Meeting Date:

Thursday 11 March 2021

Time:

10.00am

Venue:

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

Council Members

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor, Wright

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive

Administrator

Governance Team

Next Council Meeting

Thursday 8 April 2021

At the Meeting

Mr Twemlow, National Manager for Aon New Zealand displayed a powerpoint presentation (Attachment A) providing an overview of Insurance Market and Trends; Local Market Conditions; Cost of Natural Disasters; Shared Procurement; Insurance Strategy and Emerging Risks.

It was noted that it would be prudent to increase the insurance excess from $10,000 to $100,000 thereby reducing premiums.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

i.      Receive the verbal presentation from Aon Insurance

At the Meeting

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson advised that 27 applications for rates relief had been received following the flood event of 9 November 2020.  There were a  further 16 applications pending Builiding Officers checking to see if they were eligible.

The Director Infrastructure Services, Mr Kingsford updated the Committee on the flood event of 9 November 2020.  Currently there were 141 people in units at the Kennedy Park Resort who had been displaced for a longer term. They were the ones that Council were aware of as there would be a number of flood affected in particular private residences that would not have necessarily been reported through to Council.

Large parts of Napier's water system were only built to deal with a one-in-five-year rain event - this year's was a one-in-250-year deluge.

Napier had not been able to upgrade all of its systems since new regulations came into force in the 1990s.

Napier experienced an event far beyond what Council’s network had the capacity to deal with so there was no way the infrastructure would have been able to cope with a one-in-250 year event.

The Centennial Hall at McLean Park would require new flooring and there was other work that could be undertaken at the same time however, currently there was  no funding allocated.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the update on the Napier flood event/Civil Defence Emergency, 9 November 2020.

At the Meeting

Director Infrastructure Services, Mr Kingsford updated the meeting on the progress of the repairs to the outfall.  It was envisaged that the repairs would be completed by the end of the year.  Discussion with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council would be held in regard to the deadlines for completion of the work.

Mr Kingsford advised that the 700m leak was still leaking due to previous unknown elements of past repair attempts.  This has meant repair concepts have continually had to be adapted to find a solution.  The pipe will be grouted to seal off the pipe. Divers  were back on site now and preparing the site again for this repair while final fabrication was  being undertaken.  Communication with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has been undertaken throughout the process. 

Work undertaken to date was $750,000 and it was expected based on timeframes that this would be doubled within budget. It cost $36,000 per day for the boat to go out and work was dependant on condition.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

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

At the Meeting

The Manager People and Capability, Ms Matkin spoke to the report, highlighting the following:

·     One lost time injury when city cleaner broke ankle on Marine Parade

·     One suspected back strain at Kennedy Park. 

·     There were 29 incidents involving employees across Council.

·     There was one injury to a contractor which only necessitated two days off work.

·     12 workers during quarter had been added to the asbestos register which was attributed to change of regulations.

It was noted during the meeting that vinyl t being removed from buildings due to the flood event on 9 November 2020 may have asbestos issues.  This could be an issue with Council owned buildings and Ms Matkin undertook to check Council properties and whether they had asbestos.

Ms Matkin also advised that staff that had been impacted by the flood and displaced to Kennedy Park were being given support where needed.

Committee's recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive the Health and Safety report as at 31 December 2018

At the Meeting

Manager Business Excellence and Transformation, Ms Klingender spoke to the report advising that a review of current risks had highlighted a number of areas for improvement.

A Regional Risk Group had been established, including representation from Napier City Council, Hawkes Bay Regional Council and Hastings District Council, to promote a consistent approach risk management including common terminology.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the Risk Management Report December 2020

b.     Note the Risk Management work being undertaken

c.     Note the current high and extreme risks

d.     Note the emerging risks

At the Meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the 30 September 2020 quarterly report of Sensitive Expenditure for the Mayor and Chief Executive and review for compliance with the Sensitive Expenditure Policy.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the snapshot report on Napier City Council’s Investment and Debt as at 31 October 2020.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Committee's recommendation

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the proposed timetable of meetings for the Audit and Risk Committee for 2021.

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

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.

Māori Committee's Amended 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)

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.

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

The Māori Committee:

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

Māori Committee's recommendation

The Māori Committee:

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

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive the Hawke's Bay Airport Ltd Annual Report 2020.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive the report and confirm it as being a record of direction setting for the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive for information the unconfirmed minutes of the following Joint Committees meetings held on:

4 December 2020     Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee

4 December 2020     Joint Waste Futures Project Committee

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.

Committee's recommendation

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.

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.

Committee'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.

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.

Committee'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.

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.

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.

Committee'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).

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.

Committee'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).

Meeting adjourned at 12.11pm

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.

Committee's recommendation

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

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

At the Meeting

Mr Charteris from the Giblin Group Limited displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc ID 1291852) 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) financially unsustainable

·     There was a case for change – businesses felt they did not know who was leading and go for different services, than those on offer currently.

·     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 through co-design better meet the needs of Māori development aspiriations.

·     Proposed form, functions and funding need to be determined.

·     Matariki – governance, impact framework, and resourcing – the review was not about Matariki but some things around Matariki delivery could be improved.

It was noted that Business Hawke’s Bay did not currently have Iwi representation on the Board, noting requests have been made to provide a representative.  A new Board would aspire Councils, Iwi, Crown Partners and expert representation.

Committee's recommendation

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.

At the Meeting

The impact of proposed legislative changes to the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020 on 11 February 2020 on the process of notifying the draft District Plan have not been considered as part of this agenda item due to timing.

Committee's recommendation

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.

At the Meeting

Committee's recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a.     Note the resource consent activity update.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

Receive the report for Documents Executed under Seal for the period 23 November 2020 – 12 February 2021.

Date

Document

Presenting Officer

27/11/2020

Sewer Easement Instrument – 4 Lodge Road

Richard Munneke

10/12/2020

Surrender of Easement Instrument, Partial Surrender of Easement and new easement 12/20 Oriel Place

Colin Hunt

 10/12/2020

Client A&I for sale of 19 Carnegie Road Onekawa

Jenny Martin

10/12/2020

Transfer Instrument sale of 19 Carnegie Road Onekawa

Jenny Martin

10/12/2020

Lease Instrument 23 Ford Road, Onekawa

Jenny Martin

10/12/2020

Client A&I for sale of 25 Cadbury Road, Onekawa

Jenny Martin

10/12/2020

Transfer instrument 25 Cadbury Road, Onekawa

Jenny Martin

14/12/2020

New Land Covenant Instrument over Stage 6 on Plan 551125

Sophie Elliott

14/12/2020

Agreement to Grant Easement – Nelson Park/Nelson Park School

Jenny Martin

14/12/2020

Surrender of Easement, Partial Surrender of Easement and new Easement Instrument 12/20 Oriel Place

Colin Hunt

14/12/2020

Lease of Reserve Magnet Café

Jenny Martin

22/12/2020

Easement instrument 83 Hillary Crescent

Colin Hunt

22/12/2020

Lease of Reserve – Central Football Fderation

Jenny Martin

24/12/2020

Easement Instrument – 11 West Place

Colin Hunt

14/01/2021

Renewal of Lease – Napier Community Child Care Centre 52 Vautier Street, Napier

Jenny Martin

19/01/2021

Transfer Instrument – 29 Austin Street, Onekawa

Jenny Martin

02/02/2021

Transfer Instrument - Freeholding 27 Austin Street

Jenny Martin

03/02/2021

Land Covenant on Lots 1, 7, 8 – Laneways ex Ahuriri Bowling Club

Richard Munneke

05/02/2021

Transfer Instrument – freeholdng 9B, 9D, 9E Riddell Street

Jenny Martin

10/02/2021

Easement Instrument – 2 Savage Crescent, Napier

Colin Hunt

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive the Tenders Let report for the period 23 November 2020 – 12 February   2021.

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.  Joint Committee Public Excluded Minutes - Omarunui Refuse Landfill 4 December 2020

7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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.  LGFA Membership Documents

7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

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.

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine and Taylor

In Attendance

Interim Chief Executive

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson),

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell) 

Director Infrastructure Services (Jon Kingsford)

Director City Strategy (Richard Munneke)

Director City Services (Lance Titter)

Manager Communications and Marketing (Craig Ogborn)

Māori Partnership Manager (Morehu Thompson)

Public Forum

Tamatea Intermediate School

Principal Joanna Smith;  Israel Shields and Taea Southwick (Head Boy and Girl); Zac Chinpyn and Cadence Moore (Deputy Head Boy and Girl)

Theresa O’Brien, Ngarino Te Waati (Beez) and Joseph (Fish) Rariwi

Administration

Governance Team

Council resolution

That the apology from Councillors Mawson and Wright be accepted.

Council resolution

That the Draft Minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on 19 November 2020 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

At the meeting

Representatives from the Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited were unavailable to present the Annual Report and it was agreed that this item be brought back to the next Council meeting in 2021.

Council resolution

That Council agreed to lay on the table the Hawke's Bay Airport Limited Annual Report 2020 until the next 2021 Council meeting.

At the meeting

The Interim Chief Executive, Mr Marshall advised that expressions of interest had been advertised and six applications had been received.  The applications had been shared with the Māori Committee and the process would be progressed in January 2021.

It was noted that the letters “AEIOU” in the Terms of Reference were a placeholder for Ngā Matapono (Values) to be determined.

Council resolution

That Council:

a.     Approve the amended Māori Committee draft Terms of Reference (Doc Id 127513) to provide for three additional community representatives from the Ahuriri Māori community.

At the meeting

It was noted that unconfirmed minutes from Joint Committees would now come through together as one Agenda Item.  The meetings held on 4 December 2020 for the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee and Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee would be included in the Council meeting in 2021.

Council resolution

That Council receive for information the unconfirmed minutes of the

following Joint Committees:

·         31 August 2020 Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee (Doc ID: 1264924)

·         11 September 2020 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Transport Committee (1271606)

·         16 October 2020  Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (File Ref: 1268101)

At the meeting

It was noted that at the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council meeting held on 16 December 2020  they were unanimous in supporting Napier City Council’s option for the carpark to be located over the stopbank.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a.     Endorse:

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

At the meeting

It was noted that the Property and Facilities Officer, Ms Martin had discussed with the Trust the contract document and clarified issues.  The problem arose with the Early Childhood Centre being built on Council Reserve land and not identified as Council Lease.  The Trust would need to erect a fence and are prepared to do this.  Overall they were happy with the situation.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion.

Council resolution

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

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

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

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.

At the meeting

Circulated at the meeting was an updated “Gambling Venues Policy Review 2020 Statement of Proposal” which included minor changes with reference to “preferred option” being amended to read “proposed” as a result of the Future Napier Committee meeting held on 3 December 2020. 

The following points were highlighted:

·         Alter cap as a change either by policy or market demand - the existing use was 298 machines. 

·         The purpose of the policy was to curb the  growth of gambling in the district and what was permitted.

·         Move to cap to 298 and retain the rest of policy.

·         Option 4 allow relocations but not allowing merges.

·         Included in the first line of the Proposal that “We want to know if you think the reduced cap policy strikes an appropriate balance between…

·         Final line in reasons for proposal change to “Council want to hear if you think this policy strikes the right balance…

·          Reduced cap for proposal happy for other proposed changes to be made.

·         Venue reduction and venue change with no reduced number machines does not reduce gambling or spend. Would like the community to tell Council how to reduce harm differently rather than just reduce gaming numbers.

·         Would not like to increase gaming machine numbers back to 320.

Committee's recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a.     Note the information relating to the review of Council’s Gambling Venues Policy.

b.     Endorse the review process including approach to consultation as set out in the Significance and Engagement section.

c.     Approve the Statement of Proposal for public notification through the Special Consultative Procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act.

Council resolution

Substantive Motion

That Council:

a.     Note the information relating to the review of Council’s Gambling Venues Policy.

b.     Endorse the review process including approach to consultation as set out in the Significance and Engagement section.

c.     Approve the Statement of Proposal for public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act, subject to the following changes:

i.      That the proposed option for consultation is number two, reduced cap policy, with the removal of the suggestion that relocation and mergers are also removed from the policy.

ii.     That the first sentence of “The Proposal” section of the Statement of Proposal should read:

        Council is reviewing its existing policy (2017) known as a cap policy.  We want to know if you think the reduced cap policy strikes an appropriate balance between…

iii.    The final sentence of the reasons for proposal should read:

               Council want to hear if you think this policy strikes the right balance…

At the meeting

Circulated at the meeting was an Updated Map included in the “Location of Approved Psychoactive Substance Sales Points Policy Review 2020 Statement of Proposal”.

The following points were highlighted:

·         The updated map shows location points of psychoactive substances which are restricted to the Inner City Commercial Zone.

·         Not permitted within 100 metres of any existing area where vulnerable or sensitive sections of our community congregate.

·         Legislative overlap has taken out substances in New Zealand, however the requirement for Councils to have a policy remains.

·         It was suggested that at the next Local Government New Zealand Conference a remit to remove this requirement as no approved substances can be sold.

·         If something did become available it was prudent to retain the policy.

Council resolution

The Future Napier Committee recommends that Council:

a.     Note the information relating to the review of Council’s Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy.

b.     Endorse the review process including approach to consultation as set out in the Significance and Engagement section.

c.     Approve the Statement of Proposal for public notification through the Special Consultative Procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act.

At the meeting

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson spoke to the report summarising Council’s progress during the first quarter of 2020/2021 towards fulfilling the intentions outlined in the Annual Plan.

Council resolution

That Council:

a.     Receive the Quarterly Report for the three months ended 30 September 2020.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

The Future Napier Committee:

a.     Note the resource consent activity update.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

That Council:

a.     Receive the Tenders Let report for the period 2 – 20 November 2020.

At the meeting

There was no discussion at the meeting.

Council resolution

That Council:

Receive the report for Documents Executed under Seal for the period 2 – 20 November 2020.

Council resolution

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

General subject of each matter to be considered.

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.

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 where the withholding of the information is necessary to:

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

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:

Agenda Items

1.  Audit and Risk Committee - Extension of Committee member appointment

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

7(2)(f)(ii) Maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such members, officers, employees and persons from improper pressure or harassment

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 3 December 2020

1.  Pandora Industrial Trade Waste 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

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 Future Napier Committee held 3 December 2020

1.  Land Sale

7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

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.

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

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

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

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright

In Attendance

Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi)

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson)

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell)

Manager Communications and Marketing (Craig Ogborn)

Investment and Funding Manager (Garry Hrustinsky)

Sign Language Interpreters (Kerry Locker-Lampson and Sarah Billing)

Submitters Speaking

Greg Macklow; Craig Waterhouse; Christina Clough; Joy Rycroft; Warwick Marshall; Robert Best; Paul Harris;  Andrew Robertson; Janet Campbell; Tony Johnson; Deborah Burnside; Garth Parker; Gary Scholfield – PowerCo; Nathan Strong – Unison; Phil Ellis; Murray Arnold; Maurice Lloyd; and Mervyn Kite

Administration

Team Leader Governance (Helen Barbier)

Governance Advisor (Carolyn Hunt)

Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)

Apologies

Council resolution

Councillors Tapine / Boag

That the apology for lateness from Councillor Wright be accepted.

Carried

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS

The following submitters spoke to their submissions.

Greg Macklow spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the rezoning of the Esk Hills area from the Other Rural differential 63.47% to Residential/Other 100%.

·         He supported the concept of contributing to the common good .

·         It was inequitable to charge the same level of rates for a property like his and he recommended a rating differential of 65%.

Craig Waterhouse spoke to his submission and displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Doc ID 1290340)  highlighting the following points:

·         He opposed the changes in rates as he was already paying 71% more.

·         Under the proposed change he would be paying 125%.

Christina Clough spoke to her submission highlighting the following points:

·         She opposed an increase in her rates in order to correspond to those of residential properties. 

·         Council did not provide their water supply or sewage treatment, there were no footpaths and they had minimal streetlights. 

Joy Rycroft  spoke to her submission and displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Doc ID 1286928) highlighting the following points:

·         She opposed the proposal to change the rating differential of Other Rural properties to Residential/Other as she believed there were inconsistencies in the proposal.

·         Napier City Council could create a separate rating differential for lifestyle blocks as in the Hastings District. 

Warwick Marshall spoke to his submission and highlighted:

·         No issue with paying for what he used.

·         Did not have services and paid for their own water and sewage systems. 

·         Did not want his category changed from Rural to Residential/Other. 

·         Did not consider that his property was similar to a property in Westshore or Bluff Hill. 

·         Requested that Council reconsider the proposal that similar properties may have similar rates.

Robert Best spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the proposal to change rates, which he considered as unfair, because it would mean an increase of $30.00 per week for no increase in services.

·         Bayview residents would be subsidising commercial ratepayers.

·         If every property was metered there would be major savings.   

Paul Harris spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed $1400 rating increase and, for such an increase, would expect to have delivery of more services. Differentials reflected what could be accessed.

·         On 63%, how could a 37% discount for services be justified when they can’t be accessed?

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS (cont)

Andrew Robertson spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·       He opposed the proposed change to rating because Bay View remedial works and maintenance over 12 years had been minimal.

·       Over 90% of the roads in Bay View were far too narrow.

·       An increase of between $5.00-$15.00 per week on rates was too high.

·       Westshore had a far larger retail and commercial area as well as industrial and entertainment areas.

·       Bay View residents had to travel at least 8km to reach Napier City services.

·       It was unfair to increase their rates by over 25%.

·       He did not intend to pay the proposed rates until there was 100% parity in infrastructure.

Janet Campbell  spoke to her submission highlighting the following:

·       She opposed the proposed change to rating which would incur an increase of $501 per annum.

·       Properties in Onehunga Road were rural not residential.

·       Her property and others in Onehunga Road were not similar to urban Napier properties.

·       She felt there should be an additional Lifestyle rating category for properties of less than 5 hectares

Tony Johnson  spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·       He opposed the proposed change to rating for bare land that had no home or services on it.

·       Even a reduction in the rate would still be a charge for services that were not provided.    

Deborah Burnside spoke to her submission highlighting the following:

·       She opposed the change in policy that had no net benefit to Council.

·       Jervoistown and Meeanee inhabitants were part of the 2400 ratepayers who would face increases in rates that were not fair or equitable.

·       Her property should be treated as residential if her rates increased.

·       Stormwater charges should be included in the general rate and not a targeted rate as proposed.

·       She disagreed with the pan tax for domestic properties but could see the rationale for commercial accommodation, etc.

Garth Parker spoke on behalf of his father’s (Wayne Parker) submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the proposed change to rating for 340 Meeanee Road (Meeanee Hotel).

·         The Meeanee Pub rating had gone from Other Rural to Commercial and this would result in an increase of 250%, in effect tripling the rates with no additional Council services.

·         On behalf of his father, Mr Parker requested that there be some discretion in the rates calculation for the Meeanee Hotel.

Gary Scholfield – PowerCo spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the proposed change to the company’s rates category from Miscellaneous to Commercial and Industrial

·         He also opposed the new targeted stormwater rate being applied to its network because its activities did not impact on this; Powerco’s network was predominately underground gas distribution pipelines and they did not own any properties in Napier City.

·         He requested that Council amend the Rating Policy to provide a separate differential for utility assets/properties and an amendment to exempt utility assets from the stormwater rate. 

·         Alternatively Council could offer a remission on stormwater rates for ratepayers who did not utilise the stormwater network.

·       He noted that the Unison Power Company had similar concerns and Powerco supported the submission by Unison.

Councillor Wright joined the meeting at 1.45pm.

Nathan Strong – Unison spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the rating differential change from Miscellaneous to Commercial and Industrial and the stormwater targeted rate.

·         He submitted that Unison Networks should be given an exemption from the stormwater targeted rate or continue to be rated in the Miscellaneous category.

·         Unison rates would increase from $2,800 to $52,000 per annum if the stormwater rate was charged.

·         Ultimately this cost would be borne by the Napier ratepayers as power costs would have to increase.

Phil Ellis spoke to his submission and displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Doc ID 1286927) and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the proposed policy change from the Other Rural to the Residential/Other category because the rates would be increased proposed with no added services and the land had not been rezoned to residential.

·         He suggested that the Uniform Annual General Charge be increased from around 20% to 30%, that there be a move towards user pays, an increase in the number of targeted rates and a change to rating capital value rather than land value.

·         Without changing from land value to capital value, true fairness of a graduated wealth tax, which makes up 75% to 80% of rates, could never be achieved

Councillors McGrath and Mawson withdrew from the meeting at 2.10pm

Murray Arnold spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy which now included a fourth category for Rural Residential

·         The focus of his submission was around a fair and equitable rating system.

Councillors McGrath and Mawson rejoined the meeting at 2.15pm

·         The introduction of a Semi-Rural category was a positive step. 

·         The definition of Rural in the policy, with the added criteria of value of improvements, is unnecessarily restrictive and not clear. It was a disincentive to developing a property to increase productive use.  

·         Rural and Rural Residential type properties did not support any more people, or place any greater burden on the city than an urban residential property, yet because of higher land value would have a higher general rate. 

·         The new policy meant the majority of Rural properties of less than 5 hectares and Rural Residential properties would have to apply for a remission of rates for an equitable rate to be set. 

·         He felt the Policy lacked clarity.

·         It would be useful to have an application for remission sent out with the rates notice.   

Maurice Lloyd spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the proposed cancellation of the Other/Rural category and the change of those properties to Residential. 

·         There were marked differences in both categories of properties that strongly supported the differentials for the Other Rural property category being retained.

·         Services had not changed since 1989 and did not provide water or sewage.

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS (cont)

Mervyn Kite spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the change from the Rural Residential differential to Residential.

·         There should be no change to the Uniform Annual General Charge, for him there would be an increase to 39%.

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright

In Attendance

Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi)

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson)

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell)

Acting Pou Whakarae (Morehu te Tomo)

Manager Communications and Marketing (Craig Ogborn)

Investment and Funding Manager (Garry Hrustinsky)

Sign Language Interpreters (Kerry Locker-Lampson and Sarah Billing)

Submitters Speaking:

Lance Simon; Dermott McCaughan  and James Brownlie

Administration

Team Leader Governance (Helen Barbier)

Governance Advisor (Carolyn Hunt)

Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)

At the meeting

The meeting reconvened for the second day and continued  hearing verbal submissions.

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS (cont)

Lance Simon spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the changes to the proposed Revenue and Finance Policy categories

·         He was grateful for recycling and did not mind paying for parks and libraries.

·         Rural residents provided their own water and sewage systems.

·         There is an assumption that if you live in the country you must be rich and could afford to pay more rates. 

·         Charging for services that rural people do not get was unfair and unjust.

·         108 people had attended a public meeting and all opposed the proposal. 

·         Council should reconsider the proposal as it was not cheap to live in the country and there would be a number of people that could not afford to pay the increase.

Dermott McCaughan spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the proposed rate increases on his lifestyle property.

·         A neighbour with a similar sized property and valuation in the Hastings district paid less.

·         His rates would increase by $400 with no increase in benefits as he provided his own water, sewage and maintenance systems.

·         Council did not provide help dealing with pests. 

·         He was happy to pay for libraries and parks included in the UAGC.

·         Council should not be alienating rural rate payers from Napier. There is a rich resource in the rural hinterland.

·         Napier existed because of the Port not Art Deco.  The Port was established to support the rural hinterland.

James Brownlie  spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the proposed rate increase for Bay View .

·         Bay View did not have the same level of services as others so this should be reflected in the annual general rate until the level of services were the same.

·         If a street in Bay View had full services it should be charged the full rate otherwise it should be left as is.

·         There would be a lot of people unable to afford the increases and businesses would be unable to continue.

·         The increase should stay in line with Hastings district. 

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright

In Attendance

Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi)

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson)

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell)

Director Infrastructure Services (Jon Kingsford)

Manager Communications and Marketing (Craig Ogborn)

Investment and Funding Manager (Garry Hrustinsky)

Sign Language Interpreters (Kerry Locker-Lampson and Sarah Billing

Submitters Speaking:

Debbie Monahan for Bruce Clark (Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay); Colin James; Anna Sanders; Robert Bremner; Peter Holley, Kerry Ansell and Eddy Clark

Administration:

Team Leader Governance (Helen Barbier)

Governance Advisor (Carolyn Hunt)

Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)

Apologies

Council resolution

Mayor Wise/Councillor Boag

That the apology for lateness from Councillor Tapine be accepted.

Carried

At the meeting

The meeting reconvened for the third day and continued  hearing verbal submissions.

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS (cont)

Debbie Monahan for Bruce Clark (Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay) also presenting on behalf of Dr Kiri Joy Wallace (People, Cities & Nature based at the University of Waikato) highlighted the following:

·         The proposed changes could have a negative impact on owners of Friends Bush in Jervoistown.

·         Friends Bush was owned privately with significant natural plantings that had been cultivated and protected since 1981.

·         Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay requested Council consider either another rating differential or a rating dispensation that reflected the public good aspects of Friends Bush.  

·         Council could find ways of encouraging landowners to undertake protection by way of rate relief.

·         She was aware that requesting a remission was an option but it was unclear in the policy.

Colin James  spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the policy changes

·         If Council decided to increase rates on his property, he would need to have the native bush felled and he had already made arrangements for this to happen.

·         The land was already zoned as building sites.

·         He had no intention of paying huge increases as had paid enough on native bush

·         Jervoistown was not included in the sewerage, water or stormwater connections and therefore could not be termed city residential.

Anna Sanders spoke on behalf of her husband Ben, highlighting the following:

·         They opposed the rates changes.

·         Merging Jervoistown from the general rate differential to the Residential/Other category would significantly increase their rates with no increase in benefits.

·         The review was pitched as town subsidising the country.

·         The officer’s report did not include an explanation or detailed assessment of how the 92.5% differential had been determined. In the absence of that information it was not fair and equitable.

·         Detailed reasons for the changes should be provided in the Decision as the public perception could be that the Revenue and Finance Policy decision had already been made as it was included in the Long Term Plan.

Robert Bremner spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         Opposed the rate changes.

·         He opposed the existing differential at 63.4% that would still have the Rural Residential properties paying 17% more than the average Residential rates payment.

·         He considered the proposal unfair when 85% more tax was going to paid by rural residents with less infrastructure than those living in town.

Peter Holley spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the proposed changes to differentials for the general rate and criticised the methodology and logic; the proposal was unfair, unjust and not sustainable for hardworking and production based people.

·         He did not support a new targeted rate for stormwater based on capital values.

Kerry Ansell spoke to his submission highlighting the following:

·         He opposed the proposed changes.

·         The Rural differential should remain at 63.4% as they received little or no financial benefits.

·         His property was planted in trees and provided benefit to the wider community and a home for birdlife which incurred additional expense for pest control and rural fire insurance.

·         Selected areas had been targeted to fund expenditure.

·         Other rural submitters were not allowed to subdivide so were unable to develop their property

·         Jervoistown could not be subdividied.

·         He questioned how increasing tax on 2000 residents was going to make things fairer.

·         Rural or Semi-rural residents could not afford to pay the proposed increases. 

PRESENTATION OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS (cont)

Edward Clark spoke to his submission and highlighted the following:

·         He opposed the proposed changes.

·         The impact on Bay View needs to take into account economic allocation principles, equity considerations and the inherent partiality of the change process.

·         A comparison between Westshore and Bay View services and facilities was unfavourable for Bay View. 

·         Unlike Westshore, Bay View also had their water consumption metered and paid for any excess. 

·         Westshore and Bay View were patently not the same and yet because some properties had the same land value they were being treated as equal.

Councillor Tapine joined the meeting at 3.00pm

·         Bay View residents were happy to pay additional rates when they received additional services comparable to present city ratepayers. 

·         The reduction of categories would disadvantage those who did not fit into the three rating categories proposed.

Officer Comments

The Investment and Funding Manager, Mr Hrustinsky spoke to his report and highlighted the following points:

·         Local authorities may review their Revenue and Financing Policy at least every three years prior to the adoption of a Long Term Plan.

·         On 15 September 2020 the draft Revenue & Financing Policy, Rating Policy, Rates Remission Policy and Rates Postponement Policy were approved for consultation. Six public meetings were conducted to ensure high public awareness and engagement.

·         A total of 540 submissions were received, with 474 submissions submitted online and 66 provided in hardcopy form.  There were 29 submitters who indicated they wished to present to Council.

·         Most responses came from areas impacted; Bay View, Awatoto, Eskdale and Jervoistown.

·         Submitters identified services such as sewage, stormwater, street lighting, kerbing, road/footpath development as services they did not receive and felt their rates increases were poor value in this context.

·         In general, proposed changes were considered unfair for rural/semi-rural residents because rural/semi-rural residents already incur additional private infrastructure/service costs.

Deliberations Commenced

There was considerable discussion and the main points that required consideration during the deliberations were:

·         Rates were governed by the Local Government (Rating) Act. 

·         There was agreement by submitters to pay their equitable share to common facility services.

·         New naming conventions (rural commercial, rural residential, limited services)

·         A definition is required for a differential based on properties that don’t receive a full range of services

·         Modelling of a fair and reasonable percentage of differentials

·         Land value/capital value/rateable value of property options for rating (Council decided not to change in previous workshop). To be reviewed in the future – provide pros and cons around timing.

·         Discuss pricing for commercial and residential values of property

·         Phasing of changes to General Rate differentials over 3 years

·         Proposed commercial differential of 250%

·         Utilities differential

·         70% city water & sewage rate

·         Remission for development land

·         Current provisions for small businesses

·         Small business in dwelling

·         Increase the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

·         Bay View meters and additional cost.

·         Status quo and why we are moving

·         Separate out general rate that will be a fixed rate.

·         Remission for Significant Natural Areas (SNA).

·         Comparison with Hastings

·         Model a split of the general rate to show these components. The remaining amount stays under UAGC

·         Link to limited services discussion

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright

In Attendance

Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi)

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson)

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell)

Director Infrastructure Services (Jon Kingsford)

Manager Communications and Marketing (Craig Ogborn)

Acting Pou Whakarae (Morehu Te Tomo)

Investment and Funding Manager (Garry Hrustinsky)

Sign Language Interpreters: (Kerry Locker-Lampson and Sarah Billing)

Administration:

Team Leader Governance

Governance Advisor (Carolyn Hunt)

Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)

Deliberations (cont)

The meeting addressed each of the issues that had been identified following the hearing of the submissions.

Naming conventions

·        Rural, Commercial, Residential and Rural Residential (property not defined as Commercial or Industrial in a rural area with no access to potable water and wastewater services).

     Action:         Description in rates remission policy around special circumstances to be reviewed for exceptions that don’t meet these criteria, including SNA’s and rural commercial properties.

Rural residential differential

·        Would be addressed when the modelling scenario is available.

·        At 92.5%, the UAGC can be used as a lever to smooth differences as can phasing over three years.

·        The 92.5% differential recognises the difference of properties that sit between the rural and residential categories.

·        This takes a broad approach as separating out all the service provisions is not feasible.

·        Higher average land values sit with rural and rural residential properties.

·        There are higher numbers of residential properties paying for targeted services.

·        High land values are an unrealized capital gain.

·        Increased value in lifestyle properties is a trend which can change.

·        There will always be outliers, no change will suit everyone.

·        Our policy takes into account the survey responses from our community (including all those who were happy to support the proposed changes).

·        Changing percentage points can be modelled

Councillor Taylor joined the meeting at 10.00am

Commercial differential

·        The 260% differential for commercial properties will be adopted.

·        This is in recognition of the additional burden the businesses place on our infrastructure.

Water and Sewerage Targeted Rate (unconnected rate)

·        No change required to the proposal.

·        Moving from land based valuing to capital value based valuing would impact this.

Councillor Price withdrew from the meeting at 10.25am

The meeting adjourned for morning tea at 10.25am

and reconvened at 10.45am

·         Due to the upcoming changes to legislation we prefer to maintain the current percentage of 50% for unconnected water and sewerage.

·         The lower amount recognizes that properties are choosing not to connect and add demand to the city services. It functions as an incentive.

·         Sustainable sources (i.e. rainwater) could be incentivised.

·         Are we incentivising city users to connect for health reasons?

·         50% payment is a standard rate across NZ

·         Changes to the water standards will impact this.

·         Separate titles are treated separately (even if owned by the same individual)

·         There is currently no remissions policy in relation to this.

Remission for land under development

Consider this in a future review.

·        It is standard policy for councils to charge for development.

·        There are other mechanisms under remissions available.

·        Postponing needs definition around timeframes.

·        Phasing could be a suitable solution for easing in the increase in cost.

·        The timing of revaluations will always be an issue for developments. Further research is required.

·        Given the housing shortage, Council want to incentivize development

·        Council need to create an approach for the duration, not just now.

     Action:         Consider this in a future review within the capital vs land value discussion.

Current provisions for small businesses operating from a dwelling

·        This should be considered in the District Plan review. No changes are made until then.

·        Impact on services is not currently known.

·        Non-declaration avoids increased costs.

·        Change of use is generally identified through the consenting process.

·        Inspection and assessment is used for properties in the grey areas

Bayview water meters

·        Leave this on the table pending changes from the central government and water regulator and reception of further information concerning the current situation.

·        $35,000 - $57,000 per annum generated over the last three years.

·        Investigate what the operating and renewals costs are and consider adjusting the amount charged accordingly.

Councillor Price rejoined the meeting at 11.30am

·        Council consent conditions require high water users to manage their demand sustainably.

     Action:        Provide data specifying who is being metered and why.

Why review now and why status quo was not considered?

·         First principles had not been reviewed since 2001 (required under the LGA).
The policy is reviewed every three years.

·         Status quo is not an option when at a first principle review requirement.

Separating out the general rate

·        Under the Local Government (Rating) Act we can only go up to 30% for certain fixed rates (including the UAGC).   If required we can provide more transparency to the community through the rating notices.

Councillors McGrath and Mawson withdrew from meeting at 11.43am

Significant Natural Areas (SNA)

·        Clarification may be provided through the rating remissions policy

Comparison with Hastings

Councillors McGrath and Mawson rejoineded the meeting at 11.47am

·         A portion of Hastings inhabitants use the Napier networks/services. Hastings District Council recognizes this through a differential for boundary dwellings.

·         Council policy is determined through a first principles process and so differences will be apparent between communities.

·         This brings up the question of city boundaries.

Actions:   Rates for city boundaries need to be reviewed regularly

                 Review the potential for local charges for Council owned facilities.

Stormwater

·        Stormwater will be fully implemented in Year 1.

Scenario Modelling

     Actions:       Model scenarios of rural residential at 92.5% and UAGC at 22%.

                          Rural residential at 90% and UAGC at 20%.

                          Model both scenarios with UAGC at 25%.

                                    Commercial to be 260% in both scenarios with phasing over three years.

Present

Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright

In Attendance

Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi)

Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson)

Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell)

Director Infrastructure Services (Jon Kingsford)

Investment and Funding Manager (Garry Hrustinsky)

Sign Language Interpreters (Kerry Locker-Lampson and Sarah Billing

Administration:

Team Leader Governance (Helen Barbier)

Governance Advisor (Carolyn Hunt)

Apologies

Council resolution

Mayor Wise/Councillor Wright

That the apology from Councillor Crown be accepted.

Carried

It was noted that Council had sought legal advice in regards to the Revenue and Finance Policy document that was provided for community consultation.  The proposal with the amended Revenue and Finance Policy document was to simplify and rationalise differentials with three categories replacing six categories.

Underlying considerations in Sections 101(3a) and 101(3b) on the overall impact of liability on the community by introducing a fourth differential justifying the modification was considered.

As requested the Investment and Funding Manager, Mr Hrustinsky had completed scenario modelling (Doc ID 1290542) for the following and said that some community members would be unhappy, however it was about balancing the best outcome across the community:

Rural residential at 92.5% and UAGC at 22% - The base strategy (i.e. UAGC at 20% and Rural Residential at 92.5%) provided the best outcome with a total drop in rates of $231,000 (or an average of $9.60 per property versus $3.16 for the worst scenario).

Rural residential at 90% and UAGC at 20%. - The worst outcome for Rural is a scenario where Rural Residential is reduced to 90% and UAGC is at 20% (an average increase per property of $620). It appears that Rural property would partly fund the decrease in Rural Residential.

Model both scenarios with UAGC at 25% - With UAGC at 25% and the Rural Residential General Rate at 90% the total rate for the Bay View properties decreases to 11.88%

Commercial to be 260% in both scenarios with phasing over three years.

90% and 25% UAGC based on submissions justifiy a differential of 90% for rural residential properties. The distance from town, services burden of living in rural and property prices being higher.  UAGC at 22%.

The meeting continued to address the issues that had been identified following the hearing of the submissions and summarised.

Commercial differential at 260%

Approved

Phasing in the General Rate differential over three years (equal phasing for all) for rates.

All other items at 1 July 2021.

Utilities differential

Retain in the Commercial differential

Approved

The meeting considered the following motions and passed the following resolutions after the hearing of submissions.

Council resolution

Mayor Wise / Councillor Wright

That Council:

a)      Adopt the following officer recommendations, including any changes and/or additional recommendations arising from the deliberations and consideration of all submissions to the Statement of Proposal for the Revenue & Financing Policy, Rating Policy, Rates Remission Policy and Rates Postponement Policy:

        Revenue & Financing Policy

           i.        Based on community feedback, that Council reduce the rating categories for General Rates from 6 down to 4 (compared to the original proposal of 3), creating a Residential/Other, Commercial & Industrial, Rural Residential and Rural category.

          ii.        That Council adopt the method of funding for all 36 Council activities as proposed.

         iii.        That Council adopt the Revenue & Financing Policy in this amended form.

Rating Policy

        iv.        That Council introduce a Rating Policy.

         v.        Noting item (a).i. (above), the following weights for General Rates be applied:

·         Residential/Other                            100%

·         Commercial & Industrial                  260%

·         Rural Residential                             90%

·         Rural                                               85%

        vi.        Based on community feedback and with consideration to Section 101(3)(b) of the Local Government Act, that the Rural Residential differential be introduced as a transitional differential. Council will look to a further consultation on land/capital valuation methodology to assess general rates at a future date and these transitional differentials can be considered again at that time.

       vii.        In determining the differential General Rate for Commercial & Industrial Property, the intensity of development i.e. building and surfaces, was considered a primary factor for establishing a higher differential when compared to other property categories. Based on the observed property size, Residential has a lower intensity of development followed by Rural Residential and then Rural property. On that basis, differentials have been set which Council believes reflect the intensity of development of those property categories. As the most common differential Residential has been set at 100% with other differentials set at a premium or discount to that rate.

      viii.        That Council increase the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) from 20% to 22% effective from 1 July 2021 for the purpose of smoothing the overall rating impacts.

        ix.        That the new General Rate differentials will be phased in equally over a three year period with the first year beginning 1 July 2021.

         x.        That Council maintain the City Water Rate at 50% for Rating Units that are not connected but within 100m of the system.

        xi.        That Council maintain the Sewerage Rate at 50% for Rating Units that are not connected but within 30m of the system.

       xii.        That Council continue to investigate the feasibility of a Wastewater Rate (pan charge) to replace the current Sewerage Targeted Rate.

      xiii.        That Council introduce a targeted Stormwater Rate, effective from 1 July 2021 pending adoption of the Revenue & Financing Policy.

        Rates Remission Policy

xiv   That Council introduce a Remission for Farmland Under 5 Hectares.

xv    That Council introduce a Remission of Refuse Collection and/or Kerbside Recycling Targeted Rates.

xvi   That Council introduce a Remission for Residential Properties Used Solely as a Single Residence.

xvii   That Council remove the Remission for Land Subject to Special Preservation Conditions.

xviii That Council remove the Remission of Uniform Annual General Charges (UAGC) and Targeted Rates of a Fixed Amount on Rating Units Owned by the Same Owner.

xix   That Council approve the updated wording in the Remission for Residential Land in Commercial or Industrial Areas to bring it in line with changes to the Rating Valuation Act 1998.

        Wording is to be included around properties that can apply for remissions under Special Circumstances, recognizing unique qualities of a property, e.g. significant natural areas.

xx    That Council defines “a significant increase” to be 25% or more over the current assessed rates for a single property for remissions to smooth the effects of change in rates on individual or groups of properties

xxi   That Council adopt the Rates Remission Policy as proposed.

        Rates Postponement Policy

xxii   That Council remove the Postponement for Farmland

xxiii  That Council adopt the Rates Postponement Policy as proposed.

b)    Council officers will take the intent of the resolutions into the final Revenue & Financing Policy, including the definitions, and bring the policy back to Council for adoption.

c)    Direct Officers to advise the submitters of Council’s decision in relation to their submission.

Carried

Conclusion:

Mayor Wise said the Rural Residential differential had been introduced as a transitional category and it was planned that consultation would be undertaken with the community on whether to use land value or capital value as a basis for rating properties in the future.

A new stormwater rate would be introduced for those who created more stormwater and a new rate for properties considered rural residential.

The rating structure changes adopted would become effective from July 2021.  This process had commenced three years ago and 14 workshops had been undertaken, to get to the consultation stage.  Four weeks was indicated for consultation however, after public meetings with those impacted who wanted to share their views and the consultation period was extended to seven weeks and information was provided on what the impact would be on their property.

This was a very complex issue and was reflected at the hearing throughout discussion and debate with the community which highlighted the impacts of changes.  

Council amended its original proposal to have four categories of Residential/Other, Commercial and Industrial and Rural as well as Rural Residential which had not been in the original proposal. Also debated was the merit of raising the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) a fixed charged for all ratepayers of $375.00 per property.  Currently set at 20%  the change would increase to 22% ($383.00 per property) as a means of balancing the impact.

Submitters were thanked for their written submissions and attendance at the hearings.  Council  followed a robust process, engaged with the community in an open transparent way and listened to submitters throughout the process.  Concerns of submitters had been listened to and incorporated into the resolution.

Mayor Wise conceded that not everyone would be happy although Council had worked hard to listen and accommodate concerns.

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

Chairperson        

Date of approval