating within its consent conditions. This additional seepage also highlights the increasing risk of failure of the asset.

With escalating maintenance costs, current capacity constraints and increased risk of failure, it is recommended that Council start preparing for the replacement of the outfall and identify required funding to start this process prior to the consent renewal.

1.3 Issues

· Pre 2003 there have been 8 significant leaks that have been repaired.

· 2018 Small seepage at 70m – repaired.

· 2018 Larger seepage at 700m.

· End of diffuser is plugged as it is 1-5m below seabed, full length not used.

· Diffuser 120m long, including pre-tensioned structure.

· News smaller seepage discovered at 600m offshore in May 2020.

· The outfall is constrained and does not meet the required levels of service.

· Difficult repair conditions with no visibility and dangerous conditions for divers in a contaminated environment.

· Undertaking a repair on the outfall could result in further damage to the outfall.

· There is the likelihood of enforcement action if we do not undertake a repair on the fibreglass joint by October 2020.

· The outfall is nearing end of life and the costs to maintain it and repair leaks is escalating.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

The work proposed in both the short term and longer term to repair and replace the outfall represents a significant level of investment. The proposed repair cost is included in the draft annual plan to be consulted on in May/June of this year. Investment for the renewal of the outfall will need to be consulted upon in the 2021-31 LTP.

1.5 Implications

Financial

Council’s specialist consultants have provided a quotation to undertake repairs on both of the existing leaks. While the cost of these repairs is estimated at around $250,000, Council officers recommend that Council provide $400,000 for repair attempts. This will allow for poor weather conditions or issues with repairs.

The consent variation process is estimated at around $100,000.

In the 20/21 Annual Plan, Council officers have put forward $2,000,000 for rehabilitation works for the outfall. This funding would be able to cover the costs of the two leaks repairs to rehabilitate the asset. The additional funding can be used to commence investigation and design works for the outfall replacement.

With increased risks around failures, Council will need to increase expenditure on maintenance of the outfall pipeline and will need to allow for additional leaks. These annual costs are escalating and during the next LTP period staff will be forecasting $400,000 per year to inspect and maintain the outfall.

Due to the issues with the outfall, Officers would like to bring forward the replacement of this asset. In the current Long Term Plan, a total of $11,650,000 of funding was forecast, with the majority of this occurring between 2024 to 2028 for the assets replacement.

The total cost of the replacement is estimated to be significantly more than that identified in the last LTP. Council staff recommend that the replacement of the Outfall Pipeline be brought forward, with planning works starting in 2020 and replacement provided for in the next LTP.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There are significant risks associated with any repair option. Risks associated with the lowest risk option include:

· There is limited storage capacity at the treatment plant, the wastewater system wet wells and pipework which could cause an overflow to a more sensitive environment than the area at the ocean outfall;

· Time pressure because of the lack of storage being put on the specialist divers;

· High risk diving work;

· The top part of the fibreglass joint section could warp, leaving that part unable to be replaced meaning most or all wastewater would then be discharged at the 700 metre offshore position for the foreseeable future;

· Due to the top part of the fibreglass joint section being constructed in a bespoke fashion and off-alignment of the pipes, it is not able to be readily replaced;

· The removal of the top part of the fibreglass joint section could release pressure on the concrete block below the structure and cause rupture of the remaining part of the structure also meaning that all wastewater would then be discharged at the 700 metre offshore position for the foreseeable future;

· The structural capacity of the fibreglass joint section and its resilience to the removal of the top section is unknown.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Option 1 – Do nothing. It is unlikely that the Regional Council will not agree with this option, resulting in taking enforcement action against the Council. This can also cause damage to the Council’s reputation. This option is not recommended.

b. Option 2 – Applying for a variation to the existing consent to allow discharge from the existing leak as mentioned above. Sampling results suggest that the environmental impact may be minor. There is also a risk of worsening the leak resulting in larger discharge from this location over time. A proper contingency plan has to be in place as a precaution. This option is worth proceeding with.

c. Option 3 – Repairing the damaged leak by caulking method as this is the lowest risk and least cost option. There is a risk of an incomplete seal. Careful execution of work will reduce this leak. There is still the potential that the pipeline could be damaged.

d. Option 4 – Repairing the leak by grout encasement of the whole joint. There is a high risk with this option by damaging the joint further due to weight of the repair material, which may cause further damage. This option has not been recommended by the consultant or officers.

e. Option 5 – Repairing the leak by grout filling of the fibreglass box. The repair is easier, but there is a high risk of blocking the pipe and diffusers. This option is not recommended.

f. Option 6 – replace the seaward half of the outfall and install a joint chamber – this may cost around $12m, will not address other issues around the outfall’s capacity, and does not address the risks associated with the other half of the outfall.

g. Option 7 – Replacement with a new outfall. The recent failures point to the need to expedite the renewal of the outfall and note that Council spending on maintaining the outfall is starting to increase significantly.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred options for managing our risks of failure and enforcement actions by Regional Council are b and c above, and will involve the following:

1. Apply for a consent variation for the leakage at 700m to enable an ongoing discharge at this point until the joint is fully repaired or the outfall is replaced.

2. Develop an emergency response plan to manage additional damage or failure of the pipeline

3. Engage our specialist dive team to undertake the lowest risk repairs possible for both leaks.

4. Start planning the early replacement of the outfall to minimise risks, increase levels of service and tie in with improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant

1.8 Attachments

a Beca Ltd "Napier City Council - Wastewater Outfall - Issues and Options" 15 May 2020 ⇩

Māori Committee - 12 June 2020 - Open Agenda

Mihi Whakatau

The Mihi Whakatau was led by the Senior Māori Advisor.

Karakia

Hori Reti opened proceedings with karakia.

Apologies

It was noted that Pukemokimoki Marae Trust representative Tiwana Aranui was not present due to a hui.

Declarations of Appointed Members

Hori Reti, James Lyver, Chad Tareha and Adrienne Taputoro each made their oral and written declarations in the presence of the Mayor and other attendees.

The meeting adjourned at 9.36am in order for a light morning tea to be shared by committee members, elected members and senior leadership in attendance.

AGENDA ITEMS

The first business of the committee resumed at 10.11am, with the Mayor agreeing to Chair the committee until such time as the members are ready to appoint their new Chair.

1. Induction documents – including Committee handbook, agenda circulation arrangements, date of April meeting, swipe cards, photograph for ID cards and group image

The Team Leader Governance introduced key staff and spoke to the induction documents, noting that a Handbook is currently being finalised by staff and will be circulated to members once this is complete. This document provides an overview of the role of committee members and other information that staff considered would be helpful to members.

Swipe cards were provided to members, providing access to the 2^nd floor of the Cape View building (weekdays 8am-5pm) for the purpose of meeting with the Mayor and Chief Executive, as well as access to the Ikatere Meeting room where the Māori Committee meetings will be held in future. It was noted that the photographs taken by the Council photographer earlier in the day were taken for the purpose of Council identification cards which will be produced and provided to members at the next meeting. A group image will be arranged for the next meeting that all members are expected to be present.

Members agreed that they were happy to receive agendas via email for the time being and were advised that further opportunities in the technology space were being explored to assist with communication and document sharing moving forward.

It was noted that the format for this committee has changed somewhat from the previous structure. Meetings will now be held monthly, with reports requiring input from the committee being brought to the committee prior to being taken to standing committees or full council meetings.

Members were advised that a number of carparks alongside the old civic building would be made available for committee member to use during meetings.

The Team Leader Governance left the meeting at 10.23am.

The Mayor advised that she wanted to involve the committee in the conversation as early as possible and would like to see the committee evolve over the term. The Mayor did not want to dictate how the committee should work and noted that she hoped this would be an ongoing conversation over the next 2.5 years.

It was noted that ‘consultative’ had been removed from the committee name as officers did not believe the word recognised the true intention of this committee, that being for the committee to work in partnership with Council. The Mayor confirmed that should the committee wish to rename the committee to something more meaningful in future then she would be open to this discussion.

2. Arrangements and recommendation for appointment of Committee Chair

The Mayor reiterated that she was happy to Chair the meeting until such time as the committee members appointed the new Chair of the Committee, and noted her preference for the committee to decide how that appointment should be made.

During a round table discussion, the following points were raised by committee members:

· A number noted they were still unsure whether they were the appropriate person to be on the committee and will wait to review the handbook for further detail around the role of committee members – should each representative be from the operational or governing body of each?

· Members recognised that Napier City Council has been consistent in their korero around building relationships with Māori.

· Chad and Adrienne noted that they would tautoko the other members in relation to the appointment of the new Chair.

· The Māori Committee is not currently a decision making committee; however, the Mayor noted that she is committed to working towards this, whether through this committee or another scenario and is happy to discuss this over the coming months.

· Committee members thanked the Mayor for taking on the Māori portfolio, and acknowledged the statement that this makes to Māori.

The initial discussion did not result in any nominations. The Mayor confirmed that she would remain in the role for the time being as the appointment did not need to happen at this meeting.

Committee members were asked to continue the discussion outside of the meeting and discuss the appointment at the one-on-one appointments with the Mayor set up between now and the next meeting, and come together at the next meeting to discuss further. It was further clarified that once the handbook is completed, the role of the committee members and Chair should become clearer.

3. Terms of Reference and Job Description familiarisation

The Mayor confirmed that these are very high level at this time and that she would be happy to discuss these further moving forward.

Members questioned the use of the terms hākui hākoro. It was noted by a number of the committee members that one of the criteria for these positions should be that the committee are aware of their whakapapa as this is extremely important for a role of this nature. The hākui hākoro are for the whole of Council and this should be made very clear in the terms of reference for this position.

It was noted that it would be appropriate for Committee members to become an extension of the hākui hākoro roles, in the way in which they interact with and support Council.

4. Brief update from each Māori entity

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

· This week marked 18 years that Waiohiki has been without a wharenui. They expect to find out in April whether they are eligible for funding through the Oranga Marae fund.

· Six whanau members have recently completed the Growsafe course. Sitewise applications are currently underway in order to gain work through Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

· Funding from Council has provided a new trailer and life jackets, allowing for work around water safety for our tamariki to continue.

· Currently in negotiations with the MTG, Australian museum, whanau etc. in relation to the return of hei-tiki from an Australian museum.

Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro

· Main concern at present is alcohol.

· The committee supports Napier Pilot City Trust in helping to make Napier a child friendly city, through Council and other agencies.

· Māori wardens are actively patrolling due to a recent spike in vandalism and break-ins. It is hoped that the Māori warden base can be utilised at night and they are currently waiting on approval for this.

· Youth at risk kaupapa. Their second workshop is coming up. They did not feel that the age group of 16-19 was appropriate, so this has been extended to 25, including the wider whanau – it is no good helping youth if whanau are left behind.

Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū – Hori Reti

· The Board tour with Pat Parsons around Te Whanganui-a-Orotū took place this week. The bus was packed full and it was a successful day.

· The Taiwhenua are actively engaged in the MSD contract.

· The General Manager has been working alongside Council in relation to Resource Management Act issues. It is encouraging to see that everyone is wanting to work together in this space.

Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust (MTT) – James Lyver

· Tangoio Marae development – moving forward they are standing and protecting the marae location by looking after the stockbank.

· Recruitment of staff. They have been recruiting for some time and James noted the importance of getting the right people.

· Business as usual for MTT means five strategic priorities, those being:

o Our people, kaumatua and rangitahi

o Our culture and reo

o Economy

o Environment

o Organisation

Whakamutunga Karakia

The Senior Māori Advisor asked Hori Reti to close the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 11.56am.

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

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

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

Māori Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:

Friday 8 May 2020

Monday 11 May 2020

Time:

8 May 2020 10.12am – 11.35am adjourned

Reconvened 11 May 2020 11.00am – 12.52pm

Venue

Zoom

Present

Mayor Kirsten Wise

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – James Lyver

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

Pukemokimoki Marae Trust – Tiwana Aranui [from 11.19am Monday 11 May 2020]

In Attendance

Interim Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Director Infrastructure Services, Principal Māori Advisor, Senior Māori Advisor, Manager Design and Projects, HBLASS Programme Manager

Administration

Governance Team

Karakia

Principal Māori advisor (Charles Ropitini) opened the Friday 8 May meeting as per request from Snr Māori Advisor.

Apologies

The Committee accepted the apology from the Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee representative, Adrienne Taputoro.

The Pukemokimoki Marae representative Tiwana Aranui was absent from the meeting until 11.19am, Monday 11 May 2020.

Confirmation of minutes

The Draft Minutes of the Committee meeting held on 13 March 2020 were laid on the table pending corrections raised on Friday 8 May 2020.

AGENDA ITEMS

Project Management introduction and overview of “shovel ready” projects

An update was provided on Council’s application to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) shovel ready projects fund by the Manager Design and Projects. It was noted that:

· The aim is to include all relevant parties from the beginning of a project, and to involve traditional Māori practices and protocols appropriately in projects. One way to achieve this will be by regular contact between this Committee and Council’s Design and Projects Team.

· Phase 1 of the MBIE “shovel ready projects” application aims to give small businesses simple projects which will generate income in a short timeframe.

· Phase 2-4 in the MBIE “shovel ready projects” application will consider progressively bigger projects which will require more planning.

· Council is waiting to hear from Central Government about their application before proceeding.

· The Māori community, and its many resources, should not be forgotten in the urgency to get these projects started; the social needs of the community will also be taken into account in the prioritising of projects.

Three waters project

The HBLASS Programme Manager, who has also recently been appointed to lead the regional recovery programme following the COVID-19 response, provided a confidential update on the Three Waters project.

The meeting adjourned at 11.35am.

The meeting reconvened Monday 11 May 2020 at 11am. The appointment of a committee Chair was postponed until the Pukemokimoki Marae representative had joined the meeting.

Confirmation of Māori committee representatives

Chief Executive recruitment RFP tender evaluation team

Chad Tareha was formally confirmed as the Māori Committee representative on the Chief Executive Recruitment RFP tender evaluation team. The Committee members supported this appointment.

It was noted that in considering the Chief Executive’s KPIs, the four key fundamentals highlighted during the Elected Members’ induction should be incorporated. Those being early engagement, relationships, cultural competency and early whakaaro.

Recovery planning working group

Chad Tareha was formally confirmed as the Māori Committee representative for the Recovery Planning working group. The Committee members supported this appointment.

It was noted in the meeting that the terms of reference of this group were being drafted currently and the Māori Committee will be able to give feedback in due course.

Feedback on committee terms of reference and job description

The Māori Committee handbook is intended as a reference document and guide to how local government and Napier City Council operates; also how the Māori Committee fits in the overall governance structure of Council.

Tiwana Aranui joined the meeting at 11.19am

During a round table discussion, the following points were raised by Committee members:

· Having high level terms of reference which can be built on by current Committee members, future members, and the organisations they represent, is ideal and allows for continuous improvement.

· The terms of reference should be the Committee’s tika.

· If the handbook, terms of reference, and job description were bi-lingual documents they would be more inclusive and reflect the desired partnership.

· The handbook could be improved by having the kaupapa at the start, and the context next, rather than the other way round as is currently the case

ACTION: A workshop will be scheduled to work through the three documents so all Committee members and relevant Council staff could review them in an open forum before being finalised.

Update from partner entities

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

· All Ahuriri hapū have been focusing their efforts during the national lockdown on the Ahuriri Hapū Settlement Bill. Submissions are open at the moment.

· Funding has been sought, and the Trust has been working with the Taiwhenua, to support Ngati Pārau’s Kaumātua and over 200 at risk whānau who are struggling due to the lockdown. One focus has been homes that have between 10 and 17 people living in them.

· The country moving to Alert level 2 is looked forward to so more mahi can be done with the at risk community members.

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – James Lyver

· The Trust was able to prepare and implement their COVID-19 response in advance of the more stringent national lockdown in March 2020. They adopted a Whānau Champions model, where an individual who is well connected within their whānau cluster was identified and recruited to support the rest of their whānau with education about the lockdown and also social support. The social support was difficult as it is not Maungaharuru-Tangitū’s core role, but they were able to connect with the Ahuriri Collective which lead utilising the Tihei Mauri Ora model of supporting whānau in crisis.

· Communication was developed to encourage whānau to follow the Prime Minister’s and Government official’s advice, and not be too proud to ask for help if it was needed.

· Business continuity was maintained during the lockdown which encouraged a feeling of normality.

· The Trust has two new staff, a Resource Consent and Policy Analyst role and a Projects Coordinator.

· Work on the Marine and Coastal Area Act (MCAA) application has been progressing; submissions need to be in by 30 June 2020. This has taken a lot of time and resource. The Trust is collaborating with other organisations for this, and that has had both advantages and challenges.

· The Trust has also continued with the Tangoio Marae development project, and has made good progress around the stopbank, despite the delay COVID-19 created.

· The time and resouces spent on the MCAA has limited the Trust’s ability to contribute to the District Plan to date. However it is anticipated that some efficiencies will be created to feedb ack into the District Plan from the MCAA submission process once complete, in particular for coastal areas. For inland areas funding from Council may be required so an Archeologist, Historian and/or Mapping Expert can be engaged.

Pukemokimoki Marae Trust – Tiwana Aranui

· Many changes have come into place due to COVID-19 and the different Alert levels have had different impacts on Pukemokimoki’s whānau and also at the hospital.

· Māori input into change needs to be maintained and tikanga be applied, in all areas. Then change will be accepted successfully. Change is difficult for some of their whānau, and also for Pākehā, but if it is carried out correctly it can positively challenge all to move forward and accept what is in the future. Being inclusive will help eliminate inequality.

· Tiwana has been supporting the whānau in Maraenui and Tamatea as the country goes through the lockdown, working with them on issues such as how to bring deceased whānau home from overseas in this time.

District Plan Review Update – Charles Ropitini

· The schedule of sites of significance to Māori is still being worked on. Once complete the rules and protective mechanisms for the schedule will need to be workshopped. This schedule is currently sitting with the Mana Whenua entities for their sign off.

· Time frames for the schedule of sites of significance may need to be adjusted so Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust can participate once able to.

· A revised timeframe for the next two years has been completed so the Mana Whenua can see the process Council is following and see where each part of the process fits in.

· Mana Ahuriri have sent through four areas that they would like to work closer with Council on, as other Mana Whenua partners are also welcome to do, outside of the sites of significance work.

Team Napier Communications

An update was provided to the Committee about the new Team Napier branding. The Recovery Group have developed this for the whole Ahuriri community to use, not just Council, as a way to unite the community in the COVID-19 recovery effort. It can be used in many contexts to generate civic pride, for example on footpaths, bags, clothing or shop windows.

The picture is of two hearts sitting on top of one another; this represents unity, coming together as one. There is a koru on one of the hearts which represents growth. Some see a bird in the other heart, others see waves, and this could represent the ocean.

During a round table discussion, the following points were raised by Committee members:

· The Te Reo translation presented of the slogan ‘We are team Napier’ is currently ‘Te kotahi tātou a Ahuriri’. It was felt the word kotahi was inclusive of all people in Ahuriri regardless of ethnicity. The use of ‘ngātahi’ in place of ‘kotahi’ was considered by the Committee as it celebrates individual cultures working together within a group, rather than grouping them together as one people.

· In the presentation about the logo it was felt the explanation of civic pride needs to be clearer and at the start of the presentation. Also the photos in the presentation should be taken in Ahuriri.

· Macrons should be added to the presentation.

General Business

At the meeting it was noted:

· The setting for the distribution of the agenda has been at the legislative requirement, which is two full working days prior to the meeting, due to this meeting being monthly rather than six weekly. This will be amended to seven calendar days, in line with Council’s six weekly committees.

· Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust would like to host a Committee meeting once out of lockdown.

· The current timing of the meetings, 10am-1pm, will be changed to 9am-12pm.

Chairperson/s for the Māori Committee

Nominations for the Committee Chair were called for.

Chad Tareha was endorsed by the other Committee members as Chair of the Committee.

Whakamutunga Karakia

James Lyver closed the meeting on behalf of the Committee with a whakamutunga karakia.

The meeting closed at 12.52pm

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

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

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

Meeting Date:	Friday 12 June 2020
Time:	9.00am
Venue:	Large Exhibition Hall Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier

Committee Members	Mayor Kirsten Wise Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust – James Lyver Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro Pukemokimoki Marae Trust – Tiwana Aranui
Officer Responsible	Director Community Services, Senior Māori Advisor
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Māori Committee Meeting Friday 10 July 2020

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	933989
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property