Māori Committee

Open Agenda

 

Meeting Date:

Friday 26 February 2021

Time:

9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
Napier

 

 

Committee Members

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha (In the Chair)

Mayor Kirsten Wise

Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul

Pukemokimoki Marae – vacant

Mana Ahuriri Trust – vacant

Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū - vacant

Officer Responsible

Director Community Services, Acting Pou Whakarae

Administration

Governance Team

 

Next Māori Committee Meeting

Friday 9 April 2021

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Karakia

Apologies

Conflicts of interest

Public forum

Announcements by the Chairperson

Announcements by the management

Confirmation of minutes

That the Minutes of the Māori Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 9 December 2020 be taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting................................................... 272

Agenda items

1      Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Ngāti Koata............................................... 4

Reports from Standing Committees

Reports from Napier People and Places Committee held 4 February 2021

1      Implementation of Dual Place-names and Bilingual Signage in Council Parks, Reserves and Facilities............................................................................................. 22

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

1      Rodney Green Centennial Events Centre - Flood Damage Report............................ 32

2      Awatoto Waste Futures Hub Proposal...................................................................... 36

3      Project update Napier Urban Waterways Investigations............................................ 46

4      Report on Napier Water Supply Status End of Q2 2020-2021................................... 53

5      To provide Council with information on Capital Programme Delivery......................... 72

Reports from Future Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

1      Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region................................................................................................. 78

2      Draft District Plan.................................................................................................... 262

3      Resource Consent Activity Update.......................................................................... 267  

Updates from Partner Entities

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

Maraenui and Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro

Napier City Council – Mayor Kirsten Wise

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul

Update from Council Pou Whakarae

Mōrehu Te Tomo – Acting Pou Whakarae

General business

Public excluded ....................................................................................................... 270

 

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda                                                                                                                                                                             Item 1

Agenda Items

 

1.    Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Ngāti Koata

Type of Report:

Operational and Procedural

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

1285530

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Rachel Haydon, General Manager, National Aquarium of New Zealand

Joseph Woolcott, General Curator

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

The National Aquarium of New Zealand (NANZ) presently holds one male tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus). 

 

NANZ is engaging with Ngāti Koata, the iwi who whakapapa to tuatara.  This engagement is vital as both an acknowledgement of Ngāti Koata as kaitiaki of this taonga species and also as part of the Department of Conservation (DOC) Wildlife Authorisation Authority permitting process in their application to hold tuatara in captivity. 

 

Through initial conversations with Ngāti Koata, the iwi have proposed a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NANZ/NCC and sent through a draft version for consideration.  It is acknowledged that as part of these discussions and MOU, Ngāti Koata need to engage with mana whenua, who will act as kaitiaki of this tuatara in NANZ’s care. 

 

NANZ seeks advice and support from the Maori Committee to:

·    Determine if there any current MoU with Ngāti Koata preceding this one

·    Endorse the appropriate Iwi Authorities who will act as kaitiaki of the tuatara held at NANZ

·    Seek feedback on the conditions of a MOU with Ngāti Koata

 

It is expected NANZ will then engage with the appropriate nominated Iwi Authorities to determine next steps and engage with Ngāti Koata.  

 

Officer’s Recommendation

The Māori Committee:

a.     Endorse the appropriate Iwi Authorities who will act as kaitiaki of tuatara at NANZ.

b.     Endorse the NANZ General Manager and General Curator to engage with Ngāti Koata and negotiate the terms of the MOU with NANZ (as a facility governed by Napier City Council).

 

 

1.2   Background Summary

The National Aquarium of New Zealand (NANZ) presently holds one tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus).  This tuatara, Alfie, is a 35 year old male who came to the National Aquarium from Auckland Zoo in 2002.

Ngāti Koata is the iwi who whakapapa to tuatara.  NANZ’s engagement with Ngāti Koata is vital as both an acknowledgement of the iwi as kaitiaki of this taonga species and also as part of the Department of Conservation (DOC) Wildlife Authorisation Authority (WAA) permitting process in their application to hold tuatara in captivity.  DOC presently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ngāti Koata where no authorisations will be issued in respect of tuatara sourced from Stephens Island until applicants have discussed the proposal with Ngāti Koata. 

 

NANZ’s recent WAA application to hold tuatara has been approved by DOC and they are permitted to hold tuatara.  However, the relationship with Ngāti Koata will encompass a different kaupapa to just what the DOC WAA conditions outline to hold the species.

 

Ngāti Koata have proposed their own MOU with NANZ/NCC and sent through a draft version for consideration.  It is acknowledged that as part of these discussions and MOU, Ngāti Koata are engaging Ngāti Parau, as mana whenua, to act as kaitiaki of this tuatara in NANZ’s care. 

 

NANZ seeks advice and support from the Maori Committee to understand if there are any current MOU with Ngāti Koata preceding this one and to gain a recommendation of who to engage with as Iwi Authorities.

 

It is expected NANZ will then engage with the appropriate nominated Iwi Authorities to:

·    Determine the process of further engagement with Ngāti Koata,

·    Seek feedback on the conditions of the draft MOU with Ngāti Koata,

·    Host Ngāti Koata at the Aquarium with pohiri and to share Korero Pū Rakau (stories of Tuatara) from Ngāti Koata.

 

NANZ hopes to showcase Ngāti Koata’s Korero Pū Rakau as essential mātauranga about the tuatara (i.e. in enclosure redevelopments, online content, school sessions etc.); build long term relationships with Ngāti Koata and mana whenua as kaitiaki of this species; and build their own understanding of best practice of appropriate engagement with iwi with support from the Māori Committee.

1.3   Issues

No Issues

1.4   Significance and Engagement

N/A

1.5   Implications

Financial

·    There is no 20/21 NANZ budget planned to cover travel of Ngāti Koata representatives to Napier or ongoing annual koha to hold tuatara budgeted for in current NANZ budgets.  In order to meet any Ngāti Koata expectations of travel or ongoing annual koha as part of an MOU, this would need to be supported/approved from sources outside current 20/21 NANZ budgets.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

·    If favourable conditions for an MOU between Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Parau as mana whenua and the National Aquarium team cannot be met, the tuatara may have to be returned to Ngāti Koata.  This would mean a reduced level of service with the removal of a key native taonga species from the National Aquarium of New Zealand.

·    This MOU may set a precedent of MOUs needed, with koha included as a condition, for the keeping of native, taonga species at NANZ.  This would need to be accepted as a key operational budget needed by NANZ to support its Levels of Service.

1.6   Options

The options available to the Committee are as follows:

a.     Advise on the appropriate Iwi Authorisation who will act as kaitiaki of tuatara at NANZ and give advice and support on the proposed MOU terms and build relationship with Ngāti Koata

b.     Reject the proposed MOU with Ngāti Koata and do not accept role of kaitiaki of the NANZ tuatara.

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

It is preferred that the Committee advise on the appropriate Iwi Authorisation who will act as kaitiaki of tuatara at NANZ and give advice and support on the proposed MOU terms and build relationship with Ngāti Koata

 

This will provide NANZ guidance to determine the process of further engagement with Ngāti Koata; seek feedback on the conditions of the draft MOU with Ngāti Koata to progress this agreement acknowledging any budget implications for NCC; host Ngati Koata at the Aquarium with pohiri and to share Korero Pū Rakau (stories of Tuatara) from Ngāti Koata.

 

 

1.3   Attachments

a     DOC Authorisation for NANZ tuatara 78383-CAP

b     Draft MOU from Ngati Koata for tuatara at NANZ

c     DOC Approval Letter for NANZ tuatara 78383-CAP   


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments b

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments c

 

PDF Creator 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

Reports from standing committees

Māori COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

 

 

Reports from Napier People and Places Committee held 4 February 2021

 

1.    Implementation of Dual Place-names and Bilingual Signage in Council Parks, Reserves and Facilities

Type of Report:

Operational and Procedural

Legal Reference:

Māori Language Act 2016

Document ID:

1268926

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Charles Ropitini, Strategic Maori Advisor

 

11.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council of te reo Māori touchpoints implemented across Napier City Council reserves and facilities in the 2017-2019 Triennium.

 

The report provides an overview of dual place-names in public parks and reserves, and bilingual signage applied to Council facilities.  The report recommends the formal adoption of the national Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines.

 

The report supports the need for Council to consider a Te Reo Māori Policy for Napier City Council as a framework for continued implementation of bilingualism across Council projects and documents.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Crown / Mayor Wise

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a.     Endorse the report as a consolidation of bilingual signage and dual place-names applied to Council projects over the 2017-2019 Triennium.

b.     Approve the Principal Māori Advisor to engage mana whenua to capture stories relating to Māori place-names reinstated to parks and reserves, with an agreed level of cultural intellectual property made available to the public domain.

c.     Approve the adoption of the national ‘Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice’ as the guide for bilingual signage and dual place-names.

d.     Approve the use of national te reo Māori lexicons for Libraries and Para Kore Zero Waste, with a process developed for accepting national lexicons for future bilingual projects.

 

Carried

 

 

11.2 Background Summary

Bilingual signage is the representation of texts in two languages; in this case, Māori and English. It includes physical signs, but it can be much wider and includes electronic media, such as the headings within websites and email signatures; and information and publicity material.

An approach to bilingual signage was developed by request of the Māori Committee in September 2018 following a presentation by officer’s regarding re-branding and signage renewal of McLean Park.

Acknowledging that Council officers incorporated some te reo Māori within the proposed suite of signage, the Māori Committee identified the opportunity for increased use of te reo Māori across McLean Park.  The outcome of the presentation was a request to extend the scope to demonstrate equality of language use in all signage across McLean Park.

In partnership with the Principal Māori Advisor, Council’s marketing team applied the national guidelines for Māori-English Bilingual Signage published by Te Puni Kōkiri The Ministry for Māori Development and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori The Māori Language Commission.

The Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines inform all bilingual touchpoints, paving the way for developing further bilingual signage across Council facilities.

Simultaneous to the development of bilingual signage for McLean Park, was the development of signage guidelines for parks and reserves, with a phased signage renewal project commencing in September 2018.  The renewal of signage provided a further opportunity for the Māori Committee to realise a long-held aspiration of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū kaumātua to see the reinstatement of Māori place-names as a mechanism for maintaining memory of the past in a highly modified landscape.

Interviews with Te Whanganui-a-Orotū kaumātua in 2007 determined that:

‘Reinstating the original Māori names for significant sites within Te Whanga so that the history could ‘be brought back’ was a common theme expressed by interviewees. They suggested that some sites could be signposted with the original Māori name, a short whakamārama (explanation) about the history, and more plantings of indigenous species, particularly on wāhi tapu (sacred) sites.[1]

Bilingual signage and reinstatement of Māori place-names acknowledges te reo Māori as a taonga treasure under Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi and recognises the Māori Language Act 1987, which made te reo Māori an official language of Aotearoa New Zealand.

1.3   Māori Committee feedback

The Māori Committee acknowledged the achievements made through implementation of te reo Māori across Council facilities.  The Māori Committee congratulated those involved with implementation of te reo Māori.

Questions were asked of the process for engaging mana whenua to capture the stories of Māori placenames being reinstated to public parks and reserves.

In response to questions it was clarified that a timeframe has not been agreed with mana whenua, and that a process needs to be developed about how stories and cultural intellectual property would be captured and presented.

The Māori Committee recommendations to Council were passed by Mr Chad Tareha and seconded by Mayor Wise.

1.4   Bilingual signage projects

Bilingual signage is incorporated into existing renewal projects, with all new signage in Council facilities to include te reo Māori.  National bilingual signage guidelines inform Council’s Signage Guidelines.

 

McLean Park

With the exception of the name ‘McLean Park’, which is protected by an Act of Parliament, the park now has a bilingual set of signage.

 

Officers were keen to understand how best to meet the challenge set by the Māori Committee to demonstrate equality of language use at McLean Park.  In working through the options for presenting bilingual signage, officers were able to simplify the use of English to allow for the inclusion of te reo Māori, with the positive outcome of a cleaner, more direct, and less cluttered set of signage.

 

While the use of te reo Māori is predominantly directional language, McLean Park is now fully bilingual, with English and Māori alternating in a way that both languages are presented side-by-side.

 

 

Napier Libraries

The need to move the central library to MTG Tai Ahuriri following seismic assessment of the library building provided an opportunity to extend the existing bilingual signage of MTG Tai Ahuriri into the space occupied by the library.

 

The language used within the library signage follows a national glossary of library terminology set by Te Rōpū Whakahau The National Association for Māori Engaged in Libraries, Culture, Knowledge, Information, Communication and Systems Technology in Aotearoa New Zealand.

 

Waste Minimisation Project

Council’s waste minimisation projects have delivered 75,000 bilingual recycling crates to Napier households.  The language used across the suite of recycling crates follows a national glossary of waste terminology set by Para Kore Zero Waste.  Deference to a nationally accepted glossary allows for consistency of te reo Māori use relating to Para Kore Zero Waste, and supports educating and advocating for waste reduction and use of te reo Māori.

 

The crates follow national guidelines for bilingual signage with placement of Māori above the English.

 

 

Napier City Council Customer Service Centre

The temporary Customer Services Centre at Dunvegan House, Hastings Street, has internal bilingual directional signage, following national guidelines with te reo Māori above the English.

 

 

Napier City Council Website

A Napier City Council led project for inclusion of te reo Māori in local government websites for Hawke’s Bay has seen the implementation of bilingual headings and webpage greetings.

 

Each website allows for the choice of te reo Māori and English.  This project was in partnership with Jeremy Tātere McLeod, Director Te Reo Māori, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.5 Dual place-names for parks and reserves

Consideration for dual place-naming for Council parks and reserves stems from a review of Council’s signage guidelines and renewal of signage across Council parks and reserves commencing in September 2018.

Dual place-naming for parks and reserves is not a bilingual approach to translating English names, but reinstates the existing Māori name alongside its English name, respecting that the implementation of dual place-naming does not remove existing English names.

In cases where there is a Māori name only, there is no change to the signage.

National Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines underpin Council’s Signage Guidelines for implementation of dual place-names in parks and reserves, with the Māori name to the left and the English name to the right; or, with the Māori name above and the English name below.

 

Te Taha Westshore Beach Reserve

Te Taha Westshore Beach Reserve is the first Council reserve to lead dual place-naming.  Te Taha is listed on historical maps and is identified within Council’s ‘Sites of Significance to Māori Report’ with a reference from Heitia Hiha:

“This is an area where fish processing used to occur.  It is the name of the shingle spit enclosing Te Whanganui-a-Orotū and northern side of Ahuriri heads.”

 

Dual place-names that have been implemented to date are:

·    Marewa - Marewa Park

·    Onekawa - Roberts Terrace Reserve

·    Te Whanga - Aspiring Drive Reserve

·    Tūhinapō - Centennial Gardens

·    Karetoki Whare - Sturm’s Gully

 

11.6 Issues

Key issues relating to the implementation of bilingual signage and dual place-names are:

1.   Need for a Te Reo Māori Policy

2.   Process for unknown or unclear place-names

3.   Process for inclusion of cultural intellectual property relating to place-names i.e. ‘their stories’.

Te Reo Māori Policy

Bilingual implementation to date has been action orientated without a Te Reo Māori Policy in place.  However, as bilingual projects become more complex, there is a need for a policy to guide officers’ decision making in language use, and process for sign-off by the Māori Committee.

Place-name Clarity and Confirmation

In the case of dual place-names there is a need to engage the Māori Committee and mana whenua for confirmation of unknown, unclear or misspelt place-names.  In cases where early maps exist, the spelling of Māori place-names is not always correct, and a process is required with resourcing to enable correct place-names to be attached to their respective locations.

Cultural Intellectual Property

The implementation of dual place-names has not seen the inclusion of their associated stories; however, it is a recommendation that an agreed level of cultural intellectual property is available to the public.  Inclusion and promotion of cultural intellectual property is important to uplifting knowledge, understanding and appreciation of Māori place-names and their relevance to the area.

11.7 Significance and Engagement

The Māori Language Act 2016 affirms the Māori language as:

·    The indigenous language of Aotearoa New Zealand

·    A taonga of iwi and Māori

·    A language valued by the nation

·    An official language of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Council acknowledges its role in supporting and revitalising te reo Māori in line with the principles of the Māori Language Act 2016.

Adoption of national Māori-English Bilingual Guidelines informs best practice placement of the two languages side-by-side, however does not inform types of language to be used, nor do they inform processes for engagement with Māori.

In line with guidance from the Māori Language Act 2016, mana whenua and Māori should be consulted on matters relating to the Māori language, including the promotion of the use of the language.  This guidance further supports the need for Council to have a Te Reo Māori Policy in place.

11.8 Implications

Financial

There is no cost to formally adopting the national Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines.

Financial contribution to implementation of bilingual signage and dual place-names is included in existing signage renewal projects, without the need for additional budget.  From time-to-time it is expected that Council will need to resource hui and/or wānanga where a place-name requires further clarification and engagement with mana whenua and the Māori Committee.

There is no separate budget for te reo Māori initiatives outside of bilingual signage and dual place-names.  Projects and initiatives requiring te reo Māori are required to factor translation services into their project costings.

Social & Policy

National Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines provide an approach for how to use te reo Māori in the best way when developing public signage.  However, they do not inform use of te reo outside of signage, nor do these guidelines inform iwi dialectal preferences or local lexicons.

Therefore, alongside adoption of the national Māori-English Bilingual Signage Guidelines, a Te Reo Māori Policy is required to formalise processes of engagement and sign-off with the Māori Committee.

To ensure consistency across the region, and nationally, the development of a Te Reo Māori Policy should be inclusive of guidelines and nationally accepted glossaries:

·    Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice.

·    Te Rōpū Whakahau The National Association for Māori Engaged in Libraries, Culture, Knowledge, Information, Communication and Systems Technology in Aotearoa New Zealand.

·    Para Kore Zero Waste.

 

Risk

While there is an appreciation for national identification of particular language use, such as Para Kore Zero Waste, the adoption of national te reo Māori lexicons may raise issues with local dialectal norms.

For dual place-names there is a risk that the names may be perceived as direct translations of their existing English names.  Telling the stories of the place-names is critical to understanding and accepting reinstatement of Māori place-names by the general public and all residents of Ahuriri-Napier.

11.9 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Bilingual Signage and Dual Place-names

i.      Option One – Approve the adoption of the national ‘Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice’ as the guide for bilingual signage and dual place-names.

ii.     Option Two – Decline the adoption of the national ‘Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice’ and direct the Principal Māori Advisor to consider other options for presentation of bilingual signage.

b.     National Lexicons

i.      Option One – Approve the use of national te reo Māori lexicons for Libraries and Para Kore Zero Waste.

ii.     Option Two – Decline the use of national te reo Māori lexicons for Libraries and Para Kore Zero Waste and direct the Principal Māori Advisor to consider local alternatives to national lexicons.

iii.    Option Three – Approve option one with the inclusion of a clear process for assessing national lexicons within a Te Reo Māori Policy.

11.10 Development of Preferred Option

Bilingual Signage and Dual Place-names – Option One Approve the adoption of the national ‘Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice’ as the guide for bilingual signage and dual place-names.

 

The recommendation acknowledges that this guide is developed by Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori, The Māori Language Commission, and sets a national standard for appropriate display for Māori and English languages side-by-side.  As a best practice guide informed by international norms, it would be difficult to create a localised version that holds differences to the national guide.

 

National Lexicons – Option Three Approve option one: Approve the adoption of the national ‘Māori-English Bilingual Signage – A Guide For Best Practice’ as the guide for bilingual signage and dual place-names with the inclusion of a clear process for assessing national lexicons within a Te Reo Māori Policy.

 

The recommendation acknowledges the need for a process to assess and accept national lexicons and suggests that this is included in the development of a Te Reo Māori Policy.  The recommendation also supports the adoption of national lexicons for Para Kore Zero Waste and Libraries as consistent national language use for these two areas.

 

 

At the Meeting

The council officer spoke to the report noting:

·    This project is in line with article two of the Treaty of Waitangi.

·    The development of a council Te Reo Māori Policy is being led by the Acting Pou Whakarae. This policy will direct how engagement with mana whenua should occur in order to implement dual place-names, and also how to incorporate words from local dialects which are not included in the national te reo Māori lexicons.

·    Council officers have not yet discussed how to tell the stories of the place-names in Ahuriri-Napier with the Māori Committee, but that is a next step.

·    There was no negative feedback from the community to recent council projects which included written te reo Māori.

·    Once officers have a complete list of dual place-names they will consult with mana whenua. This will take an as yet undetermined length of time.

·    The project will be adequately resourced.

·    Education with external developers about the use of te reo Māori in street names, and how to engage with mana whenua to establish what names are appropriate, is being considered.

 

1.3   Attachments

Nil

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

 

1.    Rodney Green Centennial Events Centre - Flood Damage Report

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

1273098

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Andrew Clibborn, Building Asset Management Lead

Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

To update Council on the remedial work required on the Rodney Green Centennial Events Centre (RGCEC) following the flooding that occurred on the 9th November 2020.  This includes detail on what is and what is not covered by insurance, and the options and costs for remedial work.

 

To inform Council on seismic and lighting work that could be undertaken while the Centre is closed.

 

To propose that Council develops a policy for earthquake (EQ) risk acceptance and/or amelioration for buildings owned or occupied by Council.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / McGrath

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Endorse the proposal to develop a policy for earthquake (EQ) risk acceptance and or amelioration for buildings owned or occupied by Council.

b.     Approve funding for new lighting in Rodney Green Centennial Events Centre from the Sportsground Asset Renewal Fund.

c.     Acknowledge that the flooding related remedial work is covered by insurance and funding is not required from Council.

 

Carried

 

 

1.2   Background Summary

On 9 November 2020 Napier experienced what has been assessed as a one in 250-year rainfall event in the McLean Park area.  Floodwater entered the RGCEC to depths of up to 300mm at lowest floor levels inundating the wooden sports flooring to a depth of approximately 100mm. 

Council’s insurance Loss Adjuster was on site with Council Officers on 11 November 2020.

The floodwaters were considered to be contaminated due to the likely presence of wastewater coming from inundated domestic sewerage systems.

Resulting damage includes warping of the timber sports flooring, uplifting and bubbling of vinyl flooring in some areas, wall lining damage and plant and machinery damage. The RGCEC also experienced roof leaks in various locations.

Initial post flood invasive investigations revealed the presence of mould on concealed building elements of the flooring and wall linings.

At the time of writing further removal of wall linings is underway to determine the full extent of damage.

1.3   Issues

The sports hall is closed pending full assessment of damage extent, removal of affected material, agreement with insurers as to what should be replaced and procurement of materials and contractors to remedy the damage.

The feedback from consultation with sports associations is that the flooring is unsafe to play on.

An assessment undertaken by a flooring specialist is that the timber floor should be replaced due to having been inundated with contaminated water leading to mould growth and uncertainly about potential long term issues such as rusting timber fixings.

Whilst the facility is closed it has been suggested that there is an opportunity to undertake additional works which have previously been investigated.  These include:

·    Upgrade old lighting

·    Seismic and Structural improvements

Lighting

The existing lighting is noisy and inefficient and has been the subject of discussion for some years.  This work is not currently specifically programmed however $40,000 is tagged in the Sportsground renewals budget for infrastructure upgrades and could be used for this purpose.

Seismic and Structural

Consultants WSP Opus were commissioned to conduct an assessment of the existing roof supporting structure to investigate the possibility of additional loads applied to trusses such as decorations and sound and lighting fixtures for events.  The subsequent report dated February 2019 concluded that no additional loads are permitted. This restriction has not affected the utilisation of the facility.

The WSP Opus truss assessment contained recommendations and options for improving the seismic resilience and load bearing capacity of the building’s trusses.

The building currently has an earthquake rating of 58% NBS (New Building Standard).

Other McLean Park buildings Earthquake ratings are:

Harris Stand 52%

Chapman Stand & Pavilion 62%

Graeme Lowe Stand 50%

Council has no formally adopted policy on minimum requirements for earthquake rating for Council buildings. The Building Act considers a building to be Earthquake-prone if it has an EQ rating of less than 34%.  On this basis these is little justification to undertake this work within such a constrained timeframe.

 

Other potential additional work

Correspondence from elected members has suggested that work unrelated to flood damage repairs be undertaken as remedial works are underway.  These include alteration to swinging doors, upgrade of fire exit doors, alteration of loading zone doors and a large mural.

These works would not be covered by insurance and are not presently budgeted for.  There is no resource currently available to allocate this potential additional work.  Should Council wish to develop these options it is recommended that they be considered a separate package of work and be resourced and budgeted for separately from the immediate work required to restore the building to functional status.

1.4   Significance and Engagement

There has been no engagement with user groups as part of this project because of the urgent nature of the work required.

1.5   Implications

Financial

Flood damage

Repairs are insured.

There is presently no budget specifically set aside for renewal or upgrade the internal lighting or improving the seismic resilience of the building.

Lighting
The rough order of cost estimate to upgrade lighting is in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 depending on selected performance required.  This could be funded through Sportsgrounds Infrastructure Asset Renewal.

Seismic and structural

The rough order of cost estimate to make the improvements recommended by WSP Opus is in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 however there is no specific resultant EQ rating.  Further work would be required to clarify Council’s position/policy on desired EQ rating and therefore the extent of work required to achieve this.

Social & Policy

There is no adopted policy on minimum EQ rating for NCC owned buildings.

A building is considered Earthquake-prone if it has an EQ rating of less than 34%.  (Reference legislation:  Building Act 2004 - Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)

 

Risk

EQ Rating

There will be no immediate increase in safety risk if the seismic or lighting improvements are not made.  (Inherent risks remain.)

Lighting

There is a risk of continued complaints about noisy and failing lights if they are not replaced.

1.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Replace flood damaged building elements to the extent required as determined by investigations underway only. (insurance funded)

b.     Replace lighting in addition to flood repairs.

c.     Improve EQ rating in addition to flood repairs.

d.     Replace lighting and improve EQ rating in addition to flood repairs.

 

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is b. Replace the lighting in addition to the flood repairs. 

 

This would involve consultation with appropriately qualified and experienced lighting designers and suppliers to determine the most appropriate lighting solution that would fit within the available budget.

 

At the Meeting

Council officers spoke to the report noting:

·    The flood repairs in the events centre will replace like for like.

·    The repair work should be completed by the end of 2021.

·    Additional projects could be carried out alongside the flood repairs whilst the facility is closed, such as replacing the lighting which is noisy and inefficient and seismic and structural improvements.

·    The Council has no formally adopted policy on minimum requirements for earthquake rating for Council buildings.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

·    A Council policy for earthquake risk acceptance and/or amelioration for buildings owned or occupied by Council is an important piece of work, but needs to be prioritised against other priority work.

·    Any new lighting will need to accommodate the current load capacity of the RGCEC.

·    Doing earthquake strengthening of the RGCEC now whilst the facility is closed may save some money but it will not save time.

 

1.8   Attachments

Nil

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

2.    Awatoto Waste Futures Hub Proposal

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

1268502

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

This paper is to communicate the Joint Waste Futures Committee endorsement in principle of the initiative to locate a Waste Futures hub at Awatoto.

 

Officers now seek an endorsement from Sustainable Napier Committee and Council to commence planning for a Waste Futures Hub based at Awatoto (or such other site deemed suitable), for the purposes of waste processing, resource recovery, waste minimisation and diversion and community engagement.

 

Before committing resources to conceptualise the initiative for later approval, this paper seeks endorsement in principle of the development of such a facility in this area.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Wright / Mayor Wise

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Receive the Joint Waste Futures Committee’s endorsement of this initiative.

b.     Endorse in principle, the approach of investigating opportunities and the development of a cross-boundary cost-benefit analysis as part of a Business Case for a bespoke Waste Futures Hub.

c.     Approve the commissioning of a business case to investigate the viability of a new diversion station/centre including site recommendations, funding opportunities and ownership structures subject to joint funding being received from the Hastings District Council.

Carried

 

2.2   Background Summary

The nature and dynamic of waste management and minimisation is changing globally, and at a local scale Council need to provide opportunities to encourage, inform and educate our communities about better ways of minimising waste being sent to landfill.

The Redclyffe Transfer Station is beyond end-of-life, and constant maintenance is required to ‘patch up’ parts of the site to minimise the safety hazards that are present, due to ground instability and degradation of the waste upon which it is built. A new option needs to be found urgently, which has led to officers assessing other suitable parcels of land, which may enable a new site to be purpose-built, starting with underutilised Council land as a starting point.

 

The vision is not to simply replicate the current Transfer Station to a new site, but rather start with a visionary approach to cross-boundary waste minimisation, including incredible waste diversion opportunities. To do this, collaborative public-private partnerships will need to be forged and interest is already being received.

Three sites have been identified as follows:

·    Rework current site at 193 Springfield Road;

·    A former cleanfill/landfill dumpsite at 45-55 Springfield Road;

·    A part of Lagoon Farm on Long Road North;

·    Part of a 50 hectare Council-owned block of land on Waitangi Road, adjacent the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Initial assessments have found reasons why the first three options are not viable from environmental, cultural, location or land stability issues. The fourth is the proposed site at the time of writing.

This vision is to provide our community with a significantly improved level of service, which could very easily provide the following, at the proposed site:

·    The installation of an optical mechanical recyclables sorting machine (MRF);

·    Diversion, collection and processing of soft plastics and #5 plastics;

·    Soft plastic manufacturing site e.g., plastic fence posts and railings;

·    Commercial worm farming operation to divert and make putrescible material into a valuable resource;

·    The benefit of the proposed site is that the following are already successful operations immediately adjacent to the site:

Diversion of cardboard to a fibre recycler;

Diversion of tyres, to a processor;

Diversion of greenwaste to a compost facility;

Collection of any leachate/waste fluids from the site to an appropriate treatment facility;

·    Opportunities for community groups to utilise recovered products, e.g., timber to a ‘Men’s Shed’, furniture to a community charity, other useful equipment to a repurposing shop etc;

·    Safe purpose-built collection area for household hazardous substances;

·    Waste transfer to landfill.

An aerial photo of the proposed site to establish this initiative is shown below and recent photographs are attached:

There has already been interest voiced by several organisations in relation to this opportunity, including a large scale worm farming operation and a soft plastics repurposing operation, both of which would be interested in a public-private partnership at this currently proposed site.

2.3   Issues

Several issues are still required to be addressed, but prior to a full proposal being investigated further, and due to interest being shown by external parties to support and partner with Council in this type of facility, it is timely to ascertain the level of support that Committee gives to this proposal, in principle.

Foreseeable issues with this potential site are: flooding, tsunami risk, adjacent waterway, additional distance to landfill, reverse sensitivity, amendments required to District Plan zoning.

General foreseeable issues are: funding to be sought through LTP process, potential partnership with HDC and potential central Government funding opportunities including Waste Levy investment.

Constraints with the currently preferred site are that some of the site may be required to expand the current wastewater treatment facility, but this is not confirmed at this stage.

Timeframes around this proposal are hoped to have the full facility operational within 5 years, if endorsed by Committee. With that said, there is currently significant interest from organisations to commence establishment in Napier much more expeditiously. If the proposed Business Case was positive, and this was developed to design stage, then it is possible that commercial arrangements could be made to initiate external investment by these parties and as agreed by Council, to be operative much sooner than that 5 year period.

 

2.4   Significance and Engagement

The significance of this proposal aligns with the outcomes of the WMMP, but has widespread benefits and significance beyond our boundaries to enable those customers from the Cape Coast, Havelock North, Clive and Whakatu to utilise the facility.

The benefits, accessibility, capacity and capability of a bespoke facility of this nature will be widespread and could involve all manner of numerous community organisations.

Consultation with Iwi and neighbours, as well as individual service providers will be necessary (and in some instances has already commenced).

The engagement of a consultant to facilitate the Business Case and feasibility study will be necessary to ascertain the significance and assist with engagement.

2.5   Implications

Financial

The investigation of this initiative will be funded from available operational budget in 2020/21 financial year. 

The cost of establishing a purpose-built facility such as that proposed, will be in the millions of dollars.

It will be possible to stage development to manage investment over time.  Council funding would need to be considered in the 2024 LTP process.

It is envisaged that this initiative would attract significant waste levy funding, which would be essential to this initiative progressing.

The investigation will explore such external funding mechanisms in order to determine feasibility.

The implications of not retreating from Redclyffe mean that there are increasing costs to continually and temporarily repair road surfaces, buildings, pit structures, and infrastructure. Without significant investment, the facility cannot be kept safe as a public-facing facility.

The business case, if endorsed by Council, will need to be funded by current operational budgets as funding allows, unless alternative sources of funding can be secured in the meantime, which could delay some progress.

Social & Policy

Changes in the way people interact with and create waste means that there need to be increased availability to divert waste, otherwise the environmental implications are long-term and significant.

There are examples of successful social enterprise through waste diversion, and this has the potential to empower groups of our community to benefit from a waste diversion system, including camaraderie, friendship building and the benefit of hobbies etc.

Social responsibility of doing what’s right is fundamentally an important outcome of this proposal.

Waste policy, amendments to waste-related Acts, a significant upcoming increase in levies and fees for dumping waste mean that unless opportunities to divert waste are put in place, the likelihood of increased fly-tipping and illegal dumping are likely being another burden on the ratepayer to remove. Providing an incentive and a structured method of sorting and removing divertable waste will reduce costs for members of the public.

Risk

·    There is a risk that the necessary funding may not be available.

·    There may not be cross-boundary support for this facility.

·    The proposed site may not be as suitable as initially though, taking into account Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion, storage or additional treatment outside of the current area.

·    The business case may not stack-up, for this facility or this site.

·    Redclyffe Transfer Station may become damaged beyond economic repair, or become inoperable and we have no resilience once that is the case.

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Enable Council officers to continue to investigate this proposal and commence engagement of a consultant to facilitate a Business Case as described.

b.     Divert officer’s attention from this in the meantime, and propose another option.

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

Option a. (above) has been determined as the preferred option to “endorse in principle, the approach of investigating opportunities and the development of a cross-boundary cost-benefit analysis as part of a Business Case for a bespoke Waste Futures Hub at Awatoto”, has been developed to ensure that Committee is comfortable and supports this approach, so that Officer’s time is not spent investigating something that is unwanted or unsupported.

 

 

At the Meeting

The Council officer spoke to the report alongside Michael Quintern, founder of MyNOKE, who delivered a presentation to Council noting:

·    Residents could take their waste material to a Waste Futures Hub instead of the landfill. Charity groups could work onsite to redirect recyclable waste, for example timber or fabric.

·    MyNOKE could be a potential partner with Council for this project. They use earthworms to compost organic waste such as night soil, algae and weed from waterways, wooden cutlery and compostable packaging.

·    Earthworms reduce waste by 80%, whereas normal composting reduces waste by 20%.

·    A worm farm can be rotated around a piece of land and crops can be rotated on the same land making use of the rich nutrients which will be produced by the worm farm.

In response to questions the following points were clarified:

·    Currently approximately $93,000 per year is being spent on capital renewals at Redclyffe. It is not sustainable in its current state. To bring it up to a sustainable standard a lot more would need to be spent on the site and this would not attract funding from the Waste Minimisation Fund. The business case will include Redclyffe’s current maintenance and operating costs so Council will be able to weigh this up against the cost of a new facility.

·    A new facility could attract funding from the Central Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund. Also development could be staged to stay within budget.

·    A new facility could be built on the current site, but the size is limiting and there are land stability issues as it is on an old landfill.

·    Cost to transfer waste from the proposed new site to the landfill would be higher than from Redclyffe as Awatoto is further away.

·    Although the business case has not been costed yet, it is believed there is sufficient budget available to begin the business case and it could be straddled over two financial years to spread the cost out.

·    Council officers will consider the ability to have the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the new facility on the same site as they work through the business case process.

·    The acquisition of waste for the worm farm and charges for it’s collection can be a flexible model. At other MyNOKE sites there are some businesses who bring the waste to the site, but also worm farm workers can collect the waste from the producer’s site.

·    The Council Officer’s and MyNOKE presentation has been given to the joint Waste Futures Committee and there were Hastings District Councillors at that meeting. They were receptive to the idea.

·    A business case would address the communities opinion of building a Waste Futures hub and where the best site for it would be, along with what the economic outcomes of such a facility would be. The business case process can also be halted at any point if necessary.

·    The process of converting organic waste to compost using earthworms is not smelly. The Redclyffe Transfer Station has not had any odour complaints and the proposed operation would be tidier operation than that.

ACTION: A report from Council Officers to be presented at the next Sustainable Committee meeting on the current operation and maintenance costs of Redclyffe Transfer Station.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Joint Waste Futures Committee formal endorsement 

b     View of proposed site from North (WWP) 

c     View of proposed site from Southeast 

d     View of proposed Southwest   

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

3.    Project update Napier Urban Waterways Investigations

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

Resource Management Act 1991

Document ID:

1283593

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this paper is to summarise to the Sustainable Napier Committee the purpose of, and results to date of the Napier Urban Waters Investigations project.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Simpson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Note the goals of the Napier Urban Waters Investigations, and the implications of the project’s current results.

b.     Note the essential nature of the Napier Urban Waters Investigations in allowing Council to make informed decisions on the best practicable option for improving the quality of fresh water discharging to Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary).

 

Carried

 

 

3.2   Background Summary

The Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan allocated funding to a series of projects dedicated to prevention of further degradation of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū. Under Project 1, which suggests the development of a wetland fringing the estuary for treatment of urban waterways, a stormwater study was listed. This stormwater study (or more appropriately waterway study) allocated $100,000 per annum for three consecutive years to investigate the true quality of the Napier’s surface water above and beyond the monitoring requirements from stormwater resource consents. This study was stipulated in the Masterplan to occur prior to implementing treatment wetlands, as neither HBRC nor NCC held enough data to justify a treatment wetland would be the best option for effective urban waterway treatment.

Due to the nature of the project and the shared jurisdiction of many of the major waterways in Napier (e.g. Old Tūtaekurī Riverbed (Georges Drive), County, Plantation, and Pūrimu), HBRC proposed to match the funding, bringing the joint project to $200,000 per annum for three years.

The overall goal of the joint project is to build a foundational understanding of the current state of the major waterways discharging to Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary), built by regular data collection over multiple weather types, seasons, and over a number of years. This will allow confidence in deciding the best option(s) for waterway quality improvement, whether that is a treatment wetland or other options.

 

At this stage, the project is purely data collection. The first year of the waterway project involved prescheduled monthly water samples across 25+ carefully selected sites in the city to capture waterway quality in different land use zones of the city, being rural, residential, commercial, and industrial. Now into the early stages of the second year, water quality monitoring has been reduced to 20 sites every 6 weeks. Sediment sampling is undertaken once per annum, and ecological assessment twice per annum. Visual observations are undertaken by Environmental Solutions officers on a weekly roster.

Data is collated in house, though presentation of the data in an interactive ArcGIS format is currently being by undertaken by Coast & Catchment Ltd. Examples of this format is as follows, representing 10 months of surface water quality data:

Above: Average Dissolved Zinc levels at monitored sites

 

Above: Average Dissolved Reactive Phosphorous levels at monitored sites

 

 


Above: Average Dissolved Copper levels at monitored sites

3.3   Issues

Issues identified from the monitoring to date include:

·    Universally excessive phosphorus concentrations in water (up to 400x the guideline value for species protection);

·    Ammonia concentrations in water;

·    Nitrate in water;

·    Instances of very high Chlorophyll a in water;

·    Low water flow;

·    Channelisation & lack of riparian margins;

·    Water clarity;

·    Faecal coliform concentrations, and a lack of pattern to these concentrations;

·    Pest plants – both around the waterways and in the water (e.g. Lagarosiphon);

·    Zinc (in sediment)

·    One or two instances of excessive mercury in sediment; and

·    Highly invasive tubeworm increasing in size in the County waterway by Prebensen Drive.

The data gathered which has found these issues (and that to be gathered in the future) will inform capital projects to treat and enhance these waterways (tributaries of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū) to ensure the correct methods of treatment are installed in the correct places, while concurrent work (already underway) occurs to ‘turn off the pollution’.

3.4   Significance and Engagement

Not only will this project inform both NCC, HBRC and the community of the long term trends and behaviour of the urban waterways feeding to Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary), but this knowledge will stem other action, such as;

·    Place greater importance on, and encourage the improvement of the waterway ecosystems themselves rather than just their discharge into Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary);

·    Investigation of appropriate in-situ trials of water quality improvement devices;

·    Informed rehabilitation approaches for key areas of concern (such as County Waterway at Harold Holt Rd);

·    Pinpointing pollution hotspots, where management and enforcement action can be prioritised;

·    Investigation of the cultural significance of all waterways;

·    Investigation of appropriate streambank sections to plant in native riparian species;

·    Public communication of the true state of the waterways, and of action planned to rehabilitate these waterways;

…and more.

3.5   Implications

Financial

This project largely follows those urban waterways which are conditionally authorised to discharge stormwater and drainage water into Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary), beside State Highway 2, via the Westshore Tidal Gates. The associated resource consent is jointly held by NCC and HBRC and therefore both Council’s hold responsibility for its level of compliance against those conditions, however this project being an NCC initiative and with all work carried out by NCC staff is over-and-above any compliance criteria required by this consent.

 

Financially, any non-compliance with the resource consent could result in enforcement action being taken by HBRC’s regulatory wing, resulting in potential fines or prosecution (up to $600,000 per event).

This project is funded by confirmed funds associated with the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan, and HBRC have decided to match NCC’s funding for this for the three-year length of this investigatory project.

Social & Policy

This project and its findings are the vital first step in the sustainable improvement of the socially and ecologically important, yet delicate Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary).

Continued degradation of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) could result in the system reaching an ecological point of no return.

This project aligns with the motives of, and pre-empts the implementation of the regional TANK plan change, in attempting to gain a sound awareness of the behaviour of Napier’s waterways in order to make informed and targeted surface water improvements.

Risk

Continued degradation of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) could result in the system reaching an ecological point of no return. With the majority of the discharges into Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) within Napier City Council’s jurisdiction, there is an urgent need to implement chemical or physical waterway treatment, as well as management changes affecting surface water. It is imperative that the waterways are properly understood prior to, and in order to avoid the unnecessary risk of implementing a treatment option which may not be appropriate.

The associated risk of implementing an inappropriate (type, position or methodology) surface water treatment option prior to understanding the nature of the feeding urban waterways is daunting.

 

3.6   Options

This report is provided for information only.

 

3.7   Development of Preferred Option

N/A

 

 

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report and in answer to questions clarified:

·    All Napier urban waterways are monitored, but there are waterways which flow into these which are not monitored.

·    One year of monitoring the waterways does not give enough data to act on. Each year’s samples can be different because of changes in weather patterns, and changes in pollutants entering the waterways during rainfall. A picture can be built up over time from samples taken.

·    Pollution issues can be addressed alongside the investigation project, such as through education campaigns.

·    At the end of the three year project an independent consultant will be engaged to look at the sample results and advise on the way forward.

·    A lot of zinc is found in samples, this is carried by rainfall. Phosphorus is another pollutant found in samples. When the 1931 Napier earthquake occurred it pushed up a lot of land which had shells in in. These shells are now breaking down leading to phosphorus entering our waterways. Phosphorus is not highly toxic, but encourages growth of algae in waterways in warmer months; treatment for this is being worked on.

·    The number of sites being tested have been reduced as there were too many to collect samples within the first flush of a rainfall event. The sites dropped were not adding much detail to the sample results.

·    Hawke’s Bay Regional Council co-fund the sampling work and we share our results with them.

·    Council can only use the funding allocated to this project for monitoring; there is funding available through the 3 waters reform which should enable Council to install some floating treatment wetlands. These could go on the Georges Drive section of the old Tutaekuri bed. This would link well with the cultural values assessment being carried out currently.

·    The sampling, analysis and subsequent results of Ahuriri Estuary could be leading the way in knowledge around Estuary’s and their care.

·    This project is communicated to community groups through Council meetings.

 

3.8   Attachments

Nil

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

4.    Report on Napier Water Supply Status End of Q2 2020-2021

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:

1282596

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Catherine Bayly, Manager Asset Strategy

Russell Bond, 3 Waters Programme Manager

Anze Lencek, Water Quality Lead

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To inform the Council on:

-     The status of Napier Water Supply (NAP001) at the end of second quarter (Q2) of 2020-2021 compliance year.

-     Report on Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for NZ 2005 (Revised 2018) and duties under Health Act 1956 (for period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020).

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Simpson / Mayor Wise

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Recommend Council endorse:

i.      The Report on Napier Water Supply Status end of Q2 2020-2021.

ii.     The Report on Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for NZ 2005 (Revised 2018) and duties under Health Act 1956 (for period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020).

 

Carried

 

Councillors McGrath, Simpson, and Tapine left the meeting 11.48am

Councillors McGrath, Simpson, and Tapine returned to the meeting 11.50am

 

Councillor Mawson / Mayor Wise

Meeting adjourned at 12.11pm

Carried

 

 

4.2   Background Summary

The Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry Stage 2 report identified six fundamental principles of drinking water safety for New Zealand. Water suppliers need to take the six principles into consideration as part of supplying safe drinking water to their customers. This Report relates mainly to Principle 5: Suppliers must own the safety of drinking water: Drinking water suppliers must maintain a personal sense of responsibility and dedication to providing consumers with safe water. Knowledgeable, experienced, committed and responsive personnel provide the best assurance of safe drinking water. The personnel, and drinking water supply system, must be able to respond quickly and effectively to adverse monitoring signals. This requires commitment from the highest level of the organisation and accountability by all those with responsibility for drinking water.

Drinking-water compliance period covers period from July 1 through June 30 next year and consist of four quarters (Q1: Jul-Sep, Q2: Oct-Dec, Q3: Jan-Mar, Q4: Apr-Jun). Reports such as this will be submitted and presented on Sustainable Napier Committee meetings as soon as possible after each compliance quarter to provide insights on recent changes to Napier water supply and quarterly compliance against the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ) and the Health Act 1956.

 

Napier drinking-water supply facts and compliance requirements:

·      Napier drinking-water supply (Napier NAP001) comprises only one zone (Napier NAP001NA) and serves a population of 59,055 (Drinking Water Online register, December 2020; estimate).

·      As a drinking-water supplier, NCC must comply with Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2018) (DWSNZ) and part 2A of the Health Act 1956.

·      More details on Napier water supply can be found in Napier Water Safety Plan v4.4 (Doc. ID: 1271452).

·      2019/2020 Compliance Report can be found in InfoSource (Doc. ID: 1266740).

DWSNZ compliance consists of:

·      Treatment Plant / Bores Compliance; includes: Bacterial, Protozoa, Cyanotoxin, Chemical, Radiological and Overall Compliance

·      Distribution Zone(s) Compliance; includes: Bacterial, Chemical and Overall Compliance

Health Act 1956 part 2A compliance with Duties in the Act consists of below sections of the Act:

·      69S: Duty of suppliers in relation to the provision of drinking water

·      69U: Duty to take reasonable steps to contribute to protection of source of drinking water

·      69Z: Duty to prepare and implement a Water Safety Plan (WSP)

·      69ZD: Duty to keep records and make them available

·      69ZE: Duty to investigate complaints

All requirements (DWSNZ and Health Act) are being annually assessed by our local Drinking Water Assessor  for period July 1 - June 30 and ‘Report on Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2018) and duties under Health Act 1956’ is issued.

The main focus of this Report is to present the 3 Waters Team’s current understanding of compliance with the DWSNZ only, as this exercise is much more straightforward to undertake compared to assessing Health Act requirements, which might be subject to different DWA interpretation and additional requirements. However, any major non-compliances detected with the Health Act will be included in reports to come. An overview on 69ZE requirement (Duty to investigate complaints) from the Health Act is however included in this Report.

Note – Information presented in this Report is NCC 3 Waters Team’s best understanding and interpretation of DWSNZ and Health Act requirements and our adherence to those requirements – the DWA might have a different view when undertaking an annual compliance assessment at the end of the compliance year.

 

 

4.3   Issues

 

Over the last six months there have been a number of changes underway in both the Water Industry and the Water team. The following points highlight the main issues and events relating to the supply.

 

A)  Summary of any significant events that have occurred and changes to any of the supply elements, WSP and regulatory framework

 

·      A1 bore reintroduction. On 13 October A1 bore has been put back into service due to increased demand. For the first time now, A1 water is being pushed towards Thompson Reservoirs on Bluff Hill and adjacent areas (CBD, Napier South, Marewa). This change in operations contributed to increase of dirty water complaints in above mentioned areas, however in total the numbers are substantially lower compared to previous year.

 

·      10 & 11 November 2020 Flooding event. As a precaution A1 and C1 bore were forced off between 10 and 13 November 2020 to reduce any risk of contamination during the flooding event. Source water at all other bores was tested twice a day to detect any possible changes at the abstraction sites. Free available chlorine, combined chlorine and turbidity in the reticulation were monitored on the 10th, 11th and 12th continuously over three 8 hour shifts at more than 30 locations. Reticulation results showed no signs contamination occurred during the flooding event and the additional protection of the chlorine assisted with this result. This kind of monitoring would not be possible on an unchlorinated supply and Council would not have had any indicators that there was contamination other than illness

 

·      Sodium Hypochlorite supplier change. In December 2020 Council has changed the supplier of sodium hypochlorite used for chlorination of the supply. Previously Council used a supplier form Australia which resulted in issues around reduced chlorine concentrations. A purchase agreement (contract) with IXOM is now in place. The hypochlorite supplied by Ixom is NZ made (Mt. Manganui), fresher and hence contains higher chlorine levels. Additional 2000L hypochlorite storage capacity has been secured at the Depot.

 

·      Water Safety Plan update. In December 2020 the WSP was updated to version 4.4. Risk tables have been reviewed, seven new actions have been added to the Improvement Plan (some of them are driven by the outcomes of the Implementation Audit’s non-compliance inquiry) and an Internal Audit Programme has been established amongst other minor updates.

 

·      Implementation Audit’s non-conformance close-out. All required evidence was presented to the Drinking Water Assessors (DWAs) on 22 December 2020 in order to close out the existing non-conformance (outcome of September 2020 Implementation Audit). The DWAs accepted all evidence and closed out the non-conformance.

 

·      Exposure Drafts issued by Taumata Arowai. At the end of December 2020 Taumata Arowai released next Exposure Drafts documents that highlight the proposed changes to the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (https://www.dia.govt.nz/Taumata-Arowai-Establishment-Unit#Exposure-drafts):

 

-     Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Water Supply

-     Operational Compliance Rules

-     Standards and Aesthetic Values

-     Methodology to determine water supply population

 

They have split existing Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand into two documents: Standards and Aesthetic Values and Operational Compliance Rules. These Exposure Drafts (if adopted as they are) will have substantial impact on Napier’s water compliance and will trigger the need to introduce new and upgrade our existing assets and to introduce additional treatment. Once the new Drinking Water Standards are operational Councils will have a period of 12 months to become compliant. Although a consultation process is scheduled in May 2021, no major changed are expected to the drafts provided.

 

Some of the major changes outlined below:

 

-     Bore security status is abolished.

-     Yearly compliance monitoring period abolished. Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly compliance monitoring periods established for different determinands.

-     Increased monitoring requirements for the source water, with some parameters requiring continuous monitoring (pH, turbidity, conductivity, temperature).

-     Disinfection of source water to meet bacterial compliance required (chlorine, ozone or UV).

-     Log4 requirement for protozoa treatment without a sanitary bore head (e.g. cartridge filtration followed by UV).

-     Mandatory residual disinfectant present in reticulation, measured at least twice a day (along with pH) at all reticulation sampling sites. If chlorine used, 0.20 mg/l FAC must be maintained at maximum 8.5 pH value at all times.

-     Set chlorination by-products monitoring requirements.

-     Regular instrument’s calibration and verification requirements.

 

To comply with the proposed changes, appropriate treatment needs to be put in place at all Napier bores. This calls for a major capital funding, as well as operations capacity review as appropriately skilled and certified operators will be needed to run treatment processes. Time is of critical importance due to extensive upgrade works ahead in order to avoid non-compliance in the near-future. Essentially it appears that Napier will need to provide treatment at all of the existing bore sites which conflicts with the current strategy to move to two new bore fields with treatment plants. A number of Council’s bores are getting near to end of life and are located where there is no room to add treatment facilities. The current plan was to replace the bores as part of the new borefield projects. Careful consideration is required to determine the most cost effective way forward whilst achieving compliance.

 

Taumata Arowai is also changing how water suppliers will have to demonstrate compliance. The duty now falls completely on water suppliers to demonstrate yearly compliance by providing monitoring records and evidence collected through internal auditing process against the new Operational Compliance Rules. Increased auditing requirements will need to be appropriately addressed in regards to human resourcing and training needed.

 

·      Water Services Bill. Water Services Bill (https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_99655/water-services-bill) is a milestone for drinking water safety. Council has approached external consultants to assist review of possible implications and to provide input to NCC submission document (due 2 March 2021). More information on Bill’s impact will be provided to Napier Sustainable Committee once report produced.

 

At this point, it is our understanding that Taumata Arowai will expect all large water suppliers (supplies over 500 customers) to be fully compliant with the Water Services Bill (and Exposure Drafts) within 12 months following commencement and Taumata Arowai taking over regulatory space, which is expected to happen in July 2021. Taumata Arowai will have the powers to address non-performance by drinking water supplier and may appoint another operator(s) to act in place of the supplier to perform all or any of the supplier’s functions or duties as an operator.

 

Therefore, the magnitude and the consequences under the new drinking water regulatory space should not be underestimated and full support and commitment from the Council is crucial to appropriately address all challenges in order to achieve compliance within a year following commencement.

 

B)  Summary of progress against the WSP Improvement Plan

 

At the end of Q2 (as on 31 December 2020) there were 18 actions to be completed in the WSP v4.4 Improvement Plan.

 

-     None of the actions are overdue

-     In Q2 three actions have been completed (Action 1, Action 4 and Action 55)

-     Seven actions have been added to the Improvement Plan in Q2 (Actions 61-67) during the WSP review and update to version 4.4.

 

C)  Update on drinking-water related capital projects

 

Table below shows a summary of all drinking-water related capital projects entered and managed in Sycle and their progress (see ‘Current phase’ column, legend below the table), as on 31 December 2020. Where projects differ from the project summary submitted for the Sustainable Napier Committee this can be due to some projects having not started yet. As projects start they are loaded into Sycle and will be reported on in the six weekly committee process. Timeframes will need to be adjusted following review of the LTP.

 

Current Project State

Project Name

Project Type

Planned Completion Date

Start Date

Pending Final Completion Certificate

Taradale Reservoir

Large

30/09/2021

1/06/2015

In Progress

A1 Pigging Points - 450mm Main

Small

31/12/2021

1/08/2019

In Progress

A1 Pigging Points - 300mm Main

Small

31/12/2021

20/09/2019

Complete

De-Chlorination Water Station 2 - Marine Parade

Large

31/08/2020

21/08/2019

In Progress

Meeanee Bore  Treatment Upgrade

Small

31/12/2022

6/09/2019

Deferred or On Hold

Water Ridermain Access Points - Pigging

Small

30/06/2020

7/10/2019

Upgraded

Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model

Large

30/06/2032

7/10/2019

Deferred or On Hold

SCADA Central Control Station

Large

31/03/2021

7/10/2019

In Progress

New water treatment plants design for Borefield No. 1 & 2

Large

15/07/2020

15/07/2019

In Progress

Dedicated Hydrant Water Take Site

Large

5/02/2022

1/11/2018

In Defects

Tironui Reservoir Membrane Roof

Small

27/02/2021

1/07/2019

In Progress

Reservoir Inlets and Outlets Improvements

Large

31/12/2024

1/05/2019

In Progress

Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Latham Street to Carlyle Street

Large

31/12/2021

16/07/2019

In Progress

Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Carlyle Street to New Reservoir  on Hospital Hill

Large

31/12/2021

16/07/2019

In Progress

Hospital Hill Trunk Falling Main

Large

31/12/2032

16/07/2019

In Progress

Carlyle Street Trunk Main Improvements

Large

31/12/2021

16/07/2019

In Progress

Chaucer Road Pump Station Relocation

Large

30/04/2022

20/01/2020

In progress

SCADA & Telemetry Upgrade

Large

30/06/2022

1/07/2019

SCADA Remote Site Installations

Large

30/06/2022

7/10/2019

In progress

Tamatea & Parklands DMA

Large

30/06/2028

7/10/2019

In Progress

Te Awa Watermain Extension - Philips-Awatoto Rd

Large

30/06/2032

7/10/2019

Deferred or On Hold

Borefield No.2 Taradale

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Development of Borefield No.1

Large

30/11/2032

2/07/2018

In Progress

Trial Bore: No.1 (Papakura Domain)

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Trial Bore No. 2 Taradale Area

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Borefield No.1 Rising Main (Papakura-Awatoto)

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension - Guppy intersection to New Borefield No.2

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Taradale Reservoir Falling Main Upgrade

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Puketapu Road Trunk Main Upgrade

Large

30/11/2022

2/07/2018

In Progress

Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension - Church Road (Puketapu Rd to Tironui Dr)

Large

30/11/2022

4/03/2019

In Progress

Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension

Large

30/11/2022

13/05/2019

Mission Reservoir - New

Large

31/12/2022

16/07/2019

In Progress

Connect Taradales Reservoir to New Enfield Reservoir

Large

31/12/2022

31/12/2032

In Progress

Enfield Reservoir Replacement

Large

25/07/2024

1/05/2019

In Progress

FW2 Fire Flow Network Upgrades

Large

30/06/2030

4/05/2020

 

D)  Summary of reactive maintenance and major operations events

 

Q1:

-     Ōtātara reservoir overflow event, from 17 September 4:30pm to 18 September 1.15pm. No damage to the structures or adjacent properties s as the overflow discharging directly to storm water network. Faulty float switches identified as root cause when Ōtātara booster set to ‘float control’.

 

Q2:

-     Apart from the additional monitoring operations triggered by the flooding event in November, no other events recorded.

 

E)   DWSNZ Treatment Plant / Bores Compliance overview

 

To date, no transgression has been recorded at Treatment plants / Bores in 2020/2021 compliance year. Compliance per category per quarter and Overall Compliance is presented in the table below.

 

Bore / Plant name

Bacterial Compliance

Protozoa Compliance

Chemical Compliance

Radiological Compliance

Overall Compliance

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2020-2021

A1 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

C1 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

T2 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

T3 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

T5 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

T6 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

T7 Bore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pending

 

F)   DWSNZ Distribution Zone Compliance overview

 

To date, no transgression has been recorded within Distribution Zone in 2020/2021 compliance year. Compliance per category per quarter and Overall Compliance is presented in the table below.

Distribution zone name

Bacterial Compliance

Chemical Compliance

Overall Compliance

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2020-2021

Napier NAP001NA

 

 

 

 

pending

 

G)  Health Act 69ZE – ‘Duty to investigate complaints’ summary figures

 

Customers’ Service Requests (SR) are being captured in MagiQ software. Each SR is assigned appropriate category from the list below:

 

From the water quality and risks perspective, main focus is given to clarity, odour, taste and pressure/flow issues. Numbers of SRs received for each of these categories are presented in the table below.

Service Request category

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Jul20

Aug20

Sep20

Oct20

Nov20

Dec20

Jan21

Feb21

Mar21

Apr21

May21

Jun21

Q – Clarity

18

13

38

59

42

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q – Odour

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q – Taste

3

1

1

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q – Pressure / Flow

1

5

1

2

2

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H)  Production summary figures and water take Resource consent compliance

 

Summary of the drinking-water production (abstraction):

 

Water Production – All Bores

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Jul20

Aug20

Sep20

Oct20

Nov20

Dec20

Jan21

Feb21

Mar21

Apr21

May21

Jun21

Production [m3 x1000]

736

724

754

885

796

973

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary on the current Resource Consent compliance and conditions:

-     NCC has been fully compliant with Resource Consent conditions for 2020/2021.

-     NCC is sharing raw production figures database with HBRC at the end of each month to demonstrate compliance.

-     Main Resource Consent conditions:

·      The consent is granted for a period expiring on 31 May 2027.

·      The cumulative rate of take of water (from all wells) shall not exceed 784 L/s.

·      The cumulative maximum 7-day volume take (from all 11 wells) shall not exceed 387,744 m3.

·      See Resource Consent (Doc. ID: 920969) for more details and other conditions.

 

I)    Report on Compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for NZ 2005 (Revised 2018) and duties under Health Act 1956 (for period 1st July 2019 to 30th June 2020)

 

The Drinking Water Assessor shared the Report with Council on 23 November 2020.

 

Napier Water Supply has achieved full compliance with Bacterial, Protozoa, Cyanotoxin, Radiological, Chemical and Overall compliance requirements as set in current Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand and met all duties under the Health Act, for the 2019/2020 compliance year period.

4.4   Significance and Engagement

N/A

4.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

a)   1 July 2021 is considered a milestone as on that day Taumata Arowai, Water Services Act and adopted Exposure Drafts will come into force. Water suppliers will be expected to be fully compliant with new legislative requirements within the 12 months from 1st July 2021. Taumata Arowai will have the powers to address non-performance (e.g. not meeting compliance) by drinking water supplier and may appoint another operator(s) to act in place of the supplier to perform all or any of the supplier’s functions or duties as an operator.

4.6   Options

        The purpose of this report is to present information to Council.  Options have not been presented.

4.7   Development of Preferred Option

N/A

 

 

At the Meeting

The Council Officers spoke to the report and in response to questions it was noted:

·    Once the secure bore status is removed Council will not comply with the protozoa regulations. Officers are looking at options to provide treatment and security at the bores. They are also looking at removing the manganese treatment out of the system at the same time which will speed up resolving water clarity issues. This work shouldn’t cause a significant change in the budget but this is being looked at through the Long Term Plan process.

·    Due to the tight compliance timeframe imposed for the installation of UV filters, Local Government New Zealand has said it will be having further discussions about the implications of the change in requirements on water suppliers. LGNZ believes the new requirements will be unachievable for most without significant investment in infrastructure.

·    Council officers are looking for a location in Taradale for a new bore field where any investment in treatment is not going to become redundant.

·    Residual disinfectant in the network is still mandatory even with the addition of UV treatment and filters. After 1 July 2021 when the Water Services Act and Exposure Drafts come into force it is possible to apply to Taumata Arowai to go Chlorine free.

·    There is a dedicated water-take station project underway which will cover the protection requirements for water for commercial users

ACTION: To have the water-take station project on the list of projects at the next Committee meeting.

 

4.8   Attachments

a     Report on Compliance with the DWSNZ 2005 (Revised 2018) and duties under Health Act 1956; for period 1st July 2019 to 30th June 2020, Napier (NAP001) Drinking Water Supply.   

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

5.    To provide Council with information on Capital Programme Delivery.

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

1283770

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

James Mear, Manager Design and Projects

 

5.1   Purpose of Report

To provide Council with information on Capital Programme Delivery.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Crown

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Note that this report is for information purposes only.

 

Carried

 

 

5.2   Background Summary

The successful delivery of projects is an important part of Council Success.

 

Council projects and programmes of work consist of multiple phases and often span multiple years, starting with the development of strategies and often concluding with construction works. A large portion of projects are not initially capital funded projects however such work may eventually lead to capital projects.

 

The successful delivery of projects has an important part to play to enable democratic local decision-making which intern promote social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-beings for the Napier community now and for the future.

 

NCC has implemented an enterprise workflow system called Sycle, used in parallel with financial reporting and document management, to report on project management requirements. Sycle connects community outcomes, strategic goals, strategies and actions with projects; and is also used to manage individual and organisational performance metrics, and strategic and operational risks. Council are seeking to integrate the functionality of Sycle with the Long Term Plan cycle to improve the way in which needs/problems are identified and considered in line with the Long Term Plan and Annual plan processes.

 

Council’s Project Management Framework has been developed within Sycle to provide for the management and reporting of Council Projects. This initiative is still in development phase, with training of council officers on both the project management framework and its use within Sycle required to enable Council wide use of Sycle.

 

Further uptake and use of Sycle will improve the quality of information within Sycle and the ability to report on project delivery.

 

This report is consistent with the first iteration of the Project Delivery Progress Report and will be improved over time.

 

This report gives effect to the Chief Executive Key Performance Indicator (KPI) set under Financial Prudence. Currently defined as a multiyear Initial Target for Capital

Expenditure.

 

·    Individual capital projects over $750K will be achieved within +/-5%

·    Any changes outside of +/-5% will be brought to Council for re-approval along with consequent effects

·    The total capital budget achieved within +/-5%

 

In addition, this report is a first step towards achieving the following Chief Executive

Key Performance Indicator (KPI):

 

“A work programme reporting tool is presented to Council that allows priorities to be seen, regular tracking of progress and updates across all key projects and across all Council operations. To be progressively introduced with a view to being completely in place and reporting to Council by 31 January 2021.“ This is still a piece of work in development.

5.3   Issues

Project Based reporting is new to Council and Project Management discipline will take time to develop.

 

Development of project planning is new to concept council and will take time to embed.

 

5.4   Significance and Engagement

Capital Programme Delivery reporting to the Maori Consultative Committee is planned to start in 2021.

5.5   Implications

Financial

Project Financial Performance are not intended to be reported on through this report.

Social & Policy

n/a

Risk

Project Risks are not intended to be reported on through this report.

5.6   Options

 

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions it was noted:

·    There are many more projects in the Project Management Framework which are not shown in the report presented to the Committee. It is possible to provide a summary report of all Council projects at the next Committee meeting.

·    The projects that have been included in the report to Committee are high priority, high value, or high risk projects.

·    In the Infrastructure Reporting Status Summary if a projects status says it is deferred and with sponsor that is because the project is currently with an external activity manager for action. 

·    The Marewa Shops Improvements project is on hold due to the latest estimates for work being higher than the available budget. Council Officers are working on a solution to this currently.

 

5.7   Attachments

a     2021 February Infrastructure Reporting Status Summary   

 



Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

Reports from Future Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

 

1.    Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region.

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

1278534

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Bill Roberts, Economic Development Manager

Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

The Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region report (Attachment A) summarises the findings and recommendations of a review of Hawke’s Bay Council-funded, non-statutory activities that are focussed on business, industry and sector development.

 

Key Findings

 

The Giblin Group review of Hawke’s Bay Council-funded, non-statutory activities that are focussed on business, industry and sector development (the “Review”) finds the following:

 

•     There are no major gaps in the types of services/activities being delivered and current services/activities are based on addressing issues or leveraging opportunities that are broadly aligned with the role of local government.

 

•     The services/activities being delivered are, however, often sub-scale (e.g. often less than 1 FTE to deliver significant programmes of work or activities). This will be limiting the potential value of business, industry and sector development investment for Hawke’s Bay. This value relates to the ability to:

 

Most effectively leveraging the resources of others (e.g. Central Government funding/involvement and private sector funding/involvement). Regions need to be well organised and focused in order to maximise the opportunities available through Central Government funding support (which will continue to have a large role to play in a COVID-recovery environment), and to partner with the private sector in different ways;

Work with speed and agility to fully understand the nature of issues, constraints and opportunities presenting for Hawke’s Bay in order to design and implement appropriate interventions where there is a clear role for government; and

Bring mandate, mana and resources to the table to focus on areas of critical priority for Hawke’s Bay.

 

•       The real potential value of economic development investment in Hawke’s Bay is a greater ability to meet the overarching outcome of the Matariki Strategy and Action Plan “Every whānau and every household is actively engaged in and benefiting from growing a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy”. This requires a focus on existing business (and assisting them to overcome challenges and create greater value through doing things differently and better over time); a focus on creating new platforms for growth for Hawke’s Bay (either by growing new activity in the region or by encouraging new activity to the region); and tying these things together, the investments and efforts need to support a thriving business environment (e.g. infrastructure, rules and regulations).

 

•       The Return on Investment (RoI) from effective business, industry and sector development support can be high. For example:

o   Work to support the Hawke’s Bay horticulture and viticulture sector with critical COVID-related seasonal labour issues will help to protect around $715m of regional economic activity in apples and pears alone. This sector directly supports 2,579 permanent local workers and, indirectly, a further 5,751 permanent local workers in the eco-system of services that supports the industry;

 

o   Economic development work relating to the horticulture potential in Wairoa suggests that a proportionately minor strategic government role in different areas could help support additional expenditure to the local Wairoa economy of around $82 million over a 10year period and the employment of an additional 197 FTEs over the same period.

 

o   Encouraging a new business to locate in Hawke’s Bay could lead to 100s of new jobs and resulting economic activity. Depending on the nature of the activity this could, in time, help to stimulate a range of value-add services (and well-paying jobs) needed to support this activity.

 

o   For relatively small investments, effective regional branding, marketing and promotion can play a key role in attracting visitors, talent, investors and businesses to the region. Tourists in Hawke’s Bay spent over $45 million in August 2020 (the highest regional spend in the country), and while not all visitors will have been encouraged to visit by the work of Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd (HBTL) this still suggests an effective RoI on the $1.5m in annual funding for HBTL. Visitors to Hawke’s Bay also support local retail and hospitality and help to create vibrant city centres and regional amenities that locals enjoy and which play a critical role in wider people and talent attraction.

 

•       There are also opportunities to better align and structure some activities and services e.g. business capability support being provided by Hastings District Council (HDC) should ideally be provided via agencies with core expertise in this area e.g. Business Hawke’s Bay (BHB)/a regional Economic Development Agency (EDA), and/or Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce. This would promote regional coherence and access for business.

 

•       Some regions and Economic Development Agencies (EDAs) have greater access to funds to support feasibility/business case development. Hawke’s Bay currently lacks a regional pool of funds that can be used to investigate economic development opportunities that are aligned with the region’s strengths/opportunities/strategy. This means that opportunities are considered in an ad hoc way and support for any investigation will depend on the degree of funding available to individual Councils at the time and the strength of any advocacy.

 

 

•       Destination management and marketing is led by Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd (HBTL) and while there is some cross-over in activities (largely in the events space) there appears to be good coordination between Councils and HBTL.

 

•       Business capability-related support is largely provided through the Regional Business Partner (RBP) Programme (although HDC does do a bit of this as well).

 

•       Cluster and sector work with industry coalitions is largely led by BHB.

 

·      There are some good examples of collaboration relating to investment attraction e.g. NZ Institute for Skills and Technology and Jetstar, but activity related to investment and talent attraction has been largely ad hoc (notwithstanding a desire to back existing strategies with funding for implementation).

 

·      Matariki is the main focal point for regional economic development work but there is concern among stakeholders that Matariki is not delivering on its promise and that governance could be improved.

 

The Case for Change

The Review finds that there is a case for change. Analysis, interviews and conversations undertaken for the Review, and the survey of stakeholders conducted between 2-15 September 2020, indicate the following key issues:

 

·    Most stakeholders and those involved in delivery and funding are looking for greater clarity over roles and functions.

 

·    Businesses are looking for greater clarity over the activities and services available to support business activity.

 

·    There is concern that there are unhelpful and competitive behaviours in the system and that this is constraining more effective collaboration. This is feeding a perception in the business community that the economic development system is fragmented and not particularly transparent.

 

·    There is concern about whether Hawke’s Bay has the right capability (alongside structure/s) to support effective and efficient delivery of activities and services, leading to views that the region is not as responsiveness to community needs as it could be and punching below its weight externally.

 

·    BHB financial sustainability is clearly an issue.

 

·    A high proportion of stakeholders feel that funding for economic development activities and services should be increased.

 

·    HBTL appears to be doing a successful job and is supported by its main stakeholders. Change would come with costs that could outweigh benefits (that could potentially be achieved through non-structural changes). At this point there doesn’t appear to be a strong case for change (at least institutionally). 

 

·    Funding for tourism relative to other sectors has been a theme of the feedback, with many viewing this as unbalanced. But tourism directly supports local retail and hospitality (and helps to create vibrant city centres and regional amenities that locals enjoy and play a role in people and talent attraction). This means it’s not as simple as saying one sector vs the others. Ideally, we would be supporting a range of key sectors of importance/opportunity (taking into account the appropriate role of govt).

 

·    Business Hawke’s Bay’s financial sustainably has been highlighted as an issue in the Giblin Group report. On 17th December 2020, Business Hawke’s Bay initiated formal consultation on a proposal to wind up the organisation based on its ongoing viability to meet its commitments (over and above the Contract for Service). Decisions to be made by the Business Hawke’s Bay board are expected late January 2021. (refer Attachment B – Letter from BHB Chair to Councils). The five Hawke’s Bay Councils have reiterated their commitment to the Chairperson to work with Business Hawke’s Bay to keep the Business Hubs open and the potential assignment to one of the five councils.  To support Business Hawke’s Bay’s process the councils will develop and agree a transition plan with Business Hawke’s Bay for any such eventuality.

 

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Crown

The Future Napier Committee:

a.     Receive the Giblin Group report titled Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region dated December 2020.

 

b.     Notes the report is for information purposes only. No decision relating to the recommendations set out in this report are required by Council/Committee.

 

c.     Consider the recommended options to form a new entity to lead (non-tourism) economic development activities. This new entity would focus on business development and support; innovation and industry development; skills building, attraction and retention initiatives; investment promotion and attraction; economic development strategy development; and strategy/action plan programme management.

 

d.     Support the second stage of the review process and a more detailed investigation of the recommendations set out in the Giblin Group report Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region dated December 2020. We note that the additional funding for the second stage is planned within the HBLASS (shared services cost centre)

 

e.     Support engagement with Treaty Partners and other regional stakeholders on the opportunity to create an enduring economic development delivery platform that provides Hawke’s Bay with the appropriate scale and mandate to better guide and direct economic development activity to priority areas and issues.

 

f.      Support the opportunity to embed a partnership with Māori in the new EDA model. The model would allow for discussions on the level of engagement with Māori business and, potentially, a joint resourcing approach with Hawke’s Bay Māori/iwi/hāpu fora or organisations.

 

g.     Support the five Council’s commitment to keeping the Hawke’s Bay Business Hub open.

 

Carried

 

 

1.2   Background Summary

 

In July 2020 the five Hawke’s Bay Councils commissioned from Giblin Group a Local Government Act (2002) s17A review of Hawke’s Bay Council-funded, non-statutory activities that are focussed on business, industry and sector development. The specific activities and services that were in scope of this review were:

•     Business development activities, such as business information and referral services and business capability support;

•     Skills building, attraction and retention initiatives;

•     Innovation, commercialisation and R&D support;

•     Investment promotion and attraction;

•     Destination marketing and management and events;

•     Sector development initiatives and cluster facilitation;

•     Economic development and economic wellbeing strategy development, intelligence and monitoring.

•     Strategy/action plan programme management, coordination, communications, monitoring and reporting (i.e. largely the activities involved in supporting and implementing the Matariki Hawke's Bay Regional Development Strategy).

 

The Review was commissioned following a request from Business Hawke’s Bay for additional funding and subsequent desire to review the cost effectiveness of Council arrangements for delivering business, industry and sector development activities and services and to consider any opportunities to improve regional coherence of this sub-set of economic development investments.

 

Hawke’s Bay Councils were seeking an assessment of:

a)   The role of local government in economic development and economic wellbeing in the region, based on an analysis of:

Challenges and opportunities facing the Hawke’s Bay economy;

Rationales for local government activities in economic development and economic wellbeing;

The landscape in which various actors and mechanisms play a role in the regional economic development system;

Legislative and central government expectations.

 

b)   Economic development and economic wellbeing activities, identifying strengths, weaknesses and any relevant gaps in the activities, based on:

The Councils’ objectives, priorities and performance targets;

Identifying any overlaps/duplication and/or gaps across Councils’ and key organisation’s activities;

The role non-Council parties play in the regional economic development system;

An assessment of the efficiency of current arrangements and the benefits of the activities versus costs;

An assessment of the overall effectiveness of the current delivery models of the five Councils and key delivery organisations, including governance arrangements, funding arrangements and current economic development and economic wellbeing reporting and accountability mechanisms.

 

c)   Options for future economic development and economic wellbeing delivery arrangements, based on clear criteria, and recommendations for any changes in functions, form and funding.

The Giblin Group report Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region summarises the findings and recommendations of this Review.

 

1.3   Issues

 

Current Investment in Activities and Services

 

In terms of the investment Hawke’s Bay ratepayers are making in business, industry and sector development the Review finds:

 

•     In total HB Councils are investing just over $10m in business support and industry development related services and activities.

•     Just under half of this is directed to the i-Sites and the Napier Convention Centre and Toi I. [Note – these have been included given their roles in regard to visitor attraction/promotion and/or events].

•     Funding for Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd makes up 15.7% of the funding.

•     Funding for Business Hawke’s Bay makes up 3.3% of funding.

•     Funding for specific Council ED teams (salaries + funding for discretionary activities/projects) makes up around 13% of funding.

•     At an aggregate level (nominal) funding has remained about the same over the last five years. This means in real terms funding has fallen.

•     There has been some change to funding at a more detailed level e.g. HBRC used to have an Economic Development Manager; HDC has been shifting funding from the ED budget to its Strategic Projects team.

•     There is a clear path dependence with current ED funding. The region has built infrastructure that requires visitor support e.g. even setting aside i-Sites, ToiToi and NCC, we have Splash Planet, Aquarium, The Faraday Centre etc, and funding has followed this need.

 

Effectiveness and Efficiency

 

In terms of effectiveness and impact the Review finds:

 

Councils:

·    Performance measures and any related KPIs or targets are organisation specific with varying levels of detail. They are often project based. These are, for the most part, being met. The activities/services are being delivered efficiently (on the basis of FTE resources).

·    There is no explicit relationship to Matariki or broader regional objectives except through general collaboration performance measures (where they exist). There is an opportunity to tighten this.

·    More broadly the region does not have a clear ‘impact framework’ to articulate the ‘intervention logic’ between activities delivered and the desired outcomes for the region over the short, medium and longer-term.  A framework like this could better inform distributed (individual, team/org) work programmes that contribute to regional outcomes and provide greater clarity on respective roles and responsibilities (e.g. leadership and/or close collaboration where needed).

 

 

 

Business Hawke’s Bay (BHB)

·    BHB is meeting the KPIs set out in the Contract for Service (CfS) and has delivered outputs efficiently but it has a large work programme (relative to FTEs/funding available) that goes beyond the CfS areas of focus. This has been a strategic decision (to use reserves to create programmes where a need has been identified). Given limited FTEs this will be constraining the ability to delivery priorities as effectively as possible.

 

·    Business Hub usage and business connection metrics continue to show growth (even including the COVID-lockdown period). The Hub is clearly filling a need for a meeting and connection space that has a look, feel, and vibe that businesses and organisations will pay to use. The Hub also plays a critical role in bringing together, under one roof, many of the key business support agencies operating in Hawke’s Bay. In an environment where there is a perception of fragmented services this is important. The Business Hub, however, runs at an overall loss and additional funding is required to support repairs and maintenance and CAPEX.

 

·    BHB ongoing viability to meet its commitments (over and above the Contract for Service) is under currently review, with decisions to be made by the BHB board on whether to wind up the organisation late January 2021. (please refer Attachment B – Letter from BHB Chair to Councils)

 

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd

 

·    HBTL is meeting the KPIs set out in the funding agreement with HBRC. Central Government considers HBTL an effective RTO. It appears to be delivering outputs efficiently.

·    HBTL’s members appear to be satisfied with HBTL’s contribution toward the growth of the industry and in representing the region at a national and international level. The area where members think there is an opportunity to do more is in “coordinating business opportunities for its members”. This includes education, business events and workshops focussed on the specific issues of SME tourism businesses.

 

 

1.4   Significance and Engagement

N/A

 

1.5   Implications

 

Financial

N/A

 

Social & Policy

N/A

 

Risk

N/A

 

1.6   Options

 

Section 17A of the LGA requires consideration of the following options when considering delivery improvements (note a 17A review is not limited to these options):

 

(a)     Responsibility for governance, funding, and delivery is exercised by the local authority;

(b)     Responsibility for governance and funding is exercised by the local authority, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by –

(i)    a council-controlled organisation of the local authority; or

(ii)   a council-controlled organisation in which the local authority is one of several shareholders; or

(iii) another local authority; or

(iv) another person or agency.

(c)     Responsibility for governance and funding is delegated to a joint committee or other shared governance arrangement, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by an entity or a person listed in paragraph (b)(i) to (iv).

 

The Giblin Group report considers seven (7) options given the Hawke’s Bay context and the Review analysis (i.e. the range of issues, challenges and opportunities that were identified). These are: 

 

1.   The Status Quo.

2.   Enhanced Status Quo v1: Improved funding for BHB.

3.   Enhanced Status Quo v2: Improved funding for BHB + BHB takes on RBP contract (with HB Council support an

4.   Central Govt agreement via formal procurement process).

5.   Transferring business support services to a Council or across Councils.

6.   Leveraging other providers: A variation of Option 4. Responsibility for (non-tourism) business and industry development and support activities/services would sit with a Council or Councils but these activities/services would be contracted to other providers in the region (e.g., industry groups, iwi organisations) to deliver.

7.   Extended regional model of delivery for non-tourism economic development activities (EDA CCO): BHB would become Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). No change to HBTL.

8.   Combined Regional Economic and Tourism Agency: BHB and HBTL would be folded into a new combined Regional EDA/RTO for Hawke’s Bay.

 

Note:

This report to Council/Committees does not seek any decisions on the recommended options set out in the Giblin Group report Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke’s Bay Region at this time.

When the next stage of the review process is completed and the Chief Executives have considered, a further and final report will be brought to Council to seek support and decisions to formally seek community consultation on the options and preferred recommendations. This is expected mid 2021)

Attached is a copy of the major advantages and disadvantages of each of the considered options. (Attachment C)

 

1.7   Development of Preferred Option

 

Next Steps

The Chief Executives have commissioned Giblin Group to develop the next stage of the review process to develop a detailed plan, which will be co-designed with Matariki Partners and other regional stakeholders, to:

•     Further define the entity design that best meets the objectives of Matariki partners and other key stakeholders;

•     Help clarify and set the transition time frame;

•     Identify the key areas/components that will need to be supported and/or will undergo transition;

•     Identify the key tasks in each area, including appropriate checkpoints and milestones;

•     Identify relevant risks and risk levels;

•     Be used to support a request to Central Government for transitional funding support.

The next stage of the review process would begin February 2021 of which the estimated cost is $40,000 (GST exclusive).  This cost would be managed via the HBLASS Shared Services Cost Centre and shared by Councils in accordance with the annual budget plan on the following basis:

Wairoa District Council (11%)                           $4,400

Napier City Council (26%)                                $10,400

Hastings District Council (26%)                         $10,400

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (11%)       $4,400

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (26%)               $10,400

 

After the next stage of the review is completed and the Chief Executives have considered, then a final report will be brought to Council to seek support and decisions to formally seek community consultation on the options and preferred recommendation. This is expected mid 2021.

The table below captures the key steps in the next stage of the review process. 

The Chief Executives have commissioned Giblin Group to develop the next stage of the review process to develop a transition plan, which will be co-designed with Matariki Partners, to:

•     Further define the entity design that best meets the objectives of Matariki partners and other key stakeholders;

•     Help clarify and set the transition time frame;

•     Identify the key areas/components that will need to be supported and/or will undergo transition;

•     Identify the key tasks in each area, including appropriate checkpoints and milestones;

•     Identify relevant risks and risk levels;

•     Be used to support a request to Central Government for transitional funding support.

 

The table below captures the key steps in the proposed transition planning.

Key steps in transition planning

Comment

1.   Set the time frame

·    When does it start, how long will it take, when does it finish etc?

2.   Describe the starting state

·    Where are we now?

3.   Describe the target state

·    Where do we want to be?

4.   Describe the areas that need to be supported and/or will undergo transition

·    E.g. Co-design with Matariki Partners and other stakeholders; engagement; transitional work programme; structure and legal form; governance and accountability; communication

5.   List the tasks in each area

·    Identify the high-level transition tasks for each area/component of the transition to a new entity.

6.   Identify the risks and risk levels

·    This ensures there is adequate focus on the areas that need careful attention and mitigation

7.   Add checkpoints and milestones

·    This helps to provide measurable targets and status checks through the process

8.   Implementation

·    Which will involve:

Clear ownership and resourcing of the tasks

Monitoring and reporting

A governance mechanism (either utilising an existing structure/s or creating something specific).

 

The table below provides an initial view of the likely areas of focus for the next phase detailed planning.

Key components

Description

1.   Co-design and engagement

a.   With Matariki Partners

b.   With other key stakeholders e.g. business community

·    Co-design with Matariki Partners and other key stakeholders should form the basis of the planning

·    The opportunity should also be taken to ensure the business community has a voice in the process

·    Engagement with Matariki RDS GG and/or ESG will be an important element

 

2.   Existing ED activities/services

 

There will be elements of existing ED activities/services which will need to be supported through a transition process e.g. Business Hub

 

3.   Structure and legal form

 

This would include the organisational structural and legal considerations in moving from the existing BHB incorporated society structure to a new structure e.g. potentially a trust (as a possible stepping stone to a CCO (if needed))

 

4.   Governance and accountability

 

This would include issues such as planning for new Board appointments

 

 

 

At the Meeting

Mr Charteris from the Giblin Group Limited displayed a powerpoint presentation providing an overview of opportunities to improve regional coherence of economic development investments.

 

The key findings and recommendations noted were:

·    No major gaps

·    But current services are often sub-scale and not well coordinated 

·    Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited (HBTL) was an exception and were operating very effectively and efficiently.

·    Business Hawke’s Bay’s (BHB) financial sustainably

·    There was a case for change – businesses felt they did not know who was leading and go for different services.

·    Main recommendation -  work with Treaty Partners and the wider community to develop a new non-tourism regional economic development entity.  Opportunity to work with treaty partners and what co-design would meet better the needs of Māori development.

·    Proposed form and funding required

·    Functions

·    Matariki – governance, impact framework, and resourcing – the review was not about Matariki but some things within Matariki could be improved about the structure of entity that helps Matariki do a wider range of functions.

It was noted that Business Hawke’s Bay did not have Iwi representation on the Board, however have been invited to provide a representative.  The Board would want Councils, Iwi, Crown Partners and experts on the Board.

 

1.8   Attachments

a     Review of Local Government Investment in Business and Industry Support across the Hawke's Bay Region - Giblin Group 

b     Letter from Business Hawke's Bay's Board Chair - 17 December 2020 

c     Advantages and Disadvantages Options Table   

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

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

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

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

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



Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

2.    Draft District Plan

Type of Report:

Operational and Procedural

Legal Reference:

Resource Management Act 1991

Document ID:

1276250

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

For Council to endorse the release of the (non-statutory) Draft District Plan for the purpose of engaging with the community on its content.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Price

The Future Napier Committee endorsed that the report titled “Draft District Plan” be left to lie on the table for a future meeting with the reason being that officers would need to review the consequences of the legislative changes to the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020 released 11 February 2021.

Carried

 

 

2.2   Background Summary

Officers have conducted a series of seminars with Council over the last 12 months seeking confirmation of the preferred policy approach for provisions in the Draft District Plan. In line with the agreed framework, officers have been working on the detailed content of individual chapters.  The provisions are based on, and remain consistent with, the strategic direction for the Draft Plan agreed to at the start of the review process and as refined through the seminars.   

The content of the majority of the Draft Plan is now at a point sufficiently advanced for Council to consider endorsing the release of a Draft Plan to seek the views and feedback from the community as an informal process prior to legal notification of a Proposed District Plan.  The Draft District ePlan is available to view via the following link.

 https://napier.isoplan.co.nz/draft/

2.3   Issues

Given the magnitude of the District Plan review, not all chapters are complete.  A few work streams remain works in progress and will be reported through to Council prior to merging into the District Plan in advance of the formal notification of the Proposed District Plan, currently slated for early 2022.  These include, Sites of Significance to Māori, Review of Structure Plans, provisions relating to greenfield growth in the hills and changes arising from the soon to be developed Napier Spatial Plan, overland flow paths, financial contributions and Notice of Requirements for Council designations.     

Similarly, there are a few outstanding matters arising from stakeholder feedback which require Council confirmation of the policy approach for the Draft Plan relating to Significant Natural Areas and Heritage.  It is proposed to convene a workshop with Councillors to discuss a number of these topics, update where things are at and agree on how to manage engagement and feedback on the Draft District Plan and the process for moving to a formal Proposed Plan.  This workshop is scheduled for late January 2021.  

2.4   Significance and Engagement

The Draft Plan provides an opportunity for any interested party to lodge comments in an informal way prior to preparing a Proposed District Plan.  

The District Plan potentially impacts every person, business and property owner in Napier. A full review of the District Plan typically only occurs once every 10-15 years and provides a unique opportunity for the community to input their views into its development.

A high level communication and engagement plan is attached (Attachment A) and the detailed communication plan is being developed and will be available on our website once the plan is notified.

Mana whenua engagement has occurred since the plan inception and has followed the requirements and timeframes desired by each of the mana whenua entities.

2.5   Implications

Financial

There is currently budget set aside for the District Plan review and at this stage progress aligns with the budgetary expectations. Should additional funding be required separate application would be made to Council through the normal budgeting processes.

Social & Policy

The review is a rare opportunity for Council to ensure that the District Plan fully aligns with all of its current strategic priorities, plans and desired outcomes. Officers have endeavoured to align the regulatory provisions of the District Plan with these strategic priorities, plans and policies of Council.

Risk

The risk with this project is that should Council decide not to adopt an agreed Draft District Plan and release it for community feedback the only option for people to express their views would be to lodge submissions through the formal notification process.  This may disenfranchise some members of the community and increase the complexity and acrimony of the formal process.

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     Endorse the release of the Draft District Plan for the purpose of engaging with and receiving feedback from the community in an informal way.

b.     Not to endorse the release of the Draft District Plan and proceed directly towards a Proposed District Plan.

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is for Council to adopt the Draft District Plan for the purposes of undertaking consultation and engagement with the Napier community.

 

 

At the Meeting

Due to the release of legislative changes to the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020 on 11 February 2020 this item was withdrawn from the Agenda and would be addressed at a later when consideration by officers had been undertaken on how Council wished to consult on the Draft District Plan.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Napier District Plan Review – High Level Communication and Engagement Plan   

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

3.    Resource Consent Activity Update

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

Resource Management Act 1991

Document ID:

1278528

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

 

3.1   Purpose of Report

This report provides an update on recent resource consenting activity. The report is provided for information purposes only, so that there is visibility of major projects and an opportunity for elected members to understand the process.

Applications are assessed by delegation through the Resource Management Act (RMA); it is not intended to have application outcome discussions as part of this paper.

This report only contains information, which is lodged with Council and is publicly available.

 

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Chrystal

The Future Napier Committee:

a.     Note the resource consent activity update.

 

Carried

 

 

3.2   Background Summary

The legislated processing period for resource consents ended on 20 December 2020 and recommenced on 11 January 2021. Accordingly, the Resource Consent team has been able to utilize these non-processing days to advance active applications. Since the beginning of the year, the submission of applications has been steady.

The following is an outline of recent activity regarding applications received by Council for consenting pursuant to the RMA. This list does not detail all RMA applications under assessment or having been determined, rather provides detail around significant or noteworthy applications.

 

Summary Table*

Address

Proposal

Current Status

Update

2 Kenny Avenue, Ahuriri

Two Lot into Ten Lot Subdivision and Multi Unit Development

 

Under assessment

Additional detail provided below

62 Raffles Street, Napier

S127 Proposed variation to reduce imposed Financial Contributions

Under assessment

Previously reported to Future Napier Committee. No further update

16 and 38 Willowbank Avenue, Meeanee

Proposed lifestyle village

Application suspended

Previously reported to Future Napier Committee.
No further update

 

2 Kenny Avenue, Ahuriri – Two Lot into Ten Lot Subdivision and Multi Unit Development

In summary, the development proposes the construction of two terraces with each terrace comprising of 5 two storey dwellings. The site is proposed to be subdivided into ten lots, resulting in each dwelling to be situated on its own title.

Each road frontage will be addressed by one respective terrace. Access and egress for the site is proposed via Battery Road exclusively.

Figure 1. Perspective of Battery Road Frontage

 

Figure 2. Perspective of Kenny Avenue Frontage

 

The site is within the Northern Residential Zone and is subject to the Ahuriri Advocacy Heritage overlay of the Battery Road Character Area. The Advocacy Area classifies all built development within the advocacy area as a Group 3A heritage item, however as the site is vacant, there is no Group 3A classification that can be applied to the site.

.

Figure 3. Proposed Subdivision Layout

 

The proposed Lots will range in area from 164m² to 323m² with each individual proposed lot capable of providing useable open space areas. A schedule of party wall easements between terrace houses is detailed within the submitted scheme plan in addition to necessary easements for the provision of right of way vehicle access.

The relevant Council hazard overlays have been addressed through specialist reports submitted as part of the application.

Further information has been provided by the applicant with regard to stormwater capacity. This information has been referred to internal departments and is expected that the application is determined in due course. 

 

 

At the Meeting

The Director Infrastructure City Services, Mr Kingsford advised that in response to the review of green spaces within the city the District Plan Review needed to continue and that a review of spacial planning for the entire city would be undertaken in consultation with the community.  The spacial planning review would provide an understanding on issues, growth and development.

 

3.3   Attachments

Nil

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

 

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

Agenda Items

1.         Council Projects Fund - Application

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

1.         Council Projects Fund - Application

 

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

General subject of each matter to be considered.

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.

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

Agenda Items

1.  Council Projects Fund - Application

7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 11 February 2021

1.  Council Projects Fund - Application

7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

 


Māori Committee - 26 February 2021 - Open Agenda

 

 

Māori Committee

Open Minutes

 

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 9 December 2020

Time:

9.00am – 11.20am

Venue

Ikatere Boardroom
Level 2, Capeview
265 Marine Parade
Napier

 

 

Present

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha (In the Chair)

Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul

In Attendance

Director Community Services, Māori Partnership Manager – Community Services, Interim Chief Executive, James Lyver, Councillor Boag, Councillor Tapine, Councillor Mawson, Councillor McGrath, Director Infrastructure Services, Communications and Marketing Manager, Māori Partnership Manager – City Strategy, Manager Business Excellence & Transformation, Corporate Planning Lead, Corporate Planning Analyst, Manager Asset Strategy, Parks Policy Planner  

Administration

Governance Team

Absent

Napier City Council - Mayor Kirsten Wise

Pukemokimoki Marae

Mana Ahuriri Trust

Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū

 

 

Mihi Whakatau

The Mihi Whakatau was led by Mōrehu Te Tomo.

Karakia

Mōrehu Te Tomo

Apologies

The Committee accepted an apology from Mayor Kirsten Wise

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

C Tareha / A Taputoro

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2020 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

Kua Mana

 

 

Agenda Items

 

1.    Reserve Management Plan Approval to Proceed with Preparation

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Reserves Act 1977

Document ID:

1259154

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Sara Field, Parks Policy Planner

Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

 

To advise and update the Māori Committee on the impending Reserve Management Plan (RMP) review that is scheduled to commence in 2021.

 

The intention of this report is to advise the Māori Committee of the legislative procedure stipulated by the Reserves Act (1977) for the preparation of each Reserve Management Plan. The process includes details on mandated and optional consultation and engagement.

 

This report also seeks endorsement of the Māori Committee for the following:

 

·    The proposed Draft Reserve Management Plan Priority List – refer Attachment A;

 

·    The proposed internal process set out in Section 1.3 of this report and;

 

·    The intention to prepare Draft Reserve Management Plans (calling for suggestions) for a City Wide Plan, Taradale Park and Maraenui Park.

 

We bring this report to the Māori Committee to ensure that our proposed plan preparation approach and reporting process is clear, and appropriate, and continues to support effective engagement with Hapū and Iwi Authorities.

 

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report noting:

·        Council’s Reserve Management Plan was prepared in 2000, it incorporates all Napier reserves and is due for renewal.  Much has changed since this plan was written so the team are going to look at the plans for each reserve individually as many sights have unique elements which need to be considered on a case by case basis. 

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified that:

·        Council officers will be doing research into what co-governance models have worked around the country. As each existing plan is reviewed, or new plans are created, opportunities for co-governance with Mana Whenua can be explored. There are exemplars of co-governance models around the country which Council could draw on.

·        There will be bi-lingual signage put in place for the reserves, and the Committee can help with this by consulting with Mana Whenua to get advice on naming for reserves.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Māori Committee:

a.     Endorse the recommendation to proceed with the Reserve Management Plan review undertaking both the optional and mandated consultation and engagement for each Plan in accordance with Section 41 (5) and Section 41 (5) (c) of the Reserves Act (1977), and subsequently the internal process set out in Section 1.3 of this report.

b.     Endorse the draft priority list included in Attachment A, noting that subsequent to implementation of c. below, the Māori Committee will be asked to endorse Councils intention to prepare the next tranche of Management Plans (in accordance with the prioritised list)

c.     Endorse Councils intention to notify the preparation of the following Reserve Management Plans – City Wide, Taradale Reserve/Centennial Park, and Maraenui Park, calling for suggestions prior to drafting in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act (1977)

 

Māori Committee's Amended recommendation

A Taputoro / R Paul

The Māori Committee:

a.     Endorse the recommendation to proceed with the Reserve Management Plan review undertaking both the optional and mandated consultation and engagement for each Plan in accordance with Section 41 (5) and Section 41 (5) (c) of the Reserves Act (1977), and subsequently the internal process set out in Section 1.3 of this report.

b.     Endorse the draft priority list included in Attachment A, noting that subsequent to implementation of c. below, the Māori Committee will be asked to endorse Councils intention to prepare the next tranche of Management Plans (in accordance with the prioritised list)

c.     Endorse Councils intention to notify the preparation of the following Reserve Management Plans – City Wide, Taradale Reserve/Centennial Park, and Maraenui Park, calling for suggestions prior to drafting in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act (1977)

 

 

 

d.     Endorse Council Officers to investigate co-governance models around parks and reserves and look to where these could be applied.

e.     Recommend Council engage with Mana Whenua around the naming of parks and their history.

 

Kua Mana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.    Wastewater Outfall Repair Update

Type of Report:

Operational

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

1270124

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Drew Brown, Senior Project Manager

Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

Jon Kingsford, Director Infrastructure Services

Dave Jordison, Risk and Assurance Lead

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To provide the Māori Committee with an update on the Wastewater Outfall repair project.

 

At the Meeting

The Director Infrastructure Services spoke to the report and further noted:

·        The repair on the 700m leak is due to be completed by the end of this calendar year.

·        The Outfall will need replacement as soon as possible. As a result the piece of work will need to be brought forward into the 2021-31 Long Term Plan to access funding required.

·        A number of years work is required in the lead up to the Outfall being replaced.

·        It is anticipated with new regional and national regulations coming into force a higher quality of discharge will be required so consequently a higher standard of treatment will be required.

·        Divers have swept the full length of the pipe to look for any other leaks, in difficult ocean conditions. Visibility is poor and this was mostly done by touch.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

·        A trial shutdown of the Outfall has been conducted and it can only be shut down for up to 90 minutes without there being adverse effects.

·        Testing to assess the environmental impact of the leak has found the discharge is diluted significantly enough to become reasonably undetectable beyond a five meter radius from the leak site.

·        Notification about the 2018 leak was not done sooner as, in compliance with the resource consent, there was a Kaitiaki Liaison group formed to discuss any issues with the Outfall. Attempts to contact this group since the first leak was discovered have been mostly unsuccessful. There is a lot of consultation required around the central Government water reforms currently, so prioritising Council’s program of work against that backdrop has been a challenge. 

·        The Committee can help rally partners together for this consultation when appropriate.

·        Caution signs may be erected on the beach at main leak sites.

·        A submission has been made to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to legitimise the discharge of the leak in case the repair of the 700m leak is not successful in stopping the leak. This has been made on the basis that the environmental impacts are very low.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / A Taputoro

The Māori Committee:

a.     Receive the update on the Wastewater Outfall repair project.

 

Kua Mana

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updates from Partner Entities

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

·        Marae hui this weekend to discuss the construction of the forecourt in front of the wharenui and also a tikanga and kawa meeting. GEMCO have restarted the Marae rebuild. Construction is due to be complete by March or April 2021.

·        The following weekend is the Trust AGM hui. Also a Huia Hapu

·        Ngāti Pārau have partnered with the Ōtātara and Matariki kahui ako. Ōtātara kahui ako covers seven schools from Puketapu and Patoka to the Taradale schools, and the Matariki kahui ako covers Colenso High School to Te Aute College.

 

Maraenui and Districts Māori Committee – Adrienne Taputoro

 

·        The Committee has not had a chance to get together lately so there is no update to give.

 

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – James Lyver / Robbie Paul

 

·        With the recent flood in Napier MTT was able to utilise the Whanau Champions model again to contact whanau and make sure everyone was safe and had the help they needed.

·        A mihi was given to Mayor Kirsten Wise for her ‘Jacinda Adern’ style of leadership through the flood response, and also to Hori Reti for his ‘Ashley Bloomfield’ style of response to the emergency, and the Civil Defence staff.

·        James Lyver’s last day is Friday 18 December 2020. There will be an Interim General Manager at MTT until a permanent replacement can be found.

·        MTT is continuing to build the team and prioritise work.

·        A collective program has been formed, Whakatipu Ranga Kaitiaki program, where the seven hapū in Napier have come together to raise tomorrow’s guardians. This is a holistic whananga program based around the Northern and Southern Maraes with four themes. Funding is required. An application will be made to Council’s Te Puawaitanga fund.

 

Napier City Council – Keith Marshall on behalf of Mayor Kirsten Wise

 

·        Council is very busy right across the business and has resourcing challenges. The Long Term Plan creates pressure due to the amount of work required and also the auditing which is required as part of this process. This process has also been impacted by the recent Napier flooding and the new 3 waters reforms.

·        The Government will be doing a roadshow around the country in March or April 2021 to educate about the 3 waters reforms.

·        The Chief Executive recruitment is underway and Chad has been involved as part of that process.


 

Update from Council Māori Advisor

Mōrehu Te Tomo – Māori Partnership Manager – Community Services

 

·        Been at Council a year now, and it has been a busy year.

·        The Councillors are learning a karakia for opening and closing meetings. This has had good support from Council’s Senior Leadership Team.

·        The last Council induction of new staff for the year has just occurred. Moving into next year the desire is to include a pōwhiri as part of the induction process.

·        Mōrehu continues to work closely with the other four Councils in the region. They have received the beta version of the Council Cultural App to test over the Christmas break before it gets rolled out to all Council staff.

·        Mōrehu and Charles have had a change of role titles which gives them a more significant status in the business.

·        Council is currently in the process of recruiting a Pou Whakarae – Director Maori Partnerships role which will sit at the Senior Leadership Team level in the organisation.

·        Work continues on developing the Cultural Capability staff survey.

·        Applications have started coming in from individuals in the community for the three new Māori Committee seats. The process to choose who is suitable for one of these places needs to be clarified.

 

General business

Flood Update

·        The Napier flood occurred a month ago. Malcolm Smith lead the response initially until Antoinette Campbell, Civic Defence Emergency Controller, returned from leave. There are approximately 130 uninhabitable dwellings in Napier. Some families have been able to find their own temporary accommodation. There are about 159 people in temporary accommodation at Kennedy Park Resort.

·        Responsibility for the temporary accommodation lies with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but Council staff continue to support people, especially those without insurance, in conjunction with other agencies such as the Red Cross, Ministry of Social Development and the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group. There is a contractor employed to provide navigation needs to the displaced until the end of 2020.

·        It has not been a coordinated approach from Government agencies, and as a result there are hard hit areas which have been neglected and unhappy residents.

·        Conversations and plans need to be in place before these big events occur.

·        A Mayoral Relief fund has been created by Council, and it is a simple application process for residents, either via the Council website or through the Customer Services Centre.

·        The Committee would like to be involved in the Council debrief. 

·        The Committee thank the Mayor for her work through the response.

 

Māori Seats

·        James would like the Committee to be updated as to what has been discussed previously by the Council in regards to Māori seats in Napier City. This is a current topic in the media and central Government are looking at making some changes in regards to this in the Local Government Act 2002.

·        The last representation review was about three years ago and the Māori Consultative Committee of the time didn’t think Napier was ready for Māori seats.

 

Meeting Cycle

·        From 2021 the Māori Committee is going to be fully integrated into the Council six week meeting cycle.

 

Long Term Plan Update

·        A presentation was delivered by the Long Term Plan team (attached to the minutes).

·        The draft of Te Waka Rangapū still requires work. This is the first time Council has created an activity plan where work on Māori partnerships and embedding Kaupapa Māori are planned and budgeted for, and there are not many exemplars in Local Government to draw on. This plan will sweep across Council and the staff Cultural Capability survey results will feed into this plan. Once the draft is complete it will be shared with the Committee.

 

Whakamutunga Karakia

 

Mōrehu Te Tomo

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 



[1] Ataria, J. et al: He Moemoea mō Te Whanganui-a-Orotū: A Vision Plan and Health Assessment for the Napier Estuary retrieved from http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/sites/default/files/Research%20Report%20-%20Napier%20Estuary.pdf