Agenda of Sustainable Napier Committee - Thursday, 11 February 2021

Sustainable Napier Committee - 11 February 2021 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

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 9^th 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.

Officer’s Recommendation

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.

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:

o Harris Stand 52%

o Chapman Stand & Pavilion 62%

o 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.

1.8 Attachments

Nil

Sustainable Napier Committee - 11 February 2021 - Open Agenda Item 2

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.

Officer’s Recommendation

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 at Awatoto (or such other site deemed suitable).

c. Approve the commissioning of a business case investigation as to whether the chosen site or method of operation is viable, and to seek appropriate costings and potential funding streams for this proposal.

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:

o Diversion of cardboard to a fibre recycler;

o Diversion of tyres, to a processor;

o Diversion of greenwaste to a compost facility;

o 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.

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 ⇩

Sustainable Napier Committee - 11 February 2021 - Open Agenda Item 3

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.

Officer’s Recommendation

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).

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

3.8 Attachments

Nil

Sustainable Napier Committee - 11 February 2021 - Open Agenda Item 4

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).

Officer’s Recommendation

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).

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 10and 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 10^th, 11^th and 12^th 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

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
Distribution zone name	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
Service Request category	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

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 1^st July 2019 to 30^th 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 1^st 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

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. ⇩

Sustainable Napier Committee - 11 February 2021 - Open Agenda

Sustainable Napier Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:

Thursday 3 December 2020

Time:

10.00am-12.40pm; Reconvened at 3.40pm-3.43pm

3.43pm – 4.15pm

Venue

Large Exhibition Hall

War Memorial Centre
Marine Parade
Napier

Present	Mayor Wise, Councillor Price (In the Chair), Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright
In Attendance	Interim Chief Executive Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson), Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell) Water Strategy Manager (Cath Bayley) Manager Asset Strategy (Debra Stewart) Manager Design and Projects (James Mear) Manager Environmental Solutions (Cameron Burton) Manager Regulatory Solutions (Rachael Horton) Team Leader Transportation (Robin Malley) Team Leader 3 Waters (Santha Agas) Water Quality Lead (Anze Lencek) Māori Partnership Manager (Morehu Thompson) Team Leader Planning & Compliance (Luke Johnson)
Public Forum:	Chair, Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust - Craig Waterhouse Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) - Chris Collins
Also Presemt:	Item 1 · Councillor Damon Harvey (HDC) · Group Manager Asset Management (HBRC) (Chris Dolley) Item 8 · Members of the Taradale Bridge Club
Administration	Governance Team

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Public forum

Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) - Chris Collins together with the EIT Capital Planner, Dick Hilton displayed a powerpoint presentation (Attachment A) supporting the Pettigrew Green Arena (PGA) expansion project and make land available.

The Resource Consent was for 280 replacement carparks at PGA and reserve land and they considered it impractical to position the EIT carparks over half a kilometre from campus.

The carparking option over the stopbank did not impact on community Reserve “green” park-land space. Although flooding of the identified area was very rare EIT monitor the area very carefully due to EIT’s stormwater infrastructure flowing into the Tutaekuri River and there had been no flooding of this area in over 25 years.

Discussion and questions highlighted the following points:

· EIT have undertaken to provide a small portion of EIT land to enable the facility to be expanded upon condition that the carparking is in close promixity to the EIT campus.

· There were two options for locating the carpark on Council owned Riverside Reserve or locating the carpark over the stopbank on Hawke’s Bay Regional Council owned land.

· It was considered impractical to put a carpark half a kilometre from the EIT campus and therefore the stopbank option for parking was preferred.

· The EIT Board were keen to support this project and progress.

· EIT and agreement was contingent on the stopbank option being agreed upon.

· Carpark maintenance and responsibility would totally be the responsibility of the PGA.

· EIT and the PGA have an agreement that carparking can be utilised when required by either entity.

· As with any carpark it is the owner’s responsibility. However, there would be cameras, but may not be monitored.

Chair, Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust - Craig Waterhouse displayed a powerpoint presentation (Attachment B) providing an overview of the Pettigrew Green Arena (PGA) expansion investment in the future wellbeing for the youth of Hawke’s Bay.

· The hybrid and carpark at the end of the expanded arena could be a showstopper for the project which had Government funding of $6.4. and funding from Council of $4.1m.

· The cons was the increased risk of flooding in a one in five year event, higher costs because of flood clean up and repairs and that the pump track may have to be moved.

Discussion and questions highlighted the following points:

· Building the carpark by the stopbank would allow for long term expansion of the PGA.

· An engineered access road designed by experts would consider the impact on the river flow, cyclists on stop bank and protection of the stop bank

· A detailed report and design was being undertaken by a traffic engineer to consider gradient, width and sight of the access way up to and down from the stop bank. This included flows of traffic in and out of the site.

· Security would be controlled by PGA securing the car park outside of hours and in high water levels.

· Security cameras would be added to the existing PGA system.

· The use of solar lighting both in the car park and from of the buildings would be installed.

· The resource consent application would have to be submitted before Christmas and have the consent approved by February 2021.

· The project was due to commence in March 2021 and there were huge requirements to keep the $6.4m grant going.

· The carpark would be eco-friendly and secure.

· Increase entrance to PGA with an additional exit.

· Geotechnical investigation would be undertaken for the resource consent.

· The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council met on 2 December 2020 to discuss the PGA expansion but have deferred decision making to the meeting on 16 December 2020.

Announcements by the Mayor

Mayor Wise acknowledged and congratulated the Hawke’s Bay Magpies and Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union for winning the Mitre 10 Championship.

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Councillors Boag / Mawson

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2020 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Agenda Items

1. Pettigrew Green Arena expansion: Location of car-parking

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1263766
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide information to inform inter-council decisions around the preferred location of the car-parking for the Pettigrew Green Arena expansion.

At the Meeting

The Manager Sport and Recreation, Mr Lucas acknowledged and thanked Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), Chris Collins Chair, Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust, Craig Waterhouse for their presentations and the attendance of Group Manager Asset Management (HBRC) (Chris Dolley).

Mr Lucas advised that the Pettigrew Green Arena (PGA) had plans to expand their facility and Council had committed $4.1m and funding from the Government of $6.4m to the project. In order to proceed a decision was required on the location of the carpark. There were three options available; Council riverside reserve; over the stopbank on Hawke’s Bay Regional Council owned land or a hybrid of the two options – part located in the NCC reserve and part across the stopbank on HBRC land.

Agreement between Napier City Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was required in order to obtain consent to provide directionto PGA/RISEC of the location of the carpark..

Discussion and questions highlighted the following points:

· The stopbank option was the best for servicing the arena it also carried a greater risk of flooding.

· The Pettigrew Green Arena has undertaken to be responsible for all asset renewal costs.

· EIT foundation partner of the PGA have agreement of reciprocal carparking.

· Application for resource consent deadline was 16 December 2020. The next Council meeting was scheduled for 17 December 2020.

· A geotechnical report and the stability of the carpark would come back to Council.

· Overall timeframes for project if resource consent was not issued in time required and construction date what risks are there

· The funding agreement stipulates the start date for construction and includes very clear deadlines.

· If the Resource Consent is not secured and takes longer there is the risk that funds may have to be repaid. At this stage it would be paying out more than the funding that has been received a this time.

· Timeframes for the resource consent are very tight but are tracking well. Prior to the final decision a lot of work was being undertaken.

· At the HBRC Corporate and Strategic Committee on 2 December 2020 no decision was made on the location of the carpark. That Committee had requested additional information on how the project was supported by Council values and this would be reported at the HBRC meeting on 16 December 2020.

· It was unrealistic to engage with multiple parties less than two weeks to process the consent.

· The Resource Consent requires provision of a carpark and certain number of carparks prior to consent being granted.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Price / Taylor

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the assessment of the three options for siting the car-parking, and endorse the removal of the hybrid option from consideration.

b. Approve the location of the carpark over the stopbank on Hawke’s Bay Regional Council land as the preferred option.

c. Note the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) conditions for provision of EIT land required for the project to proceed.

d. Resolve to commence discussions with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (and EIT) to provide direction to Pettigrew Green Arena.

Carried

2. Report on NCC's Drinking Water Supply Implementation Audit

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Drinking Water Standards 2005/18 and Health Act
Document ID:	1261446
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Catherine Bayly, Manager Asset Strategy Anze Lencek, Water Quality Lead

2.1 Purpose of Report

To inform the Council on the outcome of Council’s recent Water Supply Implementation Audit undertaken during 22 to 24 September 2020 by the Hawkes Bay District Health Board’s Drinking Water Assessor (DWA). Following the audit an audit report was compiled called ‘Final Report on Implementation of a Drinking-water Supply’s Water Safety Plan’. This report outlines the process undertaken, its outcomes and NCC’s actions to be taken in order to close the report out.

At the Meeting

Water Quality Lead, Mr Lencek summarised the process undertaken and actions to be taken by Council in regard to the “Implementation of a Drinking Water Supply’s Water Plan”.

Discussion and questions highlighted the following points:

· Common factors across the report was due to insufficient funding, inability to recruit or both.

· Automated systems will soon be in place for automated information sharing from the lab and a new Asset Management system is to be implemented in the first half of 2021.

· In the past a number of processes and lack of tools had been an underlying issue which is slowly being resolved as resourcing allows.

· The new system next year would include automated monitoring .

· Not legally binding by NCC. Already addressed some risk – to make water compliance robust early next year.

· Combination of antiquated systems and operations and looking forward this would change, having learned things from the report and a desire now to make things more visible.

· The assessor was positive in the continuous improvement process. Non conformance was not a public safety or network. Capacity to maintain and follow procedures as prescribed and staff needed to address those shortcomings.

· Water assessor favourable in the way staff were managing the chlorine system with very clear good practices in staff.

· Batches of chlorine had lost 1/3 of effectiveness due during transition. To mitigate this affect the supplier has been changed to a New Zealand based product and would be stored at the Depot.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Wright

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Endorse:

i. The Final Report on Implementation of a Drinking-water Supply’s Water Safety Plan Report

Carried

3. Lease of Reserve - Pelega O Matua Fanau Charitable Trust

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1136255
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

3.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval for a ground lease with Pelega O Matua Fanau Charitable Trust for the land occupied by the Early Childhood Education Centre on the Riverbend Road Reserve.

At the Meeting

Manager Asset Strategy, Ms Stewart spoke to the report and advised that processes would be more robust for the future to prevent buildings be built on Council reserve.

The Childcare Centre was currently reliant on the good will of the Church for access

across their land. The Trust have been provided with a draft lease document to consider and advised them that they must negotiate with the Church elders for access as this is not a Council matter.

ACTION

Legitimise access through the Church and officers facilitate those discussions.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Recommend that Council enter into a ground lease, pursuant to Section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977, with Pelega O Matua Fanau Charitable Trust for the land occupied by the Early Childhood Education Centre on the Riverbend Road Reserve between Riverbend Road and Latham Street for a term of ten years with a five year right of renewal.

Carried

4. Projects Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1263466
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	James Mear, Manager Design and Projects

4.1 Purpose of Report

To provide Council with information on Capital Programme Delivery.

At the Meeting

Manager Design and Projects, Mr Mear introduced the report on its first presentation to Council.

Manager Asset Strategy, Ms Bayly, provided an update on key projects that had been asked about at the previous Sustainable Napier Committee.

The update included:

· Chlorine Free Review – the initial report has been received and the report and costs are being reviewed internally and peer reviewed externally. A paper will come to Council next year.

· Lagoon Farm – provision for stormwater storage has been allocated in the next LTP budget.

· Waterways planting – four examples were provided including 6,800 plants that had been planted at the head of the Taipo.

· Tradewaste Bylaw – looking to be implemented by Mid 2021.

At the Meeting

Manager Design and Projects, Mr Mear introduced the report on its first presentation to Council.

Manager Asset Strategy, Ms Bayly, provided an update on key projects that had been asked about at the previous Sustainable Napier Committee.

The update included:

· Chlorine Free Review – the initial report has been received and the report and costs are being reviewed internally and peer reviewed externally. A paper will come to Council next year.

· Lagoon Farm – provision for stormwater storage has been allocated in the next LTP budget.

· Waterways planting – four examples were provided including 6,800 plants that had been planted at the head of the Taipo.

· Tradewaste Bylaw – looking to be implemented by Mid 2021.

· Pandora Industrial Main – the final consultant’s report has been received and staff are reviewing the options prior to itemising project budgets into the LTP.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Tapine / Wright

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

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

Carried

5. Annual Environmental Report Submission to HBRC - Discharge of Stormwater to Ahuriri Estuary (Westshore Tidal Gates)

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1264429
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

5.1 Purpose of Report

This paper is to inform the Sustainable Napier Committee that the 2019-2020 annual report for the Westshore Tidal Gates stormwater and drainage water discharge to the Ahuriri Estuary, as required by Resource Consent, has been provided to Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

At the Meeting

Manager Environmental Solutions, Mr Burton spoke to his report advising that the 2019-2020 annual report for the discharge of stormwater and drainage water from the Napier City urban and surrounding rural land to the Westshore Tidal Gates had been submitted to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and that this report demonstrated full compliance with consent conditions. The Taiapo Stream and Pandora Central Districts were not included.

It was considered that the conditions in the present consent did not adequately capture the required information on the water quality of both stormwater and dry weather flows flowing into the Ahuriri Estuary via the Westshore Tidal Gates.

Mr Burton advised that the new consent for 2020-2021 had been drafted with very stringent conditions to enable a more comprehensive monitoring programme Current monitoring activities met the requirements of both the expired consent and the proposed consent.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Browne / Tapine

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the annual report for the discharge of stormwater from the Westshore Tidal Gates has been submitted to the Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

Carried

6. Annual Environmental Report Submission to HBRC Discharge of Wastewater into Hawke Bay

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1264438
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

6.1 Purpose of Report

This paper is to inform the Sustainable Napier Committee the 2019-2020 annual report for the discharge of wastewater into Hawke Bay has been submitted to Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

At the Meeting

The Manager Environmental Solutions, Mr Burton advised that the annual environmental report had been submitted to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on the discharge of wastewater into Hawke Bay.

The activity of discharging treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean in Hawke Bay via the marine outfall was overall largely compliant for the reporting period. However, there were two seepages in the pipeline at approximately 700 metres and 640 metres offshore.

Napier City Council has been working towards implementing a solution and carrying out additional monitoring to assess the effects of the seepages.

There had been high Total Suspended Solids loads over the reporting period which appeared to be originating from industry. Officers have been in regular dialogue with industry to reiterate the discharge requirements of their tradewaste consents. Continued work towards a solution to reinstate the Pandora Industrial Pumping Main has been undertaken by Beca Consultants.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Chrystal / Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the 2019-2020 annual report for the discharge of wastewater into Hawke Bay has been submitted to the Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

Carried

7. Annual Environmental Report Submission to HBRC - Discharge into Ahuriri Estuary (Thames & Tyne Waterways)

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1264439
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

7.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this paper is to summarise to the Sustainable Napier Committee the 2019-2020 annual report for the discharge of the Thames & Tyne Waterways in the Pandora Industrial Area into Ahuriri Estuary.

At the Meeting

The Manager Environmental Solutions, Mr Burton provided a summary of the annual report to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on its consent to discharge untreated stormwater from the combined Thames and Tyne Stormwater Streams into the lower Ahuriri Estuary. The Thames and Tyne waterways were well mixed tidally driven streams.

He advised that both Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council had attended a series of industrial pollution events in the Pandora catchment.

Routine and investigative environmental monitoring would continue to develop and change for the protection of the wider Ahuriri Estuary.

While improvements continued to be made physically and socially within the Thames-Tyne network and catchment it was recognised that there was still significant work to be done in Pandora and across Napier City to rehabilitate the urban waterways in order to assist the recovery of the Ahuriri Estuary.

A new bylaw and new consenting standard would be coming out and there was already a scientist appointed to the team of three.

Councillor Brown withdrew from the meeting at 12.14pm.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Wright

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the 2019-2020 annual report for the discharge of the Thames & Tyne urban waterways into Ahuriri Estuary has been submitted to the Hawkes Bay Regional Council on July 31, 2020.

Carried

Councillor Tapine withdrew from the meeting at 12.16pm.

Councillor Brown rejoined the meeting at 12.17pm.

8. Taradale Bridge Club Park Island Proposal

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1258820
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

Councillor Tapine rejoined the meeting at 12.19pm.

8.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to provide an update on the Taradale Bridge Club plans to locate their facility at Park Island and seek support from Council to allow them to proceed with their proposal to locate their facility at Park Island near the Central Football building rather than as part of shared facility in the Northern Sports Hub.

At the Meeting

Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds, Ms Stewart spoke to the report and advised that the Taradale Bridge Club sought approval from Council to build Clubrooms at park Island adjacent to the Central Football Federation Building.

There was currently carparking in the form of metal/grass immediately south of the proposed building that has a barrier arm in place and this would provide sufficient parking for members of the Bridge Club.

The Community organisation were congratulated on the effort that they have put into this proposal.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Wright

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Approve that the Taradale Bridge Club be allowed to locate their new facility adjacent to the building occupied by Central Football, subject to detailed design being approved by Council Officers, an appropriate lease being entered into and all necessary building and resource consents being obtained by the Taradale Bridge Club.

b. Agree that Officers work with the Taradale Bridge Club to finalise the proposal and the details of this proposal be reported back to Council when the lease is reported for approval the lease.

Carried

9. Rotary Club of Ahuriri 50th Anniversary Project, Spriggs Park

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1259362
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

9.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council to allow the Rotary Club of Ahuriri to proceed with the development of a “sit and stay” area at Spriggs Park in Ahuriri.

At the Meeting

The Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportgrounds, Ms Stewart spoke to the report advising that the cost of the project was estimated to be $60,500.00. The Rotary Club would like a contribution towards the cost of the project from Council of $23 000.00. There was no funding set aside for this project within existing reserves budgets and the Rotary Club would undertake the full cost if Council could not contribute.

Feedback from the community had indicated they would like barbeques to be installed as had been undertaken on the Marine Parade and Anderson Park. Responsibility for maintenance of the area once operational would be Councils.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors McGrath / Browne

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Approve the proposal by the Rotary Club of Ahuriri to develop a “sit and stay” area at Spriggs Park which will include seating, shade, hard surface and an electric barbeque.

Carried

10. Rotary Club of Taradale 60th Anniversay Project, Taradale Park

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1261403
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

10.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council to allow the Rotary Club of Taradale to proceed with the installation of seats and a shade sail at Taradale Park as part of their 60^th Anniversary celebrations.

At the Meeting

The Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportgrounds, Ms Stewart advised that the estimated cost for the project, which included a shade sail structure, cycle racks, picnic tables and seats to be $22,500. No barbeque had been requested but could possibly be included in the future.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Crown

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Approve the proposal by the Rotary Club of Taradale to proceed with the installation of seats and tables, cycle racks and a shade sail at Taradale Park.

Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.40pm

and reconvened at 3.40pmPUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

Councillors Chrystal / McGrath

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

1. Pandora Industrial Tradewaste Main Update

2. Hawkes Bay Rugby Deed 2016 Update

Carried

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.

1. Pandora Industrial Tradewaste Main Update

7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

7(2)(b)(i) Protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret

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

7(2)(c)(ii) Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest

7(2)(d) Avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public

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.

2. Hawkes Bay Rugby Deed 2016 Update

7(2)(g) Maintain legal professional privilege

The meeting moved to Public Excluded Session at 3.43pm

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT A - Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) Presentation

ATTACHMENT B - Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust

Committee Members	Mayor Wise, Councillor Price (In the Chair), Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright
Officers Responsible	Director Infrastructure Services, Director City Strategy
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Sustainable Napier Committee Meeting Thursday 25 March 2021

Meeting Date:	Thursday 11 February 2021
Time:	10.00am
Venue:	Large Exhibition Hall Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier