Agenda of Māori Committee - Friday, 3 September 2021

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Three Waters Reform Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002s
Document ID:	1370457
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services Russell Bond, Manager Water Strategy Mōrehu Te Tomo, Pou Whakarae

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update the Māori Committee on the Government Three Waters Reform programme. This report does not seek a decision, and is provided for information only, and for the Committee to consider any questions and feedback it would like to provide as part of the Reform submission. Government has provided for an
8-week consultation period on the proposal, with Councils being requested to respond by the end of September 2021.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Māori Committee:

A) Receive the report titled Three Waters Reform Update.

B) Seek feedback and the questions that the Māori Committee may like responded to as part of the Central Government 3 Waters reform proposal.

C) Note that Iwi engagement is being undertaken directly with Iwi as part of their Partnership obligations and will be considered separately by Central Government as part of their 8-week consultation period.

D) That Napier City Council Māori Committee considers requesting to Central Government to attend a Hui-a-Iwi (Locally and Regionally) to discuss the work undertaken by Hawkes Bay to date. This allows the opportunity to discuss the options available to them as part of the reform consultation period.

E) Note that under Governance Section 7, that Mana Whenua will be able to appoint 6 representatives from Entity C to be part the Regional Representation Group alongside 6 representatives from Local Authority representatives. (Entity C is made up of 21 Councils as noted under point 6.4 in the report)

2.2 Background Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the Government Three Waters Reform programme. This report does not seek a decision, and is provided for information only. A formal Council decision on opting in or out of the Government Three Waters Reform Programme is not required at this stage.

1.2 In the coming months the Council will be required to decide on whether to support the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme. This decision will have a significant impact on both the role that Councils plays in the community, Council staff and on Council’s financial position.

1.3 The Government has provided an 8-week period for Councils to engage with and provide feedback on local impacts to the proposed reform package.

1.4 This report provides a summary of information available at this stage and next steps. Given the nature of this reform, absolute certainties of outcomes are not known at this time. Instead, the report highlights local and national features of the drivers for change, and some of the potential impacts of reform.

The proposed Three Waters Reform

The Government is undertaking a reform to improve the regulation and supply arrangements of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (Three Waters) supporting New Zealand’s prosperity, health, safety and environment. The Government Three Waters Reform is a cross-government initiative led by the Minister of Local Government.

A Joint Three Waters Steering Committee has provided collaborative oversight of the reform programme that brings together central and local government expertise and experience.

The Governments Proposed Reform Programme as it was at December 2020. It should be noted that Government has signalled that this the programme and timeframes is now under review due to the addition of a period of review and clarification between local and central government.

2.0 Drinking Water Regulatory System

2.1 The Water Services Bill gives Taumata Arowai the authority to prepare standards and rules with which water suppliers must comply. The Water Services Bill is currently with the select committee who are working through the submissions received.

2.2 When the Water Services Bill is passed, expected to be in the second half of 2021, Taumata Arowai will take over as the regulator of drinking water. Until then, the Ministry of Health remains the regulator of drinking water.

2.3 When Taumata Arowai is fully functionally, its role will be to:

· Regulate an expanded and strengthened drinking-water regulatory system.

· Oversee from a national perspective the environmental performance of waste water and storm water networks (Regional councils will remain the primary regulators of waste water and storm water).

· The diagram below illustrates the different roles of entities across this area.

3.0 Hawke’s Bay Three Waters Review

3.1 Hawkes Bay Councils completed their own review of three waters service delivery options for the region in August 2020. This work highlighted that:

· Making no changes to the way our three waters services are delivered is not affordable or sustainable

· Meeting the new regulations under current service delivery arrangements poses significant affordability challenges for our region and particular our smaller councils

· An asset owning council controlled organisation was the preferred service delivery model as it best met Councils’ investment objectives and the cultural principles developed collaboratively with Councils’ Māori Standing Committees. In particular, the model:

- Addresses regional affordability challenge associated with new standards and regulations

- Is able to concentrate its investment on three waters priorities

- Delivers the scale required to create strategic capacity and capability

- Enables a meaningful role for Māori including co-design and governance

- Enables improved operations, risk management, asset management, ability to meet compliance requirements

- Produces the greatest savings.

· There are also challenges in adopting a regionalised service delivery model, in particular:

- Perceived inequity that arises when councils transfer different levels of three waters-related debt and assets of varying condition to an asset owning CCO. Where this happens, some ratepayers may feel that they are inheriting someone else’s problem.

- Regionalising three waters rates to reduce the costs of three waters services to an affordable level across the Hawke’s Bay means some district ratepayers may pay more for three waters than they otherwise would (under the enhanced status quo).

· Moving to a regional service delivery model means that costs for most ratepayers will be lower than the expected future costs, while for some, theirs will be higher. This will be a challenge for every region in New Zealand.

· Hawke’s Bay Councils received the report in September 2020, however any further regional work was placed on hold when central government launched its national service delivery reform programme.

4.0 Government Service Delivery Reform Programme

4.1 In July 2020, the Government announced a $761 million funding package to provide post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain, improve three waters infrastructure, support a three-year programme of reform of local government water service delivery arrangements (reform programme), and support the establishment of Taumata Arowai, the new Waters Services Regulator.

4.2 In August 2020, Napier City Council agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Crown, where it was agreed that we would work in good faith to contribute to the design and conversation on the future shape of 3 Waters Service Delivery. At the same time Council received a $12.5million stimulus grant, which was allocated to Three Waters projects.

4.3 The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Government committing to openly share information and analysis on the state of the system for delivering three waters services and the quality of the asset base.

4.4 Council, along with all other Councils across New Zealand who entered into the MOU, was required to provide information to central government to assist with the modelling and system planning for three waters delivery across New Zealand. The Request for Information (RFI) collated a substantial amount of information, of which has never been collated before in New Zealand. The RFI also required Councils to characterise the reliability and completeness of each of the pieces of the information provided. This was a significant exercise across for staff across our Council, and all our peers.

4.5 This information along with information from past and or draft Long Term Plans has been used by government to inform their view of the national investment need, and to inform their proposal for changes to the current 3 waters service delivery model.

4.6 A report by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) estimates that New Zealand will need to invest between $120 billion to $185 billion in our three waters infrastructure over the next 30 years to meet drinking water and environmental standards and provide for future population growth.

4.7 For rural communities, this equates to an increase of up to 13 times present costs, eight times higher for provincial areas and up to seven times higher for many metropolitan households. With reform, the cost of providing these critical services to our communities according to Government analysis is likely to reduce substantially by between 45% to 49%.

5.0 Maori Engagement in Governments Reform Process

5.1 Tangata whenua has watched in despair the attitude and flagrant treatment of water. Across all of Hawke’s Bay (HB), water as a respected taonga that is crucial to all life forms, has been treated like an inexhaustable commodity. Regardless of legislative and regulatory controls in place, whānau, hapū, iwi, tangata whenua and mana whenua of Te Matau a Māui continue to assert their rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Te Wai water. To be clear, this is not an assertion of ownership but rather the inate responsibility of care and respect in which te ira tangata, human lifeform, is indivisible.

5.2 The early signs of Government’s intention for Three Waters reform became visible to HB tangata whenua in October 2018. It was not until early to mid 2019 that formal engagement commenced in regard the HB Three Waters Review. The enabling factor to engagement with tangata whenua was through a cross-council initiative - Te Kupenga. This composed the Māori specialist units of each council agreeing to work collaboratively for the benefit of all five councils^{^[1]}.

5.3 Te Kupenga was instrumental in two respects. Firstly, connecting Chairs of our respective council Māori Committees and Regional Planning Committee together with the HB Three Waters Review to ensure tangata whenua values, aspirations and expectations were included in the review report. Secondly, ensuring their direct audience with the Minister of Local Government, Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the DIA Three Waters Project Team. It is worth noting that tangata whenua capacity and capability has been stretched beyond breaking point to accommodate this within their overarching responsibility to their iwi, hapū and marae.

5.4 The Hawkes Bay Three Waters Review report and in particular the Chapter ‘Cultural Case’ captured the true essence of tangata whenua inseparability with Te Wai. Their views went further to describe composition and operability of a new water entity in regard cultural capacity, capability and performance indicators. Within that view they imbued Te Tiriti, co-governance and the importance of existent whaitua or traditional iwi and hapū pouwhenua, within which mana whenua and rangatiratanga abides. The most recent engagement with Director Alan Prangnell and his DIA Three Waters team was 17 June 2021.

5.5 Key issues communicated to Government by iwi leaders and respective committee chairs can be expressed within four broad themes,

i. Te Mauri o Te Wai – The sanctity, integrity of Te Wai as seen through a Te Ao Māori lens and how that is prioritised and managed across the domains of three waters. Supported by Te Mana o Te Wai [NPSFM 2020], Water first, people next, other uses last.

ii. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga actualised in a meaningful way at governance and management levels within the strategy, structure, systems, processes and procedures of a future water entity. This must include cultural performance indicators (CPI) with monitoring and audit oversight.

iii. Rights and Interests in Freshwater, the parallel progression thereof not diminished in this or other reforms of government e.g., RMA and Local Govt.

iv. Ongoing meaningful engagement and participation of whānau, hapū, iwi as a Tiriti partner leading to co-governance, shared decision-making, relationship reciprocity and equity, bottom-up, top-down

5.6 Government’s reform agenda for Three Waters, RMA, Local Government requires tangata whenua engagement as critical to success, but the investment of resource by government in tāngata whenua to that end is tragically bereft. Iwi leaders, PSGE, NKII, Taiwhenua and marae resources are at breaking point. Their continued engagement, particularly in terms of time commitment, is not sustainable in the absence of a serious and meaningful investment of resource from central government, in-line with the expectation of success over the longer term of these reforms.

6.0 Cabinet Reform Proposals

6.1 In June 2021, Government released its proposed service delivery model for four (4) regional entities who will be responsible for the delivery of the three water services. If the proposal progressed the entities would be expected to be in full control of the service delivery on the 1 July 2024.

6.2 More detail on the proposed number of agencies and inter-agency structure for three waters service delivery is presented in the attached System for Three Waters Delivery which was released in June 2021 (Available of the DIA 3 Waters reform website).

6.3 The proposal would see employees who work substantively work in Three Waters are transferred across to the entities on similar terms and conditions. Similarly contracts that are active are expected to be similar transferred to the new entities.

6.4 The proposal has Napier City Council included in Entity C. The diagram below shows the other Councils included in Entity C (excluding the Chathams Islands).

6.5 The Government announcement was complemented by the release of analysis undertaken by WICS. This analysis is based on information submitted by Councils through a Request for Information process. The analysis is indicative and does not constitute due diligence.

6.6 WICS estimates that in order to meet future pressures the average household cost per annum of three waters and adopting reforms, average household costs could be reduced to $1,260.

6.7 Government has also provided a dashboard system to enable Councils to view the summary information that has been calculated for each Council. They have also provided a brief summary report for each Council which includes some of the sensitivity analysis that has been completed. A screen shot of this dashboard is shown below.

6.8 Broadly, the Government modelling and dashboards compares two scenarios:

· Aggregation of three waters services into four water services entities and the associated reforms to the regulatory, governance, management, resourcing, and policy direction that support improvements (‘the whole reform package’);

· No aggregation of three waters services and although in this scenario some reform takes place, for example, decisions already made to introduce a drinking water regulatory system and environmental standards, the wider reforms are not as extensive as in the former scenario.

Assumptions

· The assumptions Government have used to quantify the inputs are determined through benchmarking against the UK experience. There has been some adjustment based on council RFI feedback the potential investment requirements and ability to deliver the same efficiency gains.

· The key assumptions that drive household costs are:

- Investment – this is the single biggest driver of household cost in the WICS model.

- Debt/Revenue – the difference between the treatment of debt in the councils and the entities means that it is likely to overstate the size of the difference in charges between council and the water service entity.

- The impact of these are so significant that all other assumptions have minimal impact on household costs.

· Government have undertaken the analysis over the 30 year time horizon.

6.9 WICS has estimated efficiencies of 45% over a 30-year period, roughly 2% per annum achieved through improved and aggregated capability, procurement, governance, scale and economic regulation, ultimately delivering lower costs for communities.

6.10 The WICS analysis has been peer reviewed by FarrierSwier Consulting. FarrierSwier found that the WICS analysis gave reasonable estimates in terms of direction and order of magnitude. It is likely that efficiencies will not be delivered for several years – this is unsurprising given the scale of change.

6.11 The Government analysis has been completed using a different approach to the Hawke’s Bay Three Waters Review and uses different assumptions. Despite the differences in the Hawke’s Bay and Government analysis, they are directionally consistent and reached a similar conclusion.

· Future costs of three waters services will rise significantly in response to meeting changes in standards, regulation and an increasingly rigorous compliance regime.

· Costs will not fall equally across the region.

· There are financial benefits from aggregation of three waters services.

· There are strategic benefits, an improvement in capability and capacity and potentially a more meaningful role for Māori with a change in service delivery model.

· There are significant three water investment requirements to meet the new standards and this will lead to substantial increases in the cost of services.

6.12 Officers are working through the substantive information provided by Government and are seeking clarification on various parts to ensure Council can be well informed when decision making is required at a later date.

7.0 Governance

7.1

The Government also released proposed governance arrangements as shown below:

7.2 Under this model, Councils will own the water entities on behalf of communities, and mana whenua will have a joint oversight role. The structure of entities and their establishing legislation proposes to protect against future privatisation with assets remaining in the ownership of their local communities.

7.3 While Councils maintain ownership of the water entities, the type of entity, and the responsibilities associated with ownership are likely to be substantially different to traditional ownership models.

7.4 The Government considers that Councils will be able to influence objectives and priorities of the new entities through this structure, and through land use planning mechanisms such as spatial plans. It is not yet clear how communities might directly influence strategy and resource and investment prioritisation.

8.0 Reform Proposal Package

8.1 On July 15, 2021, the Government announced a package developed in close partnership with Local Government New Zealand, $2.5 billion to support the sector through the transition to the proposed new water services delivery system. There are two broad components to this support package:

· $2 billion of funding to invest in the future of local government and community wellbeing, while also meeting priorities for government investment (the “better off” component)

· $500 million to ensure that no local authority is financially worse off as a direct result of the reform (the “no worse off” component).

8.2 $1.0 billion of this package will be a direct contribution from the Crown. The remaining $1.5 billion will be funded by the Water Services Entities. Governments view is that the $1.5bilion from Water Services Entities is at effectively no net cost to customers, due to the proposed Crown support arrangements (such as a liquidity support) which reduce the borrowing costs of the water service entities.

8.3 Napier City Council allocation for the ‘better off’ package is [$25.8m]

8.4 The “better off” component of the support package will be allocated to territorial authorities using a nationally consistent formula based on:

· a 75% allocation based on population size

· a 20% allocation based on the New Zealand deprivation index

· a 5% allocation based on land area (excluding national parks)

· Territorial authorities will be required to demonstrate that the use of this funding supports the three waters service delivery reform objectives and other local wellbeing outcomes and aligns with the priorities of central and local government, through meeting some or all of the following criteria:

- supporting communities to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy, including by building resilience to climate change and natural hazards;

- delivery of infrastructure and/or services that: o enable housing development and growth, with a focus on brownfield and infill development opportunities where those are available,

- support local place-making and improvements in community well-being.

8.5 The “no worse off” component includes an up to $250 million allocation to support councils to meet unavoidable costs of stranded overheads, based on:

· $150 million allocated to councils (excluding Auckland, Christchurch and councils involved in Wellington Water) based on a per capita rate that is adjusted recognising that smaller councils face disproportionately greater potential stranded costs than larger councils;

· Up to $50 million able to be allocated to councils that have demonstrable, unavoidable and materially greater stranded costs than provided for by the per capita rate (the process for determining this will be developed by the Department of Internal Affairs working closely with Local Government New Zealand).

· The remainder of the no worse off component will be used to address adverse impacts on the financial sustainability of territorial authorities. The Department of Internal Affairs will work with Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā to develop agreed principles for how the assessment of financial sustainability support will be undertaken, the methodology for quantifying this support requirement, and the process for undertaking the associated due diligence process with councils.

8.6 The Government’s support package presupposes that should the reforms proceed, Councils will be supported through the transition process and the financial impacts of reform will be managed.

8.7 The timing for when funding will be made available as follows:

· Up to $500 million of funding from the “Better Off” component of the support package will be made available for use by councils from 1 July 2022, with the remainder available from 1 July 2024 when the new water services entities are anticipated to be established. The process for release of this amount is being worked through and further details will be provided in the coming months.

· “No Worse Off” Funding to meet stranded costs and address adverse impacts on financial sustainability will be met at the time of or shortly after transfer of assets, liabilities and revenue to the new water services entities, estimated July 2024.

· The process for release of this amount is being worked through and further details will be provided in the coming months.

9.0 Next Steps for Council

9.1 The Government has amended its reform timeframe proposal to incorporate an eight (8) week engagement process from 2 August 2021 to undertake further discussions with the sector (including through the Joint Steering Committee) on how the proposed model and design can best accommodate areas of priority at a local level.

9.2 The purpose of this engagement period in the reform process is to provide time for all local authorities to:

· engage with and understand the large amount of information that has been released by Government on the nature of the challenges facing the sector, the case for change, and the proposed package of reforms, including the recently announced support package;

· take advantage of the range of engagement opportunities to fully understand the proposal and how it affects your local authority and your community; and

· identify issues of local concern and provide feedback on what these are and suggestions for how the proposal could be strengthened.

9.3 This includes providing feedback on outstanding issues including but not limited to:

· Ensuring all communities have both a voice in the system and influence over local decisions. At any time, ask LGNZ for help, including if you want to test whether your approach is focusing on the things that will create the most value for you from this stage of the process.

· Effective representation on the new water service entities’ oversight boards so that there is strong strategic guidance from, and accountability to, the communities they serve, including iwi/mana whenua participation. This includes effective assurance that entities, which will remain in public ownership, cannot be privatised in future.

· Making sure councils’ plans economic development and growth for growth, as reflected in spatial plans, district plans or LTPs, are appropriately integrated with water services planning.

· How local authorities can continue to have influence on service outcomes and other issues of importance to their communities (e.g. aspiration for chlorine-free water);

· Ensuring there is appropriate integration between the needs, planning and priorities of local authorities (representing their local communities) and the planning and priorities of the Water Service Entities; and

· How to strengthen the accountability of the Water Services Entities to the communities that they serve.

9.4 Following the engagement period the Government will consider:

· Feedback and proposals

· Transition and implementation pathway

· Revised timing for decision making and the time required for any community or public consultation

9.5 It is expected that Government will announce in October 2021 its decisions on any revisions to the reform programme, timeframes including:

· If the Governments reform is still retained as a voluntary (“opt out”) option, where Councils will decide on whether they continue to participate in the reform programme.

· Confirmation from Government on the incorporation of Community Consultation period into the revised reform timeline for Council decisions.

9.6 The Water Services Entities Bill to be introduced to Parliament.

9.7 Taumata Arowai is expected to take over from Ministry of Health as regulator for drinking water.

2.3 Issues

Council will discuss potential issues as part of the papers consideration.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

The current Three Waters feedback process does not trigger any LGA consultation requirements, and is unlikely to trigger consultation obligations under Significance and Engagement Policy.

Local authorities must act in ways that are prudent and in the current and future interests of their communities. In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the various principles in section 14, which include:

(a) a local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of

all of its communities; and

(b) when making a decision, a local authority should take account of—

(i) the diversity of the community, and the community’s interests, within its district or

region; and

(ii) the interests of future as well as current communities; and

(iii) the likely impact of any decision on each aspect of well-being referred to in

section 10.

Part 6 of the LGA sets out highly-prescriptive decision-making process obligations. The fundamental obligations are to:

· identify and assess all reasonably practicable options to achieve the

objective of a decision; and

· consider "the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter."

· these obligations apply to all local authority decisions,6 and vary in relation to the significance of decisions, and other contextual matters listed in section 79(1)(b).

Significance and Engagement Policies list strategic assets, which include the Three Waters assets that are subject to the proposed reforms. A local authority cannot decide to transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset without providing for such a decision in its long-term plan (LTP), and following specific consultation requirements.

When a local authority does undertake consultation, the consultation principles in section 82 must be followed. Where the LGA expressly requires consultation that gives effect to the requirements of section 82, there are additional consultation requirements under section 82A relating to providing the public with a statement of proposal, reasons for the proposal, and analysis of options.

However it is noted that Parliament is sovereign, and this sovereignty allows it to change the law that constitutes and empowers local authorities. In turn, local authorities are obliged to comply with relevant legislation while it is in force.

The Government is subject to the laws passed by Parliament, and cannot lawfully compel local authorities to comply with legislation that is not yet in force, or to act in breach of legislation that is still in force.

Council may wish to consider the level of engagement on this matter given that no decision is required at this point in time.

2.5 Implications

Financial

The proposed reform would have a significant financial impact on Napier City Council. Under the proposed option, debt and any related reserves would be transferred to the new entity. This would impact on Councils financial benchmarks as a result.

There is an acknowledgement that the proposed new entities have economies of scale, and there is financial benefit to this over the longer term.

Social & Policy

N/a

Risk

Council Risk Assessment

A Napier City Council risk assessment is being prepared and will be tabled at the meeting.

High Level Risk Assessment

Description	Likelihood	Comments
Government mandates its reform entity proposals	High	The Governments reform proposal and package assumes all of councils participate. Councils have an 8 week period commencing 2 August providing questions and feedback to Government on their proposals. Any decisions is likely early October.
Government Economic Analysis of the benefits are over estimated	Med	Hawke’s Bays own Three Waters Review demonstrates that the financial case is directionally consistent.
Governance and representation:	High	The governance model may result in limited opportunity for councils to influence entity direction. Community/Maori needs assurance on effective local representation given the scale of the entities.
Government Process	High	Information is being provided on a piecemeal basis. There are gaps in the information provided and there is significant complexity & issues involved for communities and councils to consider.
Prioritisation of investment	High	Investment prioritisation by the water entities will need to occur at multiple scales (national, regional, catchment and local). Concerns that entities will not be sufficiently responsive to local priorities, in particular alignment with councils plans for growth. A process that ensures there are clear & influential roles for Iwi/Maori, land-use planning entities, councils, customers, and local communities will be important
Financial Impacts of asset transfer	High	The approach used to determine the level of three waters related assets/debt transferred from councils to the new water entities is among the most important transition issues for our councils.
Functions of Local Government and Wider Sector Reforms	High	The cumulative impacts of three waters reform, resource management reform and future of local government must be considered
Workforce and Capability	High	Any reform process must support & retain staff through the uncertainty.
Assurance of Service Delivery	High	Communities require assurance that a water services entity will be responsive to the needs and service requirements of local communities
Communication with Community	High	Community engagement on the issues needs to be addressed now by Councils. A communication strategy – presentations and collateral is being developed.
Formal Consultation with Community as part of ‘Opt in’, ‘Opt out’ Decision	High	Government is coming back to Councils with their revised reform process timeline
Engagement with Iwi/Māori	High	Key issues communicated to Govt by iwi leaders are within four broad themes: 1) Te Mauri o Te Wai, 2) Te Tiriti o Waitangi, rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga actualisation, 3) Rights and Interests in Freshwater; 4) Ongoing meaningful engagement and participation of whānau, hapū, iwi. Tāngata whenua capacity and resources to participate in reform are at breaking point.

Council is undertaking risk assessments to review the scenarios and note that these will be updated as Councils are provided with further information from Government and its reform proposals.

2.6 Options

n/a

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The options available to Council are as follows:

a) That the Māori Committee receive the report titled Three Waters Reform Update

b) Note that Officers have work well underway to understand the changes taking place regards the future provision of Three Waters services, and to best position Napier City Council for any future decisions in regulatory, and/or structural changes for Three Waters Service Delivery.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

Reports from standing committees

Māori COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

Reports from Napier People and Places Committee held 12 August 2021

1. 2021 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1331110
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

1.1 Purpose of Report

To receive the 2021 Napier City Council Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey results (attached).

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Crown

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Note the results of the 2021 Napier City Council Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey.

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

The Napier City Council manages a wide variety of stakeholder relationships to carry out its business. These relationships vary in degree and level of interactions, and may be of a funding, business, partnership, membership or advocacy nature. It is important that Council maintains a positive relationship with its stakeholders and has therefore sought to measure how satisfied our stakeholders perceive how the Council engages with them.

A baseline stakeholder satisfaction survey was carried out in April 2021 (attached) which asked stakeholders a number of questions to establish the nature of the relationship, the method or engagement and type of communications used, and how stakeholders rate levels of Council leadership, performance and decision-making, and the levels of trust and confidence stakeholders have in Council.

Approximately 300 stakeholders that had a connection or relationship with the Council were identified and surveyed using online methods (via email invitation) and by further telephone follow-ups. A total of 199 stakeholder organisations participated in the survey however excluding those that were deemed ‘not applicable’, a total of 145 surveys were used in the final analysis.

The results of the 2021 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey provide a benchmark for future surveys.

1.3 Issues

The overall satisfaction score with the Council’s current relationship was 66.2%. Stakeholders who reported greater involvement with the Council (e.g. had a cooperation and collaboration or partnership relationship) were more likely to be satisfied. Over the past 12 months, 70.3% of stakeholders reported having direct contact with Council with the most cited method of communication by email (88.2%).

Two-thirds of stakeholders (66.8%) provided positive ratings in relation to Council’s communication and the highest communication attribute was that Council “listens to your organisation about issues of common interest and concern”. Fewer stakeholders (64.3%) agree that the Council ‘shares information’ to ensure they ‘are well informed’.

Council’s engagement and acknowledgement of stakeholders received 64.9% of positive ratings and Council’s acknowledgement of ‘organisation’s roles and responsibilities’ achieved the highest ratings (71.1%). Fewer stakeholders agreed that the Council ‘has a good understanding’ of their organisation (59.5%).

On average, two-thirds of stakeholders (67.2%) provided positive ratings in relation to Council’s leadership, performance and decision making however fewer stakeholders (60.0%) agreed that the Council ‘makes decision in a timely manner’.

With regard to trust and confidence, 80.1% of stakeholders reported having some to full trust and confidence in the Council. This compares to 79% for all of New Zealanders having trust in public services based on their personal experiences.

Better communication, coordinated engagement and the provision of clear explanations to the decisions made, were areas identified for improvement through the comments provided by stakeholder organisations.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

1.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

1.6 Options

The option available to Council is as follows:

a. Note the results of the 2021 Napier City Council Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to the report with the help of Dr Virgil Troy and Nataliya Rik from SIL research.

In response to questions it was noted:

· Some stakeholders chose not to take part in this research. SIL is not able to give the reason why, but reasons can be that there is low interest, that people do not feel they have anything of value to say, do not have time to fill in a survey or do not wish to take part.

· The database of stakeholders was a collection of contacts from across Council directorates which SIL then refined, ie: made sure contact details were correct and all current stakeholders were included.

· Leadership in the survey included being a role model for other stakeholders in terms of general consultation, the ability to make decisions, and then making those decision public.

· In terms of presenting the scores as averages, if a data set includes 150 or more responses any outliers will not skew an average score. This piece of research used two measures, a mean score which includes all the ratings provided and is a more balanced score, and an aggregated satisfaction score. The satisfaction score combined all the ratings which were 6 or higher, and represented those respondents who agreed with a set of statements.

· Ineligible responses are those where a respondent has not filled in the whole survey, or where there are two or more responses from a particular respondent. There were also some respondents who did not recognise that they have a relationship with Council and the majority of their answers were ‘Not Applicable’.

· There were no comparisons in this set of results to other Territorial Authorities. That is because SIL do not have any recent findings to compare this set with.

· A learning from this research is that it would be good to expand the pool of respondents and to include more small organisations.

· SIL do follow up on incomplete surveys, providing an email reminder and then a phone reminder, but they are careful to not harass people for a response.

· The responses received around Council contact with stakeholders will be used to inform communication practices moving forward.

1.8 Attachments

a 2021 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Report (Under Separate Cover)

b 2021 Stakeholder Survey Questions (Under Separate Cover)

2. New Year's Eve Funding 2021-2022

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1318340
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Belinda McLeod, Community Funding Advisor

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval to apply for external funding to support the 2021-2022 New Year’s Event.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Mawson / McGrath

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Approve the applications to external funders (Lion Foundation, Grassroots Central, Grassroots, Pub Charity and Eastern & Central Community Trust (non gaming trust) for the 2021-2022 New Year’s Eve Event.

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently due to the tight deadlines to apply for funding. This will require the resolution be passed before the decision of Council is taken.

Carried

Councillor Taylor voted AGAINST THE Motion

Council resolution

Councillors Mawson / Chrystal

That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

Carried

Councillor Taylor voted AGAINST THE Motion

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Brosnan

The Napier People and Places Committee:

c. Note the discussion on Council’s future applications for gaming trust funding in the minor matters section of the Future Napier Committee meeting, 6 May 2021 (Attachment A).

d. Direct that a workshop be held covering:

i. The amount Council has received from gaming trust grants in the last ten years.

ii. Alternative sources of funding which Council could utilize.

iii. Whether or not Council wishes to continue applying for gaming trust grants.

Carried

Councillor Mawson voted AGAINST the Motion

2.2 Background Summary

The New Year’s Eve Event was initiated in its current form in 2000, by the Millennium Committee. The event is held at the Sound Shell each New Year’s Eve. Beth Elstone, of ‘Little Stone’, has been contracted to manage this event. This alcohol and smokefree family event is well attended by a range of people in the community, drawing a crowd of 18,000 to 20,000 people each year. The event draws a multi-generational crowd and behavioural issues are minimal.

2.3 Issues

Council recently reviewed and changed its Gambling Policy to include a ‘sinking lid’ approach to Class 4 gaming machine licencing. This change in policy was in response to gambling related harm highlighted as part of the review and hearing processes. It was also noted that many community organisations and projects are supported by funding from gaming trusts.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

Funding applications do not require consultation as they are an operational procedure.

2.5 Implications

Financial

Council allocates $40,000 per annum for the event, and seeks external funding for the remainder. Last year’s event cost $98,000, with $43,000 provided through external funding and the deficit ($15,000) funded through Council’s event budget.

Social & Policy

This event is a celebratory event for Napier and brings together whānau across the community, also attracting visitors who are in the area at this time of the year.

Risk

The main risk is that sufficient external funding may not be secured for the event. If this situation was to occur the event would need to be scaled back or cancelled.

Council may be seen to be inconsistent with regards to setting policy direction that supports the reduction of gambling related harm, while at the same time seeking funding support from the proceeds of Class 4 gambling.

2.6 Options

a) Approve for applications to be made to external funders to support this event (preferred)

b) Decline for applications to be made to external funders to support this event.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

Seeking funding as outlined in Table A will enable the New Year’s Event to go ahead as planned.

Table A

Lion Foundation	20,000
Grassroots Central	5,000
Grassroots	10,000
Pub Charity	30,000
Eastern & Central Community Trust (non gaming trust)	12,000
Total Funding	$77,000

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to this report. It was noted in response to questions that:

· A Decision of Council has been requested due to the tight deadline to apply for external funding to pay for the event.

· This event struggles to attract external funding, and although funding from the proceeds of Class 4 gaming is not something Council would like to continue using in the future, this event will funnel some proceeds into an event that benefits the whole community.

· This is the only event Council regularly seeks Class 4 gambling funding for.

· Attempts to attract sponsorship for this event have not been successful in the past.

2.8 Attachments

a 2021-05-06 Future Napier Committee - Minor Matters

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

Reports from Prosperous Napier Committee held 12 August 2021

1. Changes to fees and charges for 2021/22

Type of Report:	Enter Significance of Report
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1356273
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

1.1 Purpose of Report

To seek approval for changes to be made to the schedule of fees and charges for 2021/22.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Mawson / Simpson

The Prosperous Napier Committee:

a. Approved the minor amendments to fees and charges for 2021/22 as set out in the tables below:

Building Consents	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Project Information Memorandum (stand-alone only)	$285.00	$280.00
Compliance Schedule	$311.00	$305.00
Online Lodgment Fee	$149.00	$144.00
Building Accreditation Fee	$20.70	$20.00
Administration and Audit Fee	$155.00	$150.00
Building Consents Officer	$176.00	$174.00
Building Administrator	$88.10	$87.00
Inspection Fee	$176.00	$174.00
Certificate of Compliance Fee	$104.00	$100.00
Building Research Levy per $1,000 value above $20,000*	$1.00	$1.00
Building Levy per $1,000 value $20,444 and above	$1.80	$1.75
Application Processing Fee	$28.00	$27.00
Inspection for Road Damage	$71.50	$69.00
Inspection for Vehicle Crossing	$162.00	$156.00
Per Hour (minimum fee one hour)	$176.00	$174.00
Full Report	$25.90	$25.00
Single Report	$15.50	$15.00
Additional Sections	$6.20	$6.00
Property File Management Fee (charged per consent)	$82.90	$82.00
Certificate of Title	$25.90	$25.00
Refuse Transfer Station Charges	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Discount for separating Green waste	$6.20	$6.00
Green waste (applies to loads under 50kg)	$10.40	$10.00
Green waste (applies to loads up to 100kg)	$14.50	$14.00
Polystyrene & Bulk packaging (per cubic metre)	$72.50	$70.00
Car tyres (each); Motorcycle or quad bike tyres (single or pair) Truck or Tractor tyres not accepted	$8.30	$8.00
Charge to re-issue lost inwards docket	$12.50	$10.00
Marine Parade Toilet (Soundshell)	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Adults & Children 5 years and over	$0.21	$0.00

b. Note the changes are effective from 1 July 2021.

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

Council reviewed and adopted its Schedule of Fees and Charges (the Schedule) as part of the Long Term Plan process for 2021-31.

1.3 Issues

The following changes to fees and charges have been identified by officers since the adoption of the Long Term Plan, and are now presented to Council for approval:

Amending building consent fees to match legislative fees

The building consent fees and charges are set by regulation under the Building Act 2004. Officers are recommending the fees and charges for building consents for 2021/22 are amended to reflect the fees set under legislation.

Building Consents	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Project Information Memorandum (stand-alone only)	$285.00	$280.00
Compliance Schedule	$311.00	$305.00
Online Lodgment Fee	$149.00	$144.00
Building Accreditation Fee	$20.70	$20.00
Administration and Audit Fee	$155.00	$150.00
Building Consents Officer	$176.00	$174.00
Building Administrator	$88.10	$87.00
Inspection Fee	$176.00	$174.00
Certificate of Compliance Fee	$104.00	$100.00
Building Research Levy per $1,000 value above $20,000*	$1.00	$1.00
Building Levy per $1,000 value $20,444 and above	$1.80	$1.75
Application Processing Fee	$28.00	$27.00
Inspection for Road Damage	$71.50	$69.00
Inspection for Vehicle Crossing	$162.00	$156.00
Per Hour (minimum fee one hour)	$176.00	$174.00
Full Report	$25.90	$25.00
Single Report	$15.50	$15.00
Additional Sections	$6.20	$6.00
Property File Management Fee (charged per consent)	$82.90	$82.00
Certificate of Title	$25.90	$25.00

Amendments to transfer Station fees and charges

It has been identified that there was an error in the calculation of some of the fees at Transfer Station. The software at the Transfer Station also requires fees to be in whole dollars (i.e. no decimal places). Officers are requesting changes as outlined in the table below.

Refuse Transfer Station Charges	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Discount for separating Green waste	$6.20	$6.00
Green waste (applies to loads under 50kg)	$10.40	$10.00
Green waste (applies to loads up to 100kg)	$14.50	$14.00
Polystyrene & Bulk packaging (per cubic metre)	$72.50	$70.00
Car tyres (each); Motorcycle or quad bike tyres (single or pair) Truck or Tractor tyres not accepted	$8.30	$8.00
Charge to re-issue lost inwards docket	$12.50	$10.00

Removal of the Marine Parade public toilet charge

The fee for 21/22 was set at 0.21c in error. Officers are requesting the charge for the Marine Parade public toilet is removed for 21/22.

Marine Parade Toilet (Soundshell)	21/22 Fee	Amended 21/22 Fee
Adults & Children 5 years and over	$0.21	$0.00

1.4 Significance and Engagement

The schedule of fees and charges for 2021/22 were considered and adopted at the Council meeting to adopt the Long Term Plan 2021-31 on 30 June 2021.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The proposed amendments to the fees and charges are effective 1 July and will have minimal impact on the revenue forecast in the LTP.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the minor amendments to fees and charges for 2021/22 as set out in the table in the report.

b. Do not approve the minor amendments to fees and charges for 2021/22 as set out in the table in the report.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

Option A - Approve the minor amendments to fees and charges for 2021/22 as set out in the table in the report. The proposed changes are to correct administrative errors and have minimal impact on revenue forecast in the LTP.

At the Meeting

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson spoke to the report seeking approval to make changes to the schedule of fees and changes. The changes are to correct some administrative errors and would have minimal impact on Council’s revenue in the Long Term Plan. The changes relate to charges in Building Consents, Transfer Station, and the public toilet on the Marine Parade.

1.8 Attachments

Nil

2. 2020/21 Resident Survey Results

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1363630
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides the Prosperous Napier Committee with the results of Napier City Council’s Annual Resident Survey.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Crown / Price

The Prosperous Napier Committee:

a. Receive the Napier City Annual Resident satisfaction survey to 30 June 2021

b. Note that satisfaction ratings and targets are part of Council’s planning and performing framework as outlined in Council’s Long Term Plan and reported on as part of its performance reporting in the Annual Report.

c. Note that Council may wish to consider the results of the Resident Survey in the development of the Annual Plan 2021/22.

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

What is the Resident Survey and why do we conduct it?

Since 1992, Council has commissioned an annual survey of Napier residents to seek their views on Council’s services over the previous year. By asking Napier residents for their views on, and satisfaction with, Council services, Council officers, Elected Members, and the wider Napier community can identify what Council is doing well, and take action to improve areas with lower satisfaction ratings.

Surveying Napier residents is one of many ways that residents provide their feedback to Council on its services. For example, some residents routinely voice their praise and concerns on social media and 710 groups and individuals recently made submissions on Council’s Long Term Plan. Surveying Napier residents using robust research methodology and a sample of 450 people allows for a 95% confidence level in the information provided. The results therefore provide Council officers, Council and the Napier community with an accurate picture of what most Napier residents are thinking at a point in time.

The majority of the satisfaction ratings determined by the survey have been incorporated into Council’s long-term planning and performance framework. The satisfaction topics and accompanying targets sit inside Long Term Plan 2018-28 and Long Term Plan 2021-31 as service performance measures under the relevant Activity Group. Council then reports on the progress against these targets, and a range of other indicators, in its Annual Report (currently being prepared for the 2020/21 financial year).

Survey methodology

Surveying is undertaken quarterly by an external provider, SIL Research, which is based in Napier. Results from each quarter are brought together at the end of each financial year to form the end-of-year report, which is included in Appendix A.

452 responses were collected for the 2021 reporting year, through a mixture of methods including:

· Telephone surveys

· Social media advertisements directing residents to an online survey

· Online surveys advertised through Council’s own channels, and

· Postal forms.

SIL Research ensures a diverse sample group ranging in age, gender, ethnicity, the length of time they have lived in Napier, and home ownership/rental status. The final dataset in the report has been statistically weighted to increase accuracy of the reported results (i.e. calculations have been applied to the results order to bring them more in line with Napier’s population).

Overall results

The main findings as outlined in the report include:

· Overall, perceptions of Council’s service provision remained very positive, with two-thirds (68%) of residents satisfied with Napier City Council’s performance; this was a significant decrease from 2020 (75%), but consistent with, or higher than, scores over the last few years.

· Supporting these overall perceptions, 19 out of 29 (66%) Council services received satisfaction scores of 60% or above; 6 services rated 80% or higher.

· However, just two services showed improved performance on 2020 results: Council leadership (Mayor and Councillors) and communication (‘Keeps people informed’).

· Community and recreational facilities remained the most satisfactory aspects of life in Napier for local residents, collectively representing the top four highest rated services/facilities in 2021: sports fields (88%), parks and reserves (87%), public gardens (86%), and playgrounds (84%).

· 4 out of 29 services (14%) were rated below 50%, with the lowest satisfaction for drinking water (26%), urban stormwater (42%), CBD car parking (43%), and public swimming pools (49%).

· The greatest falls in satisfaction were measured for urban stormwater, MTG Hawke’s Bay, town planning, and roads.

· Two-fifths (43%) of residents stated they had contact with the Council in 2020/21. 65% of them were satisfied with this contact.

· Telephone (54%) was the most prevalent method of communication, followed by email (34%). Social media (57%) remained the most preferred mode.

Decreased satisfaction

The survey report notes the following areas have had a decrease in satisfaction rating (compared with the previous year) of more than 5%. It has been noted that generally Councils across New Zealand have recorded a reduction in satisfaction across the board in their 2021 results compared to the 2020 results, with Napier being no exception.

Service	Satisfaction in 2020	Satisfaction in 2021	Variance
Stormwater	60%	42%	-18%
MTG Hawke’s Bay	65%	51%	-14%
Cemeteries	91%	79%	-12%
Noise control	76%	64%	-12%
Attracting visitors	86%	75%	-11%
Activities and events	80%	69%	-11%
Town planning	78%	67%	-11%
Roads	71%	60%	-11%
Rubbish collection	91%	81%	-10%
Animal control	75%	65%	-10%
Libraries	69%	59%	-10%
Footpaths	76%	67%	-9%
Litter/graffiti management	78%	70%	-8%
Cycleways	88%	81%	-7%
Sportsfields	94%	88%	-6%
Freedom camping	61%	55%	-6%
Carparking	53%	47%	-6%
Overall satisfaction	75%	68%	-7%

Contextual factors including ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 General Election, the November 2020 flooding event, Council-led initiatives and other local events may have influenced resident perceptions in 2021, particularly compared to historical survey results.

The survey report benchmarks Napier City Council’s ratings against other Councils in New Zealand. Of note, areas where Napier City Council has rated lower than the NZ benchmark include:

· Drinking water: 26% instead of NZ Benchmark of 64% (-38% variance)

· Libraries: 59% instead of NZ Benchmark of 80% (-21% variance)

· Swimming pools: 49% instead of NZ Benchmark of 64% (-15% variance)

· Stormwater: 42% instead of NZ Benchmark of 52% (-10% variance)

· Sewerage: 61% instead of NZ Benchmark of 67% (-6% variance)

Increased satisfaction

The survey notes the following areas have had an increase in satisfaction rating compared with the previous year:

Service	Satisfaction in 2020	Satisfaction in 2021	Variance
Leadership	53%	59%	+6%
Keeping people informed	63%	65%	+2%

Areas where the results for Napier City Council are higher than the NZ benchmark include:

· Rubbish collection: 81% instead of NZ Benchmark of 50% (+31% variance)

· Leadership: 59% instead of NZ Benchmark of 33% (+26% variance)

· Overall satisfaction: 68% instead of NZ Benchmark of 44% (+24% variance)

· Cycleways: 81% instead of NZ Benchmark of 60% (+21% variance)

· Keeping people informed: 65% instead of NZ Benchmark of 46% (+19% variance)

· Roads: 60% instead of NZ Benchmark of 41% (+19% variance)

· Footpaths: 67% instead of NZ Benchmark of 52% (+15% variance)

· Sportsfields: 88% instead of NZ Benchmark of 76% (+12% variance)

· Parks and reserves: 87% instead of NZ Benchmark of 76% (+11% variance)

· Public toilets: 67% instead of NZ Benchmark of 56% (+11% variance)

· Managers and staff: 56% instead of NZ Benchmark of 46% (+10% variance)

· Cemeteries: 79% instead of NZ Benchmark of 74% (+5% variance)

· Carparking: 47% instead of NZ Benchmark of 41% (+6% variance)

· Animal control: 65% instead of NZ Benchmark of 61% (+4% variance)

Note that some services do not have an associated benchmark.

2.3 Issues

Officers recognise that any ratings which are lower than the benchmark or significantly lower than previous years’ ratings points to an issue that needs to be looked at. It is important to take time to understand the rating by looking at the context of the rating, what work Council already has underway, and any further planned work that may need to occur.

Council received the lowest scores compared to NZ benchmarks, or the most significant negative variances compared with the 2020 rating, in the following areas:

· Drinking water

· Libraries

· Swimming pools

· Stormwater

· MTG Hawke’s Bay, and

· Carparking

Overall satisfaction with Services

Out of the result for overall satisfaction with Council services, of which 68% of residents are satisfied, 12 of the services showed a statistically significant contribution towards overall satisfaction. Assessing relative importance of these services against measured performance, Council communication, stormwater and drinking water represented the greatest improvement potential in 2021.

Overall satisfaction with Communication

About two-fifths (43%) of surveyed residents stated they had contact with Council in 2021. This has continued to decrease from 2020 (50%) and 2019 (58%).

Satisfaction with Council contact and communication remained moderately high: overall, 65% of residents who had contacted Council were satisfied with this to some degree (similar to 66% in 2020).

2.4 Significance and Engagement

This report is for information only; there are no direct decisions required as a result of these satisfaction ratings at this time.

However, one of many criteria that can be taken into account to determine significance of decisions of Council is the ‘level of community interest’. These results are useful to determine community interest in a particular Council service or decision going forward.

2.5 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications arising as a result of this report, unless Council directs a review of the current investment levels in areas which have received a low satisfaction rating. If Council directs (as part of the next Annual Plan) Officers to look into whether any further investment could be expedited in the areas that received low satisfaction, then there could be financial implications in terms of reprioritisation and trade-offs with the planned work programme.

Social & Policy

Council has strategic documents in place for some of the areas which have received low satisfaction ratings. The following documents are informing the work Council is doing:

· Drinking Water Safety Plan

· Napier Library Strategy and Civic Precinct Framework

· Napier Aquatics Centre Business Case

· Parking Strategy, and

· Stormwater Masterplan (currently being peer reviewed).

Risk

Some of the satisfaction ratings which have emerged from the surveys have fallen below Council’s targets as set out in Long Term Plan 2018-28 (which was still relevant up to 30 June 2021). For example, Council set a target of 89% satisfaction with drinking water for 2020/21, and has achieved an actual rating of 26%. These results will be scrutinised by Audit New Zealand during audit of Council’s Annual Report for 2020/21.

More generally, there is a risk that public satisfaction will decrease further if no action is seen to be taken with respect to areas for improvement.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Note the key findings of the annual Resident Survey 2021

b. Note the key findings of the annual Resident Survey 2021, and request changes to the report or further information before the report is uploaded to Council’s website.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

Not applicable.

At the Meeting

The Director Corporate Services, Ms Henderson spoke to the report advising that part of the Key Performance Indicator requirements for the annual report was around customer satisfaction. The methodology for the survey has changed from having one survey a year and is now undertaken quarterly providing a cumulative view of 450 people over the year.

In response to questions Dr Troy from SIL Research, in relation to the pool lower satisfaction than National Benchmark, advised that feedback from the community in regard to swimming pools was that the facilities were tired, run down and in need of investment to upgrade to something modern. Noting this was across both Ocean Spa and Onekawa pools. One of issues was of cleanliness was not necessarily about cleanliness it was more about chipped and stained tiles that looked old. Dissatisfaction was consistent over the years noting availability of lane space, freedom for recreation and play, with these issues being synomous with swimming pools across the country causing dissatification.

It was noted that Council contact and communication with residents remained relatively satisfactory.

The drop in cemetery burials was clarified by the City Services Director as possibly due to COVID and no burials, but rather cremations. The cemeteries were well maintained.

In the last 12-18 months there has been a dip in overall satisfaction across a lot of Councils. A number of factors had contributed to this noting that in the early part of the year most Councils were consulting and engaging on the Long Term Plan. There were a number of contentious issues at the time and was in the forefront of peoples’ minds when undertaking research. Covid has impacted on responses and general sentiments from people on life.

It was noted that the younger aged group were tending to respond more critically across all Council services throughout the country, not just Napier.

2.8 Attachments

a 2021 - Napier City Council Resident Survey (Final Report).pdf (Under Separate Cover)

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 19 August 2021

1. Napier Rotary Pathway Trust - Ōtātara Pā to Dolbel Reserve Walkway

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1354928
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jason Tickner, Team Leader Parks Reserves and Sportsgrounds

1.1 Purpose of Report

To seek a decision on the location of the proposed public walkway linking Ōtātara Pā to Dolbel Reserve.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Simpson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Agree to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the proposed walkway between Ōtātara Pā and Dolbel Reserve which includes the off-road portion behind Webb Place – Figure 2, Option A (Doc ID: 1370665).

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

Napier Rotary Pathway Trust

The Napier Rotary Pathways Trust was formed in 2002 with a vision to build an off-road pathway network which would circumnavigate the city. The final linkages are across the Western Hills of Taradale, including the link between Ōtātara Pā and Dolbel Reserve.

Ōtātara Pā to Dolbel Walkway – Maggie’s Way Extension Proposal

The proposal which is the subject of this report, is to provide a public walkway linking Ōtātara Pā to Dolbel Reserve. The proposed route shown in Figure 1 below, is considered to provide the highest proportion of walkway ‘off road’ by locating the walkway in Council owned and managed reserve and road corridors. A detailed concept plan is provided in Attachment A – Concept Plans.

Figure 1 – Proposed Route between Dolbel Reserve and Ōtātara Pā

The Napier Rotary Pathway Trust have made it clear that this is a walkway, not a cycleway, and that the walkway is to be named Maggie’s Way in memory of Margaret McCoward, consistent with the bequest from Basil McCoward.

1.3 Issues

The Community Engagement identified the following main issues/concerns:

· Safety and security concerns

· Privacy concerns

· Property valuation concerns

· Concerns the pathway will not be shared (i.e. no ability for cyclist to use)

1.4 Significance and Engagement

The concept design - Figure1 above showing the proposed alignment was made available to local residents and the public for comment. A review of the 113 responses received indicated a high level of support for the proposal amongst the general public. 83% of all responses received were supportive of the concept plan.

There were 13 submissions opposing the proposed walkway, the majority of these came from Webb Place residents. The most common reasons for opposing the plan have been highlighted in the Issues Section of this report. Refer to Attachment B – Engagement Summary.

A number of mitigation measures were suggested by submitters who opposed the walkway. The most common suggestion was the re-alignment of the walkway either on the inside the HBRC stop bank, or on the inside of the dam wall face to avoid it passing in view of the residents of Webb Place.

The Designating Authority (Hawkes Bay Regional Council) is not supportive of either of these proposed alternatives and under Section 176(1)(b) RMA 1991 they have provided their approval in principle to the alignment of the path as shown in Figure 2, Option A below, subject to detailed design.

Some residents also suggested the route bypasses the reserve at the rear of their property and follow a further on road route via O’Dowd Road and Churchill Drive as shown below Figure 2, Option B. However given there is an off-road alternative, this is not supported by Council Officers.

Figure 2 – Alternative ‘on-road’ route

Ngāti Paarau Hapū have also been contacted for comment on several occasions but no formal response has been received at this stage. NCC will continue to look to engage as the project progresses.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The Napier Rotary Pathway Trust will provide a donation adequate to cover the full construction cost via the McCoward’s Bequest. The Trustees have confirmed a tentative donation of $525,000 (GST excl) based on initial engineer’s estimates prepared by Council.

All design and project management costs to be funded through existing budget for Western Hill Walkway development.

Social & Policy

Reserve Management Plan

The most relevant policy in relation to this proposal is the Walkways objective and policy (Section 5.22) under the Napier City Councils Reserves Management Plan (RMP). This objective and policy encourages off-road walkway developments in reserves.

Napier Operative District Plan

The most relevant policy in relation to this proposal under the Operative Napier City Plan is Policy 41.3.2. This policy is to encourage the maintenance, enhancement and expansion of the existing walkway system and encourage public access linkages between the different open space zones and in particular between highly significant landscape features. This proposal is consistent with the policy.

Risk

Resident’s objections

There is risk that some residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pathway are likely to continue to oppose the project. Their views have been identified in Attachment B – Engagement Summary.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a) Agree to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the proposed walkway between Ōtātara Pā and Dolbel Reserve which includes the off-road portion behind Webb Place – Figure 2, Option A

b) Agree to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the proposed walkway but bypassing the reserve link behind Webb Place and opting to utilise the on-road pathway – identified as Figure 2, Option B

c) Abandon the project and focus on other opportunities or routes in the Western Hills (noting that alternative routes have been investigated but access rights have not been able to be secured).

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The Officers preferred option is option a);

Agree to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the proposed walkway between Ōtātara Pā and Dolbel Reserve which includes the off-road portion behind Webb Place – Figure 2, Option A

Suggestions and concerns raised through the submission process can be partly mitigated by fencing and planting, and these mitigation measures can be included in the detailed design.

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to this report. There were no questions from the Committee.

1.8 Attachments

a Attachment A - Concept Plans (Under Separate Cover)

b Attachment B - Engagement Summary (Under Separate Cover)

2. Botanical Gardens Picnic Cinemas

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1355825
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jason Tickner, Team Leader Parks Reserves and Sportsgrounds

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council to allow Picnic Cinemas to hold a series of family/community-orientated movie nights at the Botanical Gardens over the next five (5) calendar years (four event seasons).

Committee's recommendation

Councillors McGrath / Crown

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Resolve that the report be received.

b. Resolve

i. Pursuant to the delegated authority provided to Council under the Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities, dated June 2013, to grant a licence under Section 54(1)(d) of the Reserves Act 1977 for Picnic Cinemas over part of the land described in the Schedule below (being Recreation Reserve) for the purposes of operating the business of a cinema for a term of no more than two (2) events per summer season, consisting of a maximum of (4) days per event, over the next four (4) summer seasons (2021-2025) and otherwise in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, subject to any other consents being granted.

Schedule

Legal Description Botanical Gardens Survey Office Plan 5010

Identifier HBW2/600

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

Picnic Cinemas have requested to locate their movie nights in the Botanical Gardens (refer Figure 1 – Indicative Site Layout), for a total of two (2) events per summer season, consisting of a maximum of (4) days per event, over the next four (4) summer seasons (2021-2025). Specific dates have been set for this season (2021/2022) but have not been determined at this stage for future seasons. The applicant will be required to book the venue and confirm the dates with our Venues Booking Officer ahead of each season.

Figure 1 – Indicative Site layout

The ‘Picnic Cinema’ event is a family/community-orientated, temporary outdoor cinematic experience that comprises:

- A 28m², trailer-mounted, LED movie screen (7 metres by 4 metres);

- Four amplified sound speakers, located to the left and right of the screen;

o An open plan ‘seating/viewing’ area delineated by a self-supporting,
1-metre-high picket fencing treatment with flags spaced along its extent;

o Festoon string lighting within the defined area; and

o An entrance marquee (similar to a pop-up gazebo).

Attendees to the cinema are encouraged to bring their own low-height seating (cushions/bean-bags/beach chairs) and dinner/picnic food. The overall cinema experience is to be complemented with the inclusion of mobile food truck offerings that are to be situated near the entry marquee of the cinema set up (refer Figure 2 – Pilot Event) .

Figure 2 – Pilot Event (Havelock North Primary)

The Picnic Cinema is to operate across two viewing sessions per date:

- 5.00pm – 6.45pm; and

- 7.45pm – 9.30pm

With the 5pm session to act as a fund-raiser for local schools, with a portion of funds from each ticket sold by a school’s Home and School Association being donated back to the relevant school.

The Picnic Cinema events are family-friendly:

- they are to be alcohol-free events, and not to be licenced for the sale and supply of liquor; and

- The cinematic offerings at the Botanical Gardens during the 5pm session will not exceed a New Zealand classification label of ‘PG’ (Parental Guidance Suggested);

- The cinematic offerings at the Botanical Gardens during the 7.45pm session will not exceed a New Zealand classification label of ‘M’ (Suitable for mature audiences 16 years of age and over);

The clean-up after the final evening session involves rubbish pick up, toilet check and clean, and removal of part of the picket fencing so as to facilitate public access within the defined area during each ‘morning’ of the event. This work required to ‘shut-down’ the event is to be completed by 10.30pm each evening.

Re-instatement of the fencing/ event set up prior to the late afternoon session will begin at 2pm each day.

The maximum ticketing/occupancy for each session will not exceed a total of 500 persons, to ensure that comfort and safety of all attendees is maintained for the duration of the event.

For the purposes of the definition of the “event” in the context of this application, this comprises the following at each venue:

- Two outdoor cinema sessions per day; and

- Daily set up and shutdown activities (excluding initial event set up and pack down); and

- The duration of these activities to be over a maximum of 4 consecutive days.

This current application seeks to be able to provide for the Picnic Cinema to operate up to a maximum of two ‘events’ at the Napier Botanical Gardens, within the next four summer seasons/ 5-year basis. The two events, of up to four days each, will be booked between the dates set below:

Season	Start	End
1	November 2021	February 2022
2	November 2022	February 2023
3	November 2023	February 2024
4	November 2024	February 2025

This does not preclude other users from booking the reserve over this summer period, subject to availability.

Season 1 will be ‘test the market’ year and the timetable described below reflects a shorter event duration for the December 2021 session compared to what the current application is seeking across the remainder of Season 1 (February) and Seasons 2 – 4. However, as the event becomes more familiar within the locale, it is anticipated that demand will increase. Consequently, the scope of the consent application enables consecutive seasons to increase the duration of the two ‘events’ to the maximum four-day duration/ 8 cinema screenings.

The proposed dates for Season 1 have been set as follows and have been tentatively confirmed with the NCC Venues Booking Officer, however noting that on the 12^th of February 2021 the site is pre-booked so these dates may need to change;

December 2021
Friday 10^th Saturday 11th	Event 1
Includes set up commencing in the (AM) of Friday 10^th and pack down/removal of event completed on Sunday 12^th
February 2022
Friday 11^th Saturday 12^th	Event 2
Sunday 13^th Monday 14th
Includes set up commencing in the (AM) of Friday 11^th and pack down/removal of event completed on Tuesday 15^th

There are no ‘postponement or reserve’ dates proposed in the event of inclement weather, instead the decision to cancel the event will be made no later than 3 hours before the commencement of a session and a full refund (minus bank fees) will be provided.

With regard to the dates for Seasons 2 – 4, it is proposed that these be set down/ confirmed annually, following the completion of the precedent season and also in conjunction with the Napier City Council Parks and Reserves Management Team and Venues Booking Officer with regard to venue availability.

Other matters

A resource consent application under the Resource Management Act (1991) has been applied for concurrently to this Council report to seek consent for these events and ensure that the environmental effects are no more than minor (i.e. traffic, noise, light spill etc.). Consent is required due to the number of temporary event days exceeding limits in the District Plan.

2.3 Issues

Should the Council approve the issuing of a Licence (subject to the Reserves Act), this in no way confers approval with other regulatory requirements, including but not limited to, compliance with the Resource Management Act and Building Act.

Resource Consent will need to be granted for the number of proposed consecutive event days.

The only similar type of event to be held at the Botanical Gardens in recent years is Christmas in the Park and Botanic Beats.

Comprehensive Health and Safety Plans will need to be provided and approved as part of the application from Picnic Cinemas.

In addition, Traffic Management Plans will be required and will be conditioned as part of the Resource Consent (if granted).

Noise will need to be monitored to ensure no adverse effect on neighbouring residents.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

2.5 Implications

Financial

Fees and Charges would be in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges Policy. This event would be charged at $417 per day and the event would also be bonded.

Figure 3 – Extract from Councils Fees and Charges Policy

Social & Policy

Whilst the Reserve Management Plan anticipates this type of activity, Council is still required to issue a Licence for the use of the area because it is vested as Recreation Reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

The Reserve Management Plan includes the following in relation to the Public use and access to Public Gardens.

Policy 8.3

(a) Public use and access: These gardens shall be freely accessible for quiet use by the public during daylight hours.

Comment

Access to parts of the gardens may be restricted when it is necessary for grounds maintenance or development, for safety reasons or for special events.

Special Events: Activities that increase the use of the gardens by the public shall be encouraged. Organised events shall be subject to Council’s consent and conditions. Public access may be restricted for the purpose of making a charge and crowd control.

Risk

There has been no consultation with the community regarding locating this activity at the Botanical Gardens. There are no specific requirements under the Reserves Act to undertake consultation for a temporary licence of this nature.

There have been no other recent approaches to undertake temporary commercial events of this nature. There is a minor risk that by allowing one activity to locate here, there will be precedent for other similar activities. Approval is however site specific and any application would be assessed (just like this one) on its own merits and based on the underlying Reserves Act classification. The risk of precedence therefore remains low.

It is also noted that the Resource Consent process is the mechanism to control any adverse risks from the proposal and there is a public notification test under this legislation which the proposal will be assessed against.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Option A - Grant a Licence to Occupy for the area identified in Figure 1 above

b. Option B - Grant a Licence to Occupy for an alternative site

c. Option C – Grant a Licence to Occupy on a reduced time period and/or frequency

d. Option D - Do not grant a Licence to Occupy

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The Botanical Gardens is the preferred location for Picnic Cinema because of the park like setting the gardens provide and the natural amphitheatre. There are a number of other sites that may be suitable for this activity including Anderson Park, Marine Parade and Memorial Square, however the applicant has specifically requested the Botanical Gardens because of the specific visitor experience and ambience ‘that is not achievable at other Reserve locations within the Napier City local’.

Botanical Gardens is suitable for this activity on the basis that all other regulatory matters which sit outside of this approval and Reserves Act process can be addressed.

Section 54 (1)(d) of the Reserves Act gives the Council the delegation to grant a licence on the basis that this ‘would be a business or occupation that will allow the public to obtain the benefit and enjoyment of the reserve’. Officers are of the opinion that the proposal meets the requirements of the Reserves Act and the activity will contribute to the public obtaining benefit and enjoyment of the reserve. Accordingly a licence for this site can be issued under the Reserves Act should Council believe this to be appropriate.

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to the report and noted that since this meeting’s agenda had been published the resource consent had been granted for the event. This consent addresses the environmental impacts of the event.

In response to questions from the Committee clarified:

· The licence period is four years as Picnic Cinemas are making a significant investment in the equipment they require to hold the movie nights so require some certainty this investment is worthwhile. They have asked the same of the other Hawke’s Bay Councils and will screen movies at different locations across the summer period. If there were issues with the licensee these could be addressed through the Council booking system, as Picnic Cinemas will still be required to book the site for each of their screening sessions.

· The licence will give Picnic Cinemas exclusive use of a designated area of lawn for the timeframe stipulated in the booking.

· Picnic Cinemas will have to comply with the existing Parks and Reserves bylaws, which stipulate the Botanical Gardens are a smoke-free and alcohol-free zone. Signage and security will be present during the film screenings to notify and enforce the bylaws.

· Picnic Cinemas will have signage outside the Botanical Gardens to advertise their events and to notify residents of its occurrence. Also as part of the resource consent conditions, Picnic Cinemas are required to notify nearby residents of the event with a letter drop.

· Traffic management will be required just prior and just after the screening takes place.

· These events are intended to be zero waste, and the resource consent has conditions in it the event organisers have to comply with to ensure zero waste.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

3. Reserve Management Plan Approval to Proceed with Preparation

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1355966
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jason Tickner, Team Leader Parks Reserves and Sportsgrounds

3.1 Purpose of Report

To advise and update on the impending Reserve Management Plan (RMP) Review scheduled to commence in 2021.

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

This report also seeks endorsement of the following:

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

· The proposed internal process set out in Section 3.3 of this report; and

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

· Inform of the additional recommendations from the Māori Committee - as part of the RMP review investigate co-governance models around parks and reserves and the continued engagement with mana whenua on the naming of parks.

This report follows on from the 9 December 2020 Māori Committee meeting. The Māori Committee have endorsed preparation approach and reporting. Note the amended recommendation regarding investigating co-governance models around parks and reserves and also the continual engagement of mana whenua around the naming of parks and reserves.

The process is clear, and appropriate, and continues to support effective engagement with Hapū and Iwi Authorities.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Simpson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the recommendation to proceed with 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 the implementation of c. below, the Sustainable Napier Committee will be asked to endorse the Council’s intention to prepare the next tranche of Management Plans (in accordance with the prioritised list).

c. Endorse Council’s 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. That the recommendation of the Māori Committee requesting Officers investigate co-governance models around parks and reserves be endorsed and that this be considered as part of Council’s co-governance framework which is currently under development.

e. Endorse the recommendation of the Māori Committee requesting Officers engage with mana whenua around the naming of parks and their history.

f. Note that Reserve Management Plans require endorsement by Council prior to adoption.

Carried

Decision of Council

Councillors Chrystal / Simpson

Carried

3.2 Background Summary

Legal Procedure and Proposed Process

As an administering body, Napier City Council (the Council) has the responsibility under the Reserves Act 1977 to prepare Management Plans for reserves that are under Council’s control, management or administration. Management Plans set out general intentions for Reserves use, development, maintenance, protection and preservation.

Council’s current Reserve Management Plan was adopted by Council in 2000 and is now well overdue for review (10-year lifespan).

A Reserve Management Plan is a document that is typically prepared under the requirements of the Reserves Act, and follows two phases of public consultation (one optional and one mandatory).

The process aims to ensure that Management Plans are based on sound principles and that, through consultation, the needs of the public are clearly identified. The process for the preparation of Reserve Management Plans is set out in the Reserves Act 1977 and is summarised in the following table:

Legislative Procedure- Reserve Management Plan Preparation (Reserves Act 1977)

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE RESERVES ACT	PUBLIC CONSULTATION	DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Section 41 (5)	Optional	The Council notifies the public that it is preparing a management plan and calls for suggestions
Section 41 (5) (c)	Optional	Public suggestions are received and incorporated into a draft management plan
Section 41 (6) a-c	Mandatory	A draft management plan is made available to the public for comment (no less than 2 months)
Section 41 (6) (d)		The draft management plan is edited to incorporate decisions resulting from the consideration of public submissions and hearings
Section 41 (6) (d)		The final document is presented to the Council for adoption

Māori Committee Recommendations

On 9 December 2020, the Māori Committee endorsed the proposed approach with the following additional recommendations:

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

· Recommend Council engage with mana whenua around the naming of parks and their history.

As a result of the additional recommendations 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 (if locally appropriate).

In addition, there will continue to be bi-lingual signage put in place for reserves, and the Committee can continue to help with this by consulting with mana whenua to get advice on naming for reserves.

3.3 Issues

Plan Preparation and Consultation

As detailed in the above table, the preparation of Management Plans is required and the procedure is specifically mandated under Section 41 of the Reserves Act with the one exception of an optional round of public consultation and engagement though the calling for suggestions prior to drafting the Plans.

An administering body can resolve not to call for suggestions prior to drafting the plan should it determine that written suggestions on the proposed plan would not materially assist in its preparation.

It is our recommendation that the optional public consultation set down in Sections 41 (5) and 41 (5) (c), is important and crucial to ensure robust, accurate and well-informed Management Plans are prepared. Community and stakeholder input prior to drafting will ensure the draft plans accurately reflect community and stakeholder aspirations.

On this basis, we are looking for Sustainable Napier Committee endorsement of our recommendation to undertake both steps of consultation and engagement.

Recommended Process

The RMP review programme is likely to span a number of years given the sheer number of Reserves that Council administer and also the time taken to undertake effective engagement and reporting in accordance with the Reserve Act requirements.

To ensure we follow a consistent and transparent approach that meets our legal Reserve Act requirements as well as our proposed additional engagement approach - a step-by-step process has been developed which can be applied and followed for each Reserve Management Plan. The actions/tasks highlighted in blue are those which we are seeking endorsement as part of this report.

Step	Action	Tasks	Involvement
1	Advise and inform of Reserve Management Plan review (outline legal process required to follow as well as recommendations on optional engagement)	· Endorsement by Māori Committee (endorsed on the 9 December 2020) · Endorsement by Standing Committee and Council	Māori Committee Standing Committee Council
2	Proceed to determine which Reserve Management Plan to progress	· Review and consideration of draft priority list.	Officer recommendation Advise Māori Committee Endorsement required at this step from Standing Committee / Council
3	Notify Intent to Prepare Reserve Management Plan/s and call for suggestions Section 41 (5)	· In accordance with Reserves Act requirements and in accordance with recommendations of the approved Engagement and Consultation Plan	Council endorsement required at this step
4	Development of an Engagement and Consultation Plan specific to chosen Management Plan	· Identify any special interest groups, community, key stakeholders and mana whenua. · Identify and confirm the process for mana whenua engagement in conjunction with Councils Māori Partnerships Manager	Officer involvement (Parks and Reserves, Community Development and Māori Partnerships Manager) required at this step
5	Prepare Draft Plan	· Public suggestions are received and incorporated into a draft management plan	Officer preparation
6	Notify Draft Reserve Management Plan and call for submissions	· In accordance with Reserves Act Requirements (no less than 2 months) · · In accordance with approved Engagement and Consultation Plan	Council endorsement required at this step
6	Hearing of Submissions		Council involvement and approval
7	Amended Plan (as a result of submissions) adopted by Council	Take into account any submissions	Council involvement and approval by way of adoption

3.4 Significance and Engagement

The review and development of Reserve Management Plans typically only occurs once every 10 years and provides a unique opportunity for the community, stakeholders and interest groups to input their views into the plan development.

The notification of intent to prepare and the call for submissions will provide an opportunity for any interested party to lodge comments in an informal way prior to preparing the Draft Plan and this would greatly assist in Reserve Management Plan preparation. This ensures that there is opportunity for mana whenua to have meaningful input into the plan preparation process.

Given the magnitude of the Reserve Management Plan review separate and targeted engagement and consultation plans will be developed for each Reserve Management Plan.

3.5 Implications

Financial

There is currently budget set aside for the Reserve Management Plan review and progress and expected expenditure aligns with the budgetary expectations.

Additional funding is not expected however should additional funding be required separate application would be made to Council through the normal budgeting processes.

Social & Policy

The Reserve Management Plan (2000) provides the current policy framework for the management of reserves however as noted above this plan is now well overdue for review. The purpose of this report is to initiate the review of the existing management plan so that the policies can be updated in line with current community aspirations.

Risk

Preparing Reserve Management Plans is mandatory for Recreation Reserves classified and subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act (1977). Our existing Management Plan is well overdue for review. Not reviewing the Management Plans is not an option.

Calling for suggestions prior to the preparation of management plan is not mandatory but there is a risk that not doing this would compromise the outcome.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council in regard to the Public Consultation process are as follows:

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

b. Resolve to not undertake the optional, s41 (5), submission process and proceed with the mandatory submission process only s41 (5)c.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

Plan Preparation and Consultation

Whilst there is no mandate to call for suggestions, it is Officer’s recommendation that Council follow the procedures as stipulated in Section 41 (5) of the Reserves Act (including the optional consultation) and notify Councils intention to prepare the Management plans, inviting interested persons, organisations and mana whenua to send to the administering body at its office written suggestions prior to every Reserve Management Plan prepared.

The notification of intent to prepare and the call for submissions will provide an opportunity for any key stakeholders including Hapū or Iwi Authorities, and other interested parties to lodge comments in an informal way prior to preparing the Draft Plan and this would greatly assist in the plans preparation. The Maori Committee have endorsed this approach (9 December 2020).

The development of co-governance models will be looked at on a case by case basis.

It is also recommended that the Proposed Draft Management Plan Priority List be endorsed with scope to modify if needed.

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to this report and in response to questions from the Committee clarified:

· The proposed Draft Reserve Management Plans priority list can be reviewed with The Council. Council Officers did not intend to consult with the community over the list. The current rankings are based on where Council Officers felt the need was greatest, but it can be reordered if priorities change.

· The City Wide Reserve Management Plan is to look at the overarching policies on the whole of Napier city. It needs to be looked at first to give an overall direction.

· There has been a lot of input and enquiries about Taradale Park. The park is used for many things by many stakeholders and residents, so to prioritise this park would give a response to the community pressure.

· Maraenui Park has not been focused on in the last few years. There is an opportunity for Council to find out what the community would like to happen here.

· A Reserve Management Plan process takes about two years, depending on scale and public involvement, and there is no way to shortcut that. Occasionally individuals or groups offer donations towards rejuvenating public spaces, and have suggestions of how the rejuvenation could be carried out. There can be some balancing required between what is wished for and what Council is able to achieve.

· The Coastal group of reserves could be moved up the priority list to give a clear picture for concerned residents and to address some of the developing coastal issues.

· Council Officers have been working on a Draft Open Space Strategy for the last two years. It has formed a good basis for how Council it sees all its open spaces being managed and for progress of reserve management planning. The Reserve Management Plans will then give structure to any larger reserve plans developed in the future.

· The Harakeke Walkway was developed in conjunction with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and has been relatively successful regards to native planting. There are no plans currently to extend that planting. The Cross Country Drain and the Harakeke Walkway’s main purpose are as drainage reserves, and that classification will not be changed. Council is looking at where more native planting can occur, in conjunction with community groups and the Three Waters Team.

· Planning with interested community groups can be initiated to give some surety that specific Reserve Management Plans are in the work schedule and Council is willing to take community feedback on board. To reprioritise one plan on the Reserve Management Plans priority list will deprioritise others.

· The Parks and Reserves Team is under resourced and there is a lot of work to get through. There is recruitment underway for a Policy Planner, but it is a very competitive job market for someone with these skills. Council has a Consultant engaged to help get the Taradale and Maraenui Park Plans progressed.

· There is consultation occurring currently on Spriggs Park through Rotary.

3.8 Attachments

a Proposed Draft Management Plan Priority List (Under Separate Cover)

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

4. Ahuriri Masterplan Project Update: Thames-Tyne Sediment Investigation

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1360308
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Hannah Ludlow, Environmental Management Officer

4.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to inform the Sustainable Napier Committee of the results to date of the Pandora Sediment Assessment project.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Browne / Chrystal

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the results of the sediment core sampling.

Carried

4.2 Background Summary

The Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan allocated funding to a series of projects dedicated to the prevention of further degradation of Te Whanganui-a-Orotu. Project 1F of the masterplan lists a ‘Pandora Catchment Stormwater Quality System’. This project has been allocated $1.248m through the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan to investigate the quality of the Thames and Tyne waterways in the Pandora Industrial area, evaluate options for the improvement of those waterways, and implement preferred improvement options.

Twelve sediment core samples from the Thames, Tyne and Combined Thames-Tyne waterways have been analysed across three laboratories for the following contaminants:

· Heavy metal counts (arsenic, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc);

· Polybrominated-Diphenol Esthers (flame retardants);

· Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;

· Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);

· Plasticisers;

· Pesticides; and

· Grain size.

To cross-compare to estuarine sites, two additional cores were retrieved, being in the Upper Ahuriri Estuary, and in the southern central mudflat (Figure 1). Results have been compiled in-house.

Figure 1:
Aerial view of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) showing estuarine 'control' sites for sediment cores.

4.3 Issues

In its current form, the sediment in the Thames-Tyne network presents a risk to
Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) through the slow leaching of hydrocarbons when raining, and through the risk of erosion of the contaminated sediment during significant rainfall. As such, there is a need to investigate the rehabilitation of the sediment within the wider context of improving the whole-of-network (i.e. water, ecological health and sediment).

4.3.1 Heavy metals

From in-house analysis of the sediment core sampling results, there appears to be a concentration of contaminants within the 40cm of sediment throughout the Tyne Waterway. A peak metal contamination zone exists about 14cm depth.

In the Thames, the concentrated contamination zone also occurs in the top 40cm, with a peak contamination zone about 10cm depth.

The highest reported concentration of heavy metals, particularly lead and zinc, is found in the ‘TT2’ sample at 15-19cm depth. This pattern is replicated throughout the waterway for other heavy metals. We have used zinc as an example to highlight this issue. This is likely due to the channelization of the Thames and Tyne acting as a funnel for sediment-bound contaminants, which settle out when the channel widens and the hydrodynamic energy subsequently drops. This has created a contaminant sink of heavy metals about the Thames-Tyne footbridge.

To place overall zinc results from the project in context, a study in the Spanish Ria de Huelva Estuary utilised the same sediment scanning methodology to understand the concentration of heavy metals in sediment. The Ria de Huelva Estuary has highly acidic fluvial tributary (the Tinto River) with an average pH of less than 3 from an industrial catchment supporting metal mining. The highest Zn concentrations were approximately 13,000 in the Ria du Huelva samples. Comparatively, every Thames-Tyne sample recorded a higher peak concentration of Zn (example as per Figure 2). In the ‘TT2’ spike at 17.8cm depth, Zn levels were analysed as 53 times the highest readings obtained in the Ria du Huelva. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the zinc concentration profiles of the 12 Thames-Tyne sediment cores.

Figure 2: Left: Zinc 'peak area' (counts per second) versus depth in the Ria du Huelva Estuary, Spain.
Right: Zinc counts per second versus depth in TY4 sample.

Figure 3: Tyne waterway through Combined waterway map of sediment core sampling sites, and zinc counts per second (CPS) results versus depth.

Figure 4: Thames waterway map of sediment core sampling sites, and zinc counts per second (CPS) results versus depth.

4.3.2 Grain size

Across all samples, grain size in the top ~50cm depth was dominated by fine silts and sands. Around this same depth, many core samples showed the drastic change of grain size to medium-coarse sand. Informed by similar core sampling work undertaken in Ahuriri Estuary, this zone is reflective of the uplift from the 1931 Napier Earthquake.

4.3.3 PBDEs

Concentrations of PBDEs were below laboratory detection levels in all samples. Concentrations of plasticisers were below detection levels in many samples, though were detectable in minor amounts in the top 0-20cm of the four Tyne waterway sediment cores.

4.3.4 Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbon concentrations were generally very low in the Thames waterway. In the Tyne waterway, levels were significantly higher though remain generally below the guideline value (from the Australia New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality 2018). In sample ‘TY1’, hydrocarbon levels exceed the lower guideline value (GV) in the top 20cm.

Trace amounts of sediment-bound hydrocarbons were found in the combined waterway and Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary).

4.3.5 PCBs

In the Thames waterway, PCBs exceeded the lower GV in the top 20cm of TH3, and were present in minor amounts throughout the remainder of the samples.

In the Tyne, PCBs in TY1 and TY2 exceed the lower GVs. PCBs in TY3 significantly exceeded the upper GV by 34 times.

Trace amounts were found in the combined waterway.

4.3.6 Plasticisers

Minor concentrations of plasticisers registered across all Thames-Tyne samples. TH1, TY1, TY3 and TY4 showed trace concentrations in the top 20cm depth.

No plasticisers registered in the combined waterway or Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary).

4.3.7 Pesticides

Trace amounts were found in the combined waterway and the Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary), with dieldrin just below GV in the Upper Ahuriri Estuary.

4.4 Significance and Engagement

The overall goal of the project is to investigate the best-practicable option(s) for the improvement of the Thames-Tyne waterway network quality. Doing so will stem a series of associated benefits, such as;

· Encouragement of the Thames and Tyne waterways as ecologically-valuable extensions to Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary);

· Placing greater importance on, and encouraging the improvement of the waterway ecosystems themselves rather than just their discharge into the estuary;

· Reducing degradation of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary) by association;

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

· Reducing risk of non-compliance against Napier City Council’s resource consent for discharge of the Thames and Tyne waterways;

…and more.

With an apparent zone of peak contaminant concentration in the top 40cm of sediment in the Thames and Tyne waterways, there is an opportunity to investigate removal (dredging). With the Tyne waterway showing significantly higher hydrocarbon and metal contamination than the Thames, there is a particular focus on the need to remediate the Tyne.

4.5 Implications

Financial

Rehabilitation options will be investigated and costs analysed during the next stage of the project.

Social & Policy

Considering the proximity of the Thames-Tyne network to Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary), and the history of the water quality within the Thames and Tyne, this project is essential in ensuring the sustainable improvement of the socially and ecologically important, yet delicate estuary. Once options for rehabilitation have been developed by appropriate expertise, transparent communications with stakeholders will guide the selection and implementation of the preferred option for improving the Thames-Tyne waterway system.

Risk

When remediation options are considered, priority must be placed on the prevention of historic contaminant mobilisation to the sensitive Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary). This may mean ‘shutting off’ the network to the estuary’s tides.

4.6 Options

N/A

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to the report and in response to questions from the Committee clarified:

· The timelines for funding the improvement of the Thames-Tyne waterway network are set out in the Ahuriri Master Plan and the Long Term Plan (LTP). Within the next two financial years the core funding will come online and beyond that residual funding will become available for continued work and maintenance.

· Contamination of the waterway by the heavy metals detected at 17.8cm depth in the core sampling would only occur if the sediment above was disturbed. This depth is below where benthic communities would reside (species dwelling on the waterway floor).

· There is still adequate budget available for the work to be completed in the next two years.

· There have been other projects in New Zealand which have remediated marine sediment successfully.

· HBRC have issued resources consents to third parties which allow higher contaminants than they allow Council. The current Thames-Tyne waterway consent comes to an end in two years’ time, and Council will be talking with HBRC in the lead up to this about what should be happening in these waterways going forward.

4.8 Attachments

Nil

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

5. Napier City Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Implementation Update

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1360310
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Alix Burke, Environmental Solutions Coordinator Rhett van Veldhuizen, Waste Minimisation Lead

5.1 Purpose of Report

a. This report provides information on new legislation that comes into effect from
01 January 2022; Waste Minimisation (Information Requirements) Regulations 2021 which requires the reporting of all materials received into and transported out of transfer stations including diverted materials.

b. This report is to provide an update on the implementation of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and recent activities undertaken by the NCC Waste Minimisation Team. A copy of the WMMP can be viewed on the NCC website

c. In addition, there is an update on an initiative provided by The Packaging Forum which provides a sustainable destination for soft plastics.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Simpson

That Sustainable Napier Committee

a. Receive the information regarding new Waste Minimisation (Information Requirements) Regulations 2021

b. Receive the Waste Minimisation Team’s WMMP implementation update.

Carried

5.2 Waste Minimisation (Information Requirements) Regulations 2021

In one of many changes soon to be imposed upon the waste landscape by Central Government, from 01 January 2022, operators of cleanfill, monofill and transfer station facilities must provide Ministry for the Environment (MfE) with detailed records of both the tonnage of waste and the tonnage of diverted material that enters and leaves their facility. This information includes:

· Tonnage amounts

· Date and time the waste or diverted material was measured

· How the tonnage was measured

· Where the tonnage was measured (if not at the facility)

This information is to be provided quarterly unless an annual submission has been approved and records are to be kept for 7 years.

This new legislation will impact resourcing within the Waste Minimisation Team, and will require new recording systems, acquiring data and presenting it in the required format to the Ministry.

A concept has been proposed to Hastings District Council to enable at least two team members to work cross-boundary to further collaboration with the Hastings team and enable efficiencies of recruitment and alignment of policies to assist this legislation changes and others being imposed upon us. We support this strongly as we seek to enable efficiencies and maintain our joint philosophies and delivery of the WMMP outcomes.

New weighbridge software to replace the current system which is currently a noted high risk, is scheduled to be installed and operating prior to 01 December 2021 and will assist in the capture of the required data. This timeframe will enable Information Services, Finance and Waste Minimisation Teams to ensure that trials and systems linkages can occur.

5.3 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation

Kerbside Refuse/General Waste Services

Background:

In October 2020, Council replaced the two 60L bags with a 120L wheelie bin as the receptacle for the City’s kerbside refuse collection. After reviewing service options, it was decided to extend this service to Napier’s shopping zones. Initially there were some concerns around storage of the bins on premises, but the business community has adapted well and the streetscape has improved with the changes implemented. Bags were very susceptible to being ripped open by seagulls and other animals, especially around restaurants, cafes and motels and the provision of wheelie bins has prevented this.

Participation rates:

The average participation in the service is 76% meaning across Napier the bins are presented 76% of the time. An average of around 84,500 wheelie bins are lifted per month. More detail can be found in the attached document 2020-21 waste data.

Additional bins issued:

Since the initial roll-out around 29 bins have been issued per month. About 19 issued for new subscribers and 10 issued as replacements. See the graph below.

Tonnage of waste disposed:

Waste disposal tonnages across our services have increased. The high uptake of the wheelie bin service and possibly changes in customers’ disposal practices have resulted in higher collected tonnages for this service. There has been commentary about the change in the type of receptacle provided creating additional waste, but if a customer has 8kg of waste for their previous bag collection, a wheelie bin does not make this heavier, and we have not seen customers creating more waste just because they now have a bin.

Increased waste tonnages are most likely to be due to issues such as:

· reduced subscriptions to commercial services

· changes in purchasing habits due to the ongoing global pandemic

· economic factors

· non-recyclable packaging of replacement products post-flood.

The average weight of wheelie bin contents 9.13kg, which compares to the 8.85kg during the bag collection contract. While the subscribers using the service has increased by almost 20%, the tonnage disposed of has only increased by just over 3%.

More detail can be found in the attached document 2020-21 waste data.

Less Waste Incentive (LWI)

This is a system that the Waste Minimisation Team introduce for the people of Napier to recognise good practice and to incentivise or reward customers who put out less waste was introduced as part of the roll-out. Participation in this scheme continues to grow. Around 3,000 customers have correctly signed up and put their wheelie bin out fortnightly (or at an equivalent frequency) per annum. In return, they have received a 30% discount on the waste collection cost on their rates bill for this financial year. This incentive discount reduced the 2021-2022 kerbside refuse rate from $133.00 to $93.10 per property.

Assisted and Alternative Services

Assisted and Alternative Services have been introduced to assist our customers who have genuine difficulties presenting their receptacles at the kerbside.

The Alternative Service is for use by residents of properties where Council agrees that a wheelie bin service is unsuitable. Reasons for this are geographical, such as very steep access, only step access, or to reduce health & safety risk to our customers or contractors. The Alternative Service is operated by the customer using two 60L bags with official stickers identifying them as part of the service to distinguish their bags from illegal dumping. Around 30 properties have been approved for this of collection.

The Assisted Service caters to our customers’ needs due to disability or health reasons. A site visit is undertaken with contractors and an agreed position on the property is identified. The wheelie bin is left in that position on collection day, emptied by the contractor and returned to that position after being serviced. At present there are 8 customers who use this service.

Kerbside Recycling

Background

This service was introduced in November 2019 has bedded in very well. The three 45L crates are collected weekly and participation levels are high for a service of this kind. The collected tonnages have steadily increased for Glass, Plastics & Cans, but Cardboard & Paper have not. The reason for this is likely to be the limited capacity of the crates.

Participation rates

The average participation in the service is 47% meaning across Napier the 3 types of crates are presented 47% of the time. This is a very high community uptake for this type of service and an average of 150,000 crates are lifted per month. More detail can be found in the attached document.

Additional creates issued

Since the commencement of the service, approximately 134 crates are issued per month. About 78 of those are for new subscribers and 56 are replacements. See the graph below:

Recycling tonnages

Kerbside recycling tonnages are increasing and are the highest they have been in a decade. Since the start of the WMMP in 2018 they have increased by 26%. In the past the amount of paper and cardboard was higher due to the fact that it could be presented loose. Much of that material now is received at the transfer station.

The average weight of the contents for the glass crate is 4.3kg, paper and cardboard crate 1.65kg and plastics and cans crate 1.04kg.

Redclyffe Transfer Station:

Increased building activity in the Napier area has resulted in large amounts of building waste, both from contractors and skip bin operators being tipped off at Redclyffe Refuse Transfer Station. Over 10,000 tonnes of waste was received in the 2020-2021 financial year. This represents a 20% increase from the year before.

COVID-19 alert levels increased to 2 a few times, but this did not result in loss of service. Signage, QR-scanning posters, electronic and paper visitors’ books were used to comply with the regulations in this regard.

The Napier flood in November 2020 put the kerbside and transfer station services under an unprecedented amount of pressure. A storm flooded multiple areas in Napier, resulting in a very challenging situation. The kerbside collection services continued as best as they could and managed well. The amount of waste due to water damage in the aftermath of this event was enormous. Over 1,000 tonnes in addition to a normal November month at the transfer station was quickly realised, and a dynamic response was required. Affected residents were given an opportunity to dispose of their flood waste free of charge and multiple special kerbside collections of flood-damaged waste were organised in the affected suburbs. This was a mammoth task for all involved.

Since the closure of the Council-supported and privately run Austin Street Recycling Drop-off centre during Covid-19 lockdown, the Redclyffe Refuse Transfer Station has become the only ‘free’ drop-off facility for recycling in the Napier area and demand for this service has grown. Closure of the drop-off centre, the fixed volumes for kerbside recycling and the lack of a Council cardboard collection in the shopping zones are likely drivers for this.

Tonnages have increased across all material streams. In comparison to the previous year the annual recycling tonnages increased by 91% for paper to 569 tonnes, 37% for glass to 588 tonnes and 181% for plastics and cans to 73 tonnes. The scrap metal tonnage increased by 16% to 543 tonnes.

Greenwaste, which is also diverted to either BioRich for composting or PanPac as boiler fuel stayed stable at 1,153 tonnes.

More detailed tonnage data for the transfer station can be found in the attached document 2020-21 Waste Data.

Recycling markets have changed and there is a focus on keeping material in New Zealand. Limited capacity however means it is still challenging and costly to collect and market recyclables, and inevitably off-shore markets still remain a destination of some marketed and well-controlled recyclables.

A major review of the Waste Levy by the Government and ongoing developments related to the Emissions Trading Scheme will mean the cost of waste disposal is going to steeply increase. This translates into higher fees to dispose of each tonne of waste at the Omarunui Landfill and Transfer Stations in the region. It does also mean that alternative ways of treating certain waste streams will become more feasible. The cost of dealing with waste will rise regardless of the final destination and is something Council will have to plan and budget for carefully.

An unwanted side effect that is a result of cost increases is illegal dumping. Better cost-allocation and reporting of illegal dumping incidents will help scope and tackle this issue.

Now that the two major milestones related to the kerbside services in the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation plan have been completed a re-focus is needed to keep working on the action points specified in this document. A summarised progress update on these action points is provided in a table in the attachment WMMP Action Updates

Again Again Reusable Coffee Cups

This is a new initiative to Hawke’s Bay. New Zealanders use around 295M single use cups every year. While these might look like they are recyclable most have a PLA lining which makes it impossible for them to be readily recycled. Inevitably, these end up in landfill.

Again Again cups are reusable cups, which are available by deposit and return at participating cafés for a deposit of $3.

The NCC Waste Minimisation Team is developing a grant scheme to support interested cafés to become part of the initiative.

Initiatives from external organisations

Soft Plastics Recycling

It is now possible to recycle soft plastics in Hawke’s Bay. This new initiative to the region was launched on 12 July with both Mayor Kirsten Wise and Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst attending the launch at The Warehouse in Hastings. The Packaging Forum has brought soft plastics recycling to the Bay with stations at the following stores available to residents in Napier.

· The Warehouse

· Countdown Munroe St

· Countdown Carlyle

· Pak n Save Tamatea

The launch of soft plastics recycling allows Napier City Council to extend our partnership with our already established recycling networks and the Packaging Forum to provide the opportunity for our communities to have another sustainable outcome for the soft plastics that our citizens consume.

The soft plastics collected in Hawke’s Bay will be recycled at Future Post’s plant in Waiuku, South Auckland. Each future post contains 1500 bags and wrappers and are a durable alternative to treated timber posts.

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to the report and in response to questions clarified:

· A new recording system is going to be installed at the transfer station to monitor and capture records of all waste received into and going out of the Transfer Station, and waste being diverted to other locations rather than to the landfill. Training of staff on the new system will be required.

· The waste disposal tonnage across Council’s services has increased, this may be because the Council service is being used in favour of other local independent operators.

· Councils all around the country have noted an increase in fly tipping since the first Covid lockdown. This may be because of increase costs at landfills and transfer stations, and the costs are set to increase further over the next few years. Dump fees are not incentivising people to dispose of rubbish appropriately.

· The Government Waste Levy funding is not allowed to be used for prosecuting illegal dumping, but the Council will keep asking for this.

· Council can use some Waste Levy funding for two new cross-boundary roles proposed to Hastings District Council (HDC) which could align policies, enable efficiencies, and maintain the joint philosophies and delivery of the WMMP.

· With the increase in waste tonnage and city population there should be an increase in the Waste Levy funding.

· A key part of the WMMP is to stop compostables going to landfill. The cost of a door-to-door services is very expensive and could be an additional $60-$80 per year for some rate payers. An opt in service would be more expensive as the cost would be spread over fewer households. Council’s main focus in this space is on industries which produce organic waste.

· Curb-side recycling uptake has been good. This leads to high tonnage and additional freight and sorting costs.

· During level four lockdown plastics, glass and cans cannot be sorted. Currently Council is storing recyclables which cannot be processed during level four lockdown. A sorting plant which can operate during level four lockdown has been found and if a contract with them can be secured Council will be able to continue sorting all recyclables during lockdowns.

· Polystyrene cannot be recycled. To put the onus back on the manufacturer, consumers should take it back to where they bought their products and make them return it to the manufacturer.

· Hawk packaging where all Napier’s recycled paper and cardboard goes is not solely dependent on the Council’s supply. They have other suppliers from around the country. Cardboard and paper is worth a significant amount at the moment, our contact with them currently is a zero cost, zero payment scenario but this could change in the future so there is no desire to alter the contract and incur a cost to the ratepayer.

5.2 Attachments

a 2020.21 Waste Data (Under Separate Cover)

b 2020-2021 WMMP Action Updates (Under Separate Cover)

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

6. Kerbside Waste Services - Replacement receptacles & Terms of Service

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1360311
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Alix Burke, Environmental Solutions Coordinator Rhett van Veldhuizen, Waste Minimisation Lead

Purpose of Report

a) To receive the attached Terms of Service for Napier’s kerbside rubbish and recycling services.

b) To seek Council’s approval for establishing fees for the replacement of Council owned wheelie bins which have been stolen, lost or damaged whilst using the service.

c) To seek a decision regarding provision of an additional wheelie bin for charitable organisations working from within a residential home in the collections area, to be invoiced for the service.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a) Receive the attached Terms of Service for kerbside collections.

b) Agree to the establishment of an $85 incl. GST fee for replacement wheelie bins that have been stolen, lost or damaged whilst using the service, for the 2021-2022 financial year.

c) Agree an additional wheelie bin will be provided, on application, to charitable organisations working from within a residential home in the collections area. They will be invoiced for the service.

Carried

6.2 Charging for Replacement Receptacles

Kerbside recycling service:

In November 2019, Napier adopted a new kerbside recycling collection service. This service provided Napier residents with three 45L recycling crates to enable customers to pre-sort their recycling before presenting it at the kerb. In December 2019, Council approved a replacement charge for these recycling receptacles of $15 incl GST per crate.

To date, no charges for replacements have been made; due in part to delays in administrative systems set up and additionally, after the effects of Covid-19 and the Napier Flood, it was considered to be an unwelcome additional stressor for the City’s residents. While this situation has been the case, the General Rate has been the funding source for these replacements. Charges for replacement crates are only to be made in the event of crates being lost or damaged as the result of negligence on the part of residents. If a crate goes missing or is damaged as a result of using the service on collection day there will be no charge for replacements, as per the attached Terms of Service.

Kerbside refuse services:

On 01 October 2020, Council’s new wheelie bin refuse collection service commenced. Napier residents were provided with a 120L wheelie bin for their weekly refuse allowance.

For the six months since January 2021, we have provided 175 receptacle replacements, made up of 62 replacements and 113 for new subscribers to the service.

The number of replacements, per month are shown in the graph below:

Reasons for replacement requests can range from wheelie bins being run over, set alight, taken by a neighbouring property to increase their allowance, or by neighbours whose bin has gone missing.

Officers have replaced these requests without charges to residents thus far. A, a decision is required to ensure costs are manageable and equitable going forward. In order to encourage residents to place a value on this service and to ensure their Council-owned wheelie bin assets are looked after in a suitable manner, a charge to cover the costs of the wheelie bin and associated administration is recommended.

Damage by service provider:

In instances where wheelie bins have been damaged by our service provider during collection, they are replaced by our service provider at no cost to Council. This can be confirmed with use of cameras which are in place on all trucks used in the provision of this service.

Receptacle replacement policy:

After presenting a report to Sustainable Napier earlier this year to discuss this issue, Officers were requested ‘to develop a policy relevant to the replacement of wheelie bins and recycling bins, to further inform this report when it is represented to Council’. During research undertaken in order to accommodate Council’s request, it was discovered that only two Councils in the country have a policy with reference to kerbside services. In both cases, these policies outlined different types of kerbside collection for different areas in the city. i.e., CBD, suburban, semi-rural and rural which by their nature have different service levels provided to them. Council Officers could find no Territorial Authorities which have a published policy regarding charging for replacement receptacles for kerbside services.

However, during this research into the administrative practices of other Councils who provide Council-owned receptacles to their customers, it was discovered that most charged for replacement receptacles where the user was at fault for the damage or loss of the receptacle.

The table below outlines the charges made by six Territorial Authorities for replacement receptacles and proposed NCC charges.

Council	Wheelie Bin	Recycling Crates
Horowhenua District Council	$75	$17
Whakatane District Council	$80 – 90 depending on size	$20
Waikato District Council	Bag Service	$18.50
New Plymouth District Council	$69	$16.50
Wellington City Council	$80	$15
Christchurch	$109-132	All receptacles are wheelie bins
Proposed NCC charges	$85	$15

These charges are clearly advertised on the TAs’ websites with additional information as to when these charges will be implemented. In all cases, charges are made when the resident has been negligent in the care of their receptacles. In lieu of writing a Policy, Council Officers’ guidelines with regard to charging for replacement receptacles can be found in the attached Conditions of Service document in Section 5.

Additional wheelie bins and delivery of up to 500 per annum are part of the kerbside refuse collection contract. This number is an estimate and has a focus on new subscribers. These owners are not charged for the supply and delivery of the first bin. The actual current cost to Council of a replacement bin, as at the time of writing, is $50.00 for the bin itself plus $16.50 for registration and delivery by the contractor. In order to cover the associated administration costs to Council, the recommended replacement fee is set at $85 incl. GST for the current financial year.

6.3 Provision of additional wheelie bin for charities and non-profits

In addition to requests for replacement wheelie bins, Council Officers have received a small number of appeals from charitable organisations requesting an additional wheelie bin to accommodate refuse they produce, as a result of their core business, in larger than household volumes. Examples of this are where a charity is run out of a portion of an entitled property, or where an entitled property is rated as a single dwelling but houses more than the average number of people (six or more).

It is envisaged that in these cases the enterprise must be:

· of a charitable nature;

· run by a registered charity; and

· the volumes be residential in nature. (To ensure this point, only ONE additional wheelie bin would be provided to a residence for this purpose).

This opportunity will not be available in commercial areas where more than one collection is provided per week and a condition of approval for an additional wheelie bin is that if the charity ceases to operate from the residence, or the residence is sold, the wheelie bin must be returned. It will also not be available in areas outside of the current collection areas.

We envisage that these small number of applicants would be invoiced for the service (not the receptacle) on an annual basis if their application is approved at the discretion of Council Officers.

6.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter is determined as low significance.

6.5 Implications

Financial

As outlined above.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There are no substantial risks associated with this decision.

6.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a) Agree to the establishment of a $85 incl. GST fee for replacement wheelie bins that have been stolen, lost or damaged whilst using the service, for the 2021-2022 financial year.

b) Approve or decline Council Officers’ recommendations that a second kerbside refuse collection charge can be invoiced to a residential premises that is run by a charity or that a charity is run out of that premise, upon meeting the aforementioned criteria.

6.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to this report and in response to questions from the Committee clarified:

· Other Territorial Authorities charge between $69 and $132 for replacement of 120L wheelie bins.

· The policy states it will take up to two weeks to replace a lost or stolen bin. This is because bins can be recovered, negating the need for a new bin to be provided.

· Damaged bins can be repaired by Council with its stock of spare parts.

· If a damaged or stolen bin has been reported within 24 hours of a collection time then the customer has taken the initiative to report it promptly. In this case Council will repair or replace at no extra charge to the customer.

· There will not be a separate policy for Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Collections, it will just be the Terms of Service.

6.1 Attachments

a Conditions of Service

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

7. Report on Napier water supply status end of Q4 2020-2021

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1362757
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anze Lencek, Water Quality Lead

7.1 Purpose of Report

To inform the Council on the status of Napier Water Supply (NAP001) at the end of fourth quarter (Q4) of 2020-2021 compliance year.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Recommend Council to endorse the:

i. Report on Napier Water Supply Status end of Q4 2020-2021

Carried

7.2 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.

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 NCC’s 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.

7.3 Issues

The following points highlight the main issues and events relating to the supply that occurred in Q4.

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

§ Tamatea and Parklands Controlled Water Area (CWA). On 17 May 2021 two separated DMAs (Tamatea and Parklands) have been created.

§ A1 Bore. Due to low demand A1 bore has been put offline on 19 May 2021.

§ Water Safety Plan (WSP). Contract to assist developing Napier’s WSP to align with new WSP Framework and to develop Source Water Risk Management Plan has been awarded on 31 May 2021 to Tonkin & Taylor consultants. Both finalised documents are expected to be delivered before end of November 2021, works in progress.

§ C1 Bore. Due to low demand C1 bore has been put offline on 23 June 2021.

B) Summary of progress against the WSP Improvement Plan

At the end of Q4 (as on 30 June 2021) there were seventeen actions to be completed in the WSP v4.4 Improvement Plan, out of those two were overdue. One action has been completed in Q4 (Action #63 – ‘Create District Metered Area (DMA) to encompass Tamatea and Poraiti in order to improve stability of flow direction and consequently reduce the number of discoloured water occurrences.’).

- Action 24 - ‘Develop dedicated location for taking water from hydrants (Thames St Water Take Site)’ was scheduled for completion end of June 2021. Project is close to completion and was delayed due to unforeseen road works arising from changed operations at one of the adjacent industrial sites.

- Action 39 – ‘Update Napier City Water Supply Bylaw 2021 to include Health Act 69ZZR(4) and 69ZZV sections’ requirements on offences for persons taking water from a hydrant’ was due end of June 2021. The timeline as well as the scope will be reviewed during the Water Safety Plan update which is currently underway.

C) Update on drinking-water related capital projects

The 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 26 July 2021. 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.

Water Supply Projects Update for Week 4 of 2021/2022
Project Name	Sycle Phase	% Effort Complete	Comments
A1 Pigging Points - 300mm Main	Transfer and Close	65%	Work is planned for the low demand period for the installation. This is due to start after Easter.
A1 Pigging Points - 450mm Main	Transfer and Close	62%	Work is planned for the low demand period for the installation. This is due to start after Easter.
Borefield No.1 Rising Main (Papakura-Awatoto)	Initiate	12%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality test. Project is on hold until C1251 is completed
Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Carlyle Street to New Reservoir on Hospital Hill	Initiate	0%	Preliminary design and alignment of stage one.
Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Latham Street to Carlyle Street	Initiate	0%	10% concept design completed. New project manager appointed
Borefield No.2 Taradale	Initiate	10%	Multi Criteria Analysis currently being finalised for site selection. Project is moving into property purchase and detailed investigation phase. Geotechnical information has ruled out a number of sites for consideration.
Carlyle Street Trunk Main Improvements	Initiate	0%	Preliminary design and alignment of stage one.
Chaucer Road Pump Station Relocation	Initiate	0%	This project is required as part of the Enfield Reservoir replacement work
Connect Taradales Reservoir to New Enfield Reservoir	Initiate	0%	This project is subject to the output of the Water Master Plan and the final location of the Enfield reservoir site.
Connect Treatment Plant 1 supply to Taradale	Initiate	0%
De-Chlorination Water Station 1 - York Ave	Monitor and Control	98%	Operations and Maintenance manual commissioned internally and to be completed by August 2021.
De-Chlorination Water Station 2 - Marine Parade	Transfer and Close	87%	Operations and Maintenance manual commissioned internally and to be completed by August 2021.
Dedicated Hydrant Water Take - Thames Street	Plan and Execute	63%	Water take infrastructure and road safety improvements complete. Electrical/controls/fibre/CCTV design being reviewed by water team and work on the electrical panel to start end of July
Delineate Taradale / Enfield Systems	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Development of Borefield No.1	Initiate	30%	Papakura Domain has been identified as the most suitable water source area for a new borefield. work is being planned for the test bore to monitor water quality and to identify a depth for the production bores to be installed. Schedule needs to be redone to reflect the separation of trial bore works to full borefield development.
Development of District Water Supply Monitoring Areas (DMA & Quality)	Initiate	6%	'12 sites have been identified as part of the modelling process for the installation of flow meters. Water quality monitoring is in the design phase for instrumentation and sites will be indeified once the Master Plan is complete.
Emergency Water Tanks in case of contamination.	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
FW2 Fire Flow Network Upgrades	Plan and Execute	83%	Bayview site drawing at 30% stage. Tender only drawing to be applied June 2021. Construction to begin early August 2021.
Hospital Hill falling main	Initiate	0%	Preliminary design and alignment of stage one.
Low Manganese Water	Initiate	0%	Investigations alternative bore location, install manganese treatment
Mataruahou (Napier Hill) - Rising and Falling Trunk Mains	Initiate	0%	Several projects relating to the Mataruahau (Napier Hill) - Rising and Falling Trunk Mains have been previously raised in Sycle. These projects are listed below for reference only. 1. PRUID100299 - Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Latham Street to Carlyle Street 2. PRUID100424 - Borefield No.1 Rising Main Extensions - Carlyle Street to New Reservoir on Hospital Hill 3. PRUID100427 - Chaucer Road Pump Station Relocation 4. PRUID100428 - Hospital Hill falling main 5. PRUID100429 - Carlyle Street Trunk Main Improvements The scope has been moved to the Mataruahou (Napier Hill) – Rising and Falling Trunk Mains (PRUID100877)
Meeanee Bore Treatment Upgrade	Transfer and Close	72%	Project owner and sponsor have approved the memo recommending scope change - to investigate the pipeline extension from Te Awa. Stantec to carry out water modelling to determine pipe sizes - in progress
NCC New Water Take Consent	Initiate	0%
New Reticulation Rider Mains	Initiate	0%
New Taradale - Rising & Falling Trunk Mains	Initiate	11%	Preliminary design work being scoped and implemented.
New water treatment plants design for Borefields No.1 & 2	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Online Monitoring at Water Sources/WTPs	Initiate	3%	Project initiation has started to ensure an early start in the 21/22 FYR
Puketapu Road Trunk Main Upgrade	Initiate	12%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality tests.
Rationalise Thompson Reservoir pipework	Initiate	0%	Investigate and upgrade the existing pipework at the Thompson reservoirs
Replacement of Chaucer Booster Pump Station	Initiate	0%
Reservoir Inlets and Outlets Improvements	Plan and Execute	55%	Additional individual site investigation required and new drawings per each site following Safety in Design workshop. 19/7/2021. Project design progressing on Mechanical Mixers. Project Schedule Updated. Procurement strategy/decision required to engage an Electrical Contractor (ProElectrical nominated) and for the purchase of the PAX Water Technology Active Mixing System (Australian company) that the design is based on.
Reservoir Roof Lining	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Reservoir Seismic Valves	Programme	0%	Refer to PRUID100266 - Franklin x2 Tironiu, Otatara and Taradale x2 are subject to inlet/outlet improvements. And the PRUID100856 - Air Vent Project
Standby Generators for Pumpstations/Reservoirs	Programme	0%	Procure new generators of specification matching requirements at various pumpstations across the city, and facilitate connections to use the new generators in emergency to major pumpstations across networks that also include Purimu, Dalton and Sales St.
Survey & Install Backflow Preventers on Industrial & High Risk Sites	Programme	0%
T2 Bore - Installation of 300mm Pressure Sustaining Valve	Monitor and Control	#N/A	#N/A
Tamatea & Parklands DMA	Plan and Execute	67%	Completion date targeted for 22 April 2021. 22/03 - Completion date still on target 26 March - Letter to residents to be sent out 29 March - information pop-ups to be held 8 April - Community meeting 12 April - App. reporting period to start 6 May - App. reporting period ends 28/04 - Due to issues getting correct pressure in the system due to leaks and an unexpected delay in gaining permission to carry out works in the Taradale Rd roadway the completion date has not been met. A team meeting will be held on Friday 30 April to ascertain a revised completion date. This will inform a revision to the comms plan. 28/05 - The works have now been completed. the cutting over of the valves to effect the DMA took place on Monday 17th May. Over the next couple of days a cluster of dirty water complaints were received from residents in the Pirimai area. Following flushing in the area of the complaints the issue was resolved. A further issue has arisen where the pressure at the Western Hills cemetary was not sufficient to supply the taps at the top of the hill. A temporary pump was installed whilst the valves at Clyde Jeffreys Dr were reversed. This in effect took the Clyde Jeffery area out of the DMA. The area is being still being monitored and the 'Water Reporter' is still in effect.
Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension	Initiate	12%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality tests.
Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension - Church Road (Puketapu Rd to Tironui Dr)	Initiate	6%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality tests.
Taradale Borefield Rising Main Extension - Guppy intersection to New Borefield No.2	Initiate	6%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality tests.
Taradale Reservoir	Plan and Execute	85%	Asset in operation. Finalising Asset Manager acceptance criteria. Practical and final completion certificate to be issue in January 2021
Taradale Reservoir 2 - Internal Lining	Initiate	0%	Lining of Taradale Reservoir 2 due to wall and base visible leaking.
Taradale Reservoir Falling Main Upgrade	Initiate	12%	Detailed Design required for construction of pipeline extension. Construction to wait until the borefield location is confirmed by water flow and quality tests.
Taradale Reservoirs Commissioning Stage 1	Initiate	19%	PO for electrical and supply of valve actuator raised.
Te Awa Watermain Extension - Philips-Awatoto Rd	Initiate	0%	Water Supply main is required to be extended from Te Awa Road to accommodate the new Industrial subdivision. This project is requiring a budget from development contributions. Feasibility studies have been done and water has been modeled, waiting for funding to design and build. Project waiting on PRUID100235
Thompson Booster controls upgrades	Initiate	0%
Thompson Reservoir 3 Roof Replace and Upgrade	Initiate	0%
Thompson Reservoir Control Upgrade	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Thompson Reservoir Main Upgrade	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Thompson Reservoir Telemetry Base Station	Initiate	0%
Tironui Reservoir Membrane Roof	Transfer and Close	#N/A	#N/A
Trial Bore No. 2 Taradale Area	Initiate	18%	Multi Criteria Analysis currently being finalised for site selection. Waiting for Property Purchase/access agreements to enable this trial project to proceed.
Trial Bore: Awatoto #3	Initiate	15%
Trial Bore: No.1 (Papakura Domain)	Initiate	82%	Project completed. In defects period from 7/12/2020. Some minor works outside the contract to be completed in April 2021.
Water Air Valve Survey & Renewals	Initiate	0%
Water Booster & Bore Pump Renewals	Initiate	0%
Water Building Renewals	Initiate	0%
Water Meter Installation	Initiate	0%
Water Meters Survey & Replace	Initiate	0%
Water network 450mm valve bypasses – Tamatea Drive	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Water network 450mm valve bypasses – Westminster Ave	Initiate	0%	Gateway 1 to be reviewed and GL and PM to be assigned for sign off.
Water Pipe Renewals	Initiate	0%
Water Ridermain Access Points - Pigging	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Water Supply Network – Master Plan Peer Review	Execute	50%	This project is a sublet of the Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model PRUID100403 Project start is subjective to completion of Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model - Model peer review (PRUID100943) as part single peer review contract to review both model and master plan. Reform Consultant assigned as PM as project funded by reform - to manage project execution.
Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model	Initiate	0%	Water Model is in the final stages of calibration. and has been used to provide input into the master planning projects.
Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model – Model Peer Review	Execute	48%	This project involves review of the Water Supply Network Hydraulic Model produced under PRUID100403 Model peer review templates underway for completion on 19 July and single Procurement Plan for all reviews and RfQ to follow. Reform Consultant to PM project in execution phase.
Water Take Point Site - Contractor Water Take	Initiate	0%
Water Treatment Plant 1	Initiate	0%	This will be all DWS and WSP risk identified requirements for treatment and includes potential Manganese treatment - Borefield 1.
Water Treatment Plant 1 - Additional Treatment	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Water Treatment Plant 2	Initiate	0%	This will be all DWS and WSP risk identified requirements for treatment and includes potential Manganese treatment - Borefield 2.
Water Treatment Plant 2 - Additional Treatment	Initiate	#N/A	#N/A
Water Treatment Plant Renewals	Initiate	0%
Western Hill Reservoir (Mission Estate)	Initiate	0%	Working with Mission Hills development to secure site for future reservoir.
Westshore booster pump station switch/controls upgrades	Programme	0%	Westshore
WS_Air vents on Reservoirs	Programme	0%	11 reservoirs, 20 vents @ $10k each. Installation of filters to industrial standards (at the moment NCC has insect mesh).
WS_Mataruahou (Napier Hill) Reservoir	Initiate	31%	Business Case on site selection completed. Project procurement strategy and scoping to take place.

Sycle Phase Legend
Define	The Project Sponsor is responsible for completing and reviewing details prior to Gateway 1. This is the project scoping phase detailing the objectives and justification work required for the project.
Initiate	Gateway 1: approval phase
Programme	Gateway 2: This step is the recommendation that the project in its current form be executed as planned in the LTP
Plan & Execute	Gateway 3: Approval indicates that the Project Manager accepts responsibility for project execution.
Transfer & Close	Gateway 4: Plan & Execute tasks have been completed (inc. Defects period) and project ready for final closeout.
Monitor & Control	Gateway 5: Transfer & Close tasks have been completed and the project can be closed.

D) Summary of reactive maintenance and major operations events

Q1:

- Otatara reservoir overflow event, from 17 September 2020 4:30pm to 18 September 2020 1.15pm. No damage to the structures or adjacent properties as the overflow discharging directly to storm water network. Faulty float switches identified as root cause when Otatara booster set to ‘float control’.

Q2:

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

Q3:

- Chlorine dosing malfunction at T3 bore on 2 January 2021, resulting in approximately 23 hours of unchlorinated water supplied to the reticulation. Commissioning of the online chlorine monitoring equipment before the end of this year (as identified in the WSP) will eliminate this hazard.

Q4:

- Nil.

E) DWSNZ Treatment Plant / Bores Compliance overview

To date, no transgressions have 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

Achieved*

C1 Bore

Achieved*

T2 Bore

Achieved*

T3 Bore

Achieved*

T5 Bore

Achieved*

T6 Bore

Achieved*

T7 Bore

Achieved*

* Note – Official letter stating achieving full compliance for year 2020-2021 is expected to be shared by Drinking-water Assessor latest September 2021.

F) DWSNZ Distribution Zone Compliance overview

To date, no transgressions have been recorded within Distribution Zone in the 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									Achieved*

* Note – Official letter stating achieving full compliance for year 2020-2021 is expected to be shared by Drinking-water Assessor latest September 2021.

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

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

From a water quality and risks perspective, the 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	64	73	52	90	104	16
Q – Odour	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Q – Taste	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Q – Pressure / Flow	1	5	1	2	2	1	3	2	5	0	6	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

1,063

863

870

787

735

635

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.

7.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

7.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

No risks have been identified.

7.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

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

7.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

At the Meeting

The Council Officer took the report as read and in response to questions from the Committee it was noted:

· The Tamatea and Parklands Controlled Water Area (CWA) has been in place for three months. In comparing dirty water complaints over the last three months with the same time last year, it was found in the Parklands area there have been no dirty water complaints this year, and in the Tamatea area last year there were 75 complaints compared to 6 this year. More data over time will be needed to draw a confident conclusion that the changes made have helped, but this is a good start.

· The Water Supply Projects table in the agenda is there to give an update on Council’s compliance with its resource consent and the Water Safety Plan. It gives visibility of the water projects underway and the improvement program tied into the Water Safety Plan. The Capital Programme has a traffic light system and this incorporates the water projects into it.

· Results of the A2 bore water sampling were received after the agenda for this meeting was published. The results show this bore has low manganese water. Once the A2 bore is brought online one of the other bores that has high manganese and iron can be taken offline.

· To bring the A2 bore online Council has invited tenders from contractors able to develop the well-head. It will depend on the contractors work program as to how long it will take before the bore is ready to be brought online. Council is working towards a deadline of February or March 2022.

· There are changes in legislation coming. Taumata Arowai are reviewing the water standards and will be putting operational rules in place. The Water Services Bill will also be made live soon. The draft water standards indicate secure bore status will be abolished, that means Council will not comply with the protozoa requirements. Council may also struggle to meet the bacteria requirements due to low chlorine contact time at the bores.

7.8 Attachments

Nil

8. Capital Programme Delivery

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1363765
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jon Kingsford, Director Infrastructure Services

8.1 Purpose of Report

To provide Council with information on the 2021 Long Term Plan Capital Programme and initiatives underway to improve Capital Programme Delivery.

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Crown / Mayor Wise

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Receive the Capital Programme Delivery report.

Carried

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Agenda

9. Three Waters Reform Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002s
Document ID:	1366132
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services Russell Bond, Manager Water Strategy Pip Connolly, Personal Assistant to Director Corporate Services

9.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the Government Three Waters Reform programme. This report does not seek a decision, and is provided for information only. Government has provided for an 8 week consultation period on the proposal, with Councils being requested to respond by the end of September 2021.

Officer’s recommendation

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a) Receive the report titled Three Waters Reform Update

Amended Committee Recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Brosnan

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a) Receive the report titled Three Waters Reform Update

c) That Council direct officers to undertake engagement with the community so that this feedback can be included in the Council report back to DIA on the proposed reform by 30 September 2021.

d) That a Community meeting is organised by 10^th September to provide the opportunity to inform the community in more detail of the proposed reform.

Carried

9.2 Background Summary

1.3 The Government has provided an 8-week period for Councils to engage with and provide feedback on local impacts to the proposed reform package.

The proposed Three Waters Reform

A Joint Three Waters Steering Committee has provided collaborative oversight of the reform programme that brings together central and local government expertise and experience.

The Governments Proposed Reform Programme as it was at December 2020 is attached for reference (Attachment A). It should be noted that Government has signalled that this the programme and timeframes is now under review due to the addition of a period of review and clarification between local and central government.

2.0 Drinking Water Regulatory System

2.3 When Taumata Arowai is fully functionally, its role will be to:

· Regulate an expanded and strengthened drinking-water regulatory system.

· Oversee from a national perspective the environmental performance of waste water and storm water networks (Regional councils will remain the primary regulators of waste water and storm water).

· The diagram below illustrates the different roles of entities across this area.