Agenda of Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee)

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 26 November 2021 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Progress update - Integrating Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi into Council’s current governance structure

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1381297
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Mōrehu Te Tomo, Pou Whakarae Jane McLoughlin, Corporate Planner

2.1 Purpose of Report

To provide a record of progress made to date on how best to integrate Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi into Council’s governance structure, and gain the Committee’s agreement to:

- definition of challenges

- desired outcome.

Officer’s Recommendation

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi:

a. Note the progress to review Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi in Council’s current governance structure.

b. Agree to the following aspects that form the definition of challenges of Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi’s set-up within Council’s governance structure:

i. being held after the Standing Committees, does not provide this Committee with adequate opportunity to shape and influence decision-making, as the majority of Council decisions are formed at Standing Committees.

ii. the agenda, consisting of open agendas of four Standing Committees plus bespoke reports, is too large for one meeting.

iii. the Committee do not participate in the early stages of the decision-making process e.g. Council workshops for setting early direction.

iv. there is currently no mechanism for Officer’s to determine to what extent a Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview) should be incorporated from the initiation of a project, however this needs to be clarified to avoid duplication, gaps and efficiencies.

v. the value for the Committee members to see and input to all Council reports is unknown, and there is no mechanism to determine whether there are types of reports, or particular topics, that are of more interest to the Committee.

vi. the Committee members want a better understanding of reports, in particular the impact to Ahuriri Māori, so they can be more informed and engaged.

vii. the Committee are not provided with an opportunity to participate in decision-making in Council’s processes to develop the annual and long term plan.

viii. there is a gap in current representation of Māori in Napier as three out of five Māori Entities that have been invited to be part of the Committee have chosen not to participate.

ix. Committee members are busy and have limited time to be able to dedicate to their role. Quorum has been difficult to achieve in the past.

x. decisions to involve the Committee more in Council workshops, Standing Committees, Council meetings and other specialist committees have not been realised and lacked detail on time commitment.

xi. preparation work for the Committee members is not currently set out or acknowledged.

c. Agree to the desired outcome sought by integrating the Committee into Council’s governance structure; ‘an Ahuriri Māori lens to shape and influence Council's decision-making’.

d. Agree that any changes to the Committee must be informed by the current state definition including issues and needs; the desired outcome; and the reality of any options including time commitment and responsibilities.

2.2 Background Summary

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (the Committee) and Officers are exploring how to best integrate it into Council’s governance structure. To do this, the following process is being followed:

- Define current state – including issues; who do the Committee members represent; what are the members’ needs.

- Define desired outcome – what are the Committee members and Council trying to achieve with the Committee within Council’s governance structure.

- Define options – understanding of options, responsibilities and time commitment

- Alignment on next steps.

- Agreement on model - agreed model for how the Committee can best contribute to decision-making in Council’s current governance structure.

Timeline involving the Committee includes:

15 September 2021	Committee wānanga (workshop) – (held) - Workshop 1 – defining needs and challenges ~~problem,~~ understanding options
15 October 2021	Committee hui (meeting) - this report - update on progress, agreement to definition of current state and desired outcome
18-20 October 2021	Māori Ward Hearings
5 November 2021(date tbc)	Committee wānanga (workshop) – Workshop 2 – agreement on model
26 November 2021	Committee hui (meeting) – approval of model
9 December 2021	Council Meeting – to consider recommendation from Committee
Dec 2021/Jan 2022	Set-up
1 February 2022	New model within current governance model commences

Starting to build the Whare

The concept of building a Whare was raised by Te Waka Rangapū as a way of conceptualising the work that needs to occur to build the Committee – that, there are many aspects to the Whare that are important and each require to be defined. These individual components also need to fit in with the other components as a solid whole to ensure the Whare is built well and is strong. For example, you need a Tahuhu to support Amo and vice versa to build a strong Whare.

· Tekoteko (prominent ancestor is Ahuriri) - Te Whanganui-a-Orotū

(Mana Whenua Boundaries)

· Koruru (face part of the whare) - Napier City Council

· Poutokomanawa - Nga Manukanuka o te Iwi

· Maihi (arms down the whare) - Charter (vision, values, structure)

· Amo (side parts of the whare) - MOUs & JDs

· Tahuhu (backbone inside the house) - Terms of Reference

· Heke (ribs) - Members

· Paepae - Hākoro / Hākui

Committee members have suggested options such as attendance at Standing Committee meetings and Council should be explored^{^[1]}. Before selecting options, Officers have recommended that the focus be to define the current state of the Committee including any issues. This focus is to ensure a collective understanding is gained on what the current issues are, and what is to be achieved, so that any solutions can be assessed against the issues and desired outcome. Then aspects like a Charter, and Memorandum of Understanding can be further developed. This approach will help ensure attention is being provided to all aspects of the Whare.

Process to date

Officers collated information for the Committee’s workshop on 15 September 2021 including:

- Council’s current governance model and how it operates – this information was provided to give a sense of scale and time commitment, and to show how decision-making currently occurs and at which parts of the model.

- Options to best integrate the Committee into Council’s governance model – this information was provided to lay out all the options for consideration including options for bringing Committee members onto other Council meetings/workshops, and options for Officers to use the Committee in different ways.

The following information is a collection of the key findings from the 15 September 2021 workshop. More detailed information can be found in Appendix A.

Defining the current state of Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi

Questions for reflection were sent to Committee members to inform the whakaaro at the Committee’s wānanga on 15 September 2021 including:

· Who/what do you represent at the Committee?

· What is your responsibility on the Committee?

• How do want to bring contributions/requests to the table?

• What do you want to take back to your entity/organisation/community group?

· What support do you need?

Discussions were held to identify what the current challenges are. The following section presents the definition of challenges.

Challenges

Opportunity to shape and set direction

- The Committee have limited opportunity to set direction early in the decision-making process. Although the Committee are invited to Council workshops, there are no details around how this works and, in practice, this does not occur. There is currently no mechanism to determine to what extent and how Te Ao Māori (a Māori worldview) should be incorporated from the initiation of a project.

- The Committee are not provided with an opportunity to participate in decision-making in Council’s annual and long term planning processes. There is currently no mechanism for including the Committee in Council’s planning processes e.g. annual planning and long term planning, as direction is set at workshops and decisions are made at Council meetings, bypassing the Standing Committees due to timeframes.

Opportunity to influence decision-making

- Standing Committees are where the majority of Council’s decisions are formed. Holding the Committee after the Standing Committees does not provide the Committee with adequate opportunity to influence and shape decision-making.

- The Committee’s agenda is too large – consisting of the open agendas of 4 Standing Committees and bespoke reports. The preparation time for this large meeting is unreasonable and it is difficult for the members to focus on any particular issues in depth.

- It is unclear whether there is value for the Committee members to see and input to all Council reports or whether there are types of reports or particular topics that are of more interest to the Committee. Currently the Committee receive less than approximately 50% of all Council reports due to reports being submitted directly to Council, thus bypassing Standing Committees; decisions of Council at Committee meetings; or reports in public excluded that they are not provided with.

- Although the Committee is invited to attend Standing Committee meetings and Council meetings, there are no details around how feasible and efficient this is, and it is not practiced.

- Members voiced their interest in being able to bring items to the Committee table at their own volition, perhaps to bring a matter to Council’s attention, or to initiate work on a particular issue, without having to wait for it to be brought to them by Officers.

Opportunity to develop Committee’s capacity to participate in decision-making

- The Committee members want a better understanding of reports so they can be more informed and engaged. There is currently no mechanism to provide the Committee (or Council) with analysis to show how a report will impact on Ahuriri Māori, or clarity around who might be best placed to formulate that advice.

- The Committee want a better understanding across Council business so they can make more informed decisions about their level of participation in the governance process. Members stressed that they did not want the Committee’s involvement to be a tick box exercise, but providing meaningful input. There is limited induction provided to Committee members.

Opportunity for all members to participate

- The Committee members are busy and have limited time to be able to dedicate to their role.

- Quorum has been difficult to achieve in the past.

- There is no membership from 3 out of 5 Māori entities.

- Preparation work required is not currently set out or acknowledged.

Who do the Committee members represent?

Committee members do not all represent the same people. Some members see themselves as representing all Māori in Napier, whereas other members represent members of a particular Hapū. This is similar to the concept of wards and at large representation of Elected Members. Committee members highlighted whom they represent when they are on the Committee. Responses included:

- Hapū Trust

- Hapū members

- Māngai ā-Hapori

o Any Māori that live in Napier

o Whānau-specific views

The current membership make-up was based on the Māori Responsiveness Framework to ensure Council meet all its legal obligations to particular groupings of Māori in Ahuriri. The membership was then expanded to include Māngai ā-Hapori (individuals from the community) as a way of bringing specific skill sets to the Committee e.g. financial or governance experience and for meeting quorum. Subsequently, the membership expanded again to include three more Elected Members to enable them to share their knowledge of the workings of Council with the Committee^{^[2]}.

Responsibilities for representation

There is a lot of intersessional work between meetings for the Committee members, both prior to a meeting and after a meeting, to gain views, and share information with those people the Committee members represent. At the meetings, Committee members are trying to reflect on what the item in front of them may mean for those they represent and represent their views.

What are the particular needs of Committee members

The Committee members highlighted that they require:

- better induction so they can understand how Council works and how they fit in;

- more targeted information on impacts to Māori; and

- more time to reflect on information provided.

Outcomes

To bring focus to what the outcome of integrating the Committee into Council’s governance structure should be, the following suggestion was made by Officers:

an Ahuriri Māori lens to shape and influence Council's decision-making.

This outcome was selected to demonstrate the desired impact of the Committee on Council’s decision-making – that the Committee is active and effecting change to decision-making.

The critical question then is how to bring an Ahuriri Māori lens to Council's decision-making, and where will this have the most impact? This question is explored in the section below on options.

Options to integrate the Committee in Council’s governance model

Options must address the needs and issues raised, and what the outcome sought is, otherwise meaningful change will not occur. One of the main implications of the needs and issues raised is that the current Committee model is not fit for purpose and needs to change. The outcome sought will also help guide the options for solutions to address the needs and issues. Options must also be grounded with responsibilities and time commitment – there is no merit in having a policy position that cannot be fulfilled as it is not feasible.

A process approach was taken to define options, exploring options for representation of the Committee in Council’s current governance model. The limitations of this approach are that only options within Council’s current governance model have been included. Options such as removal of Council's current double debate structure, or if Council agreed to establish Māori Wards, have not been included as significant changes such as these are reviewed, planned and, where appropriate, consulted on based on legislative timeframes and in line with triennial arrangements.

When and how are best options to shape and influence decision-making?

Discussion and debate at, or before, Standing Committees, matters because most Council decisions flow on from recommendations made at Standing Committees^{^[3]}. Those recommendations are in turn informed by Officers’ recommendations which are also informed by Council workshops. This means that when considering how to bring an Ahuriri Māori lens to Council's decision-making, and where it will have the most impact, Standing Committees must be considered.

There are three main options for shaping and influencing Standing Committees, and therefore Council decisions:

Option 1 - At Council workshops – to set direction which then later becomes included in a report at a Standing Committee meeting, or

At the Standing Committee meeting – either through

Option 2 - attending the meeting, or

Option 3 - by providing input prior to the meeting for the consideration of the Standing Committee

Option 1 – attending Council Workshops

Time commitment	97+ hours per annum. Typically workshops are held for a couple of hours at a time.
Advantages	· Time to reflect, ask questions, shape direction early in decision-making process. · Build knowledge of complex items in Council business, helps with induction and understanding Council business. · Privy to discussions occurring prior to Standing Committee meetings. · Ability to participate in annual and long term planning workshops.
Disadvantages	· Significant time commitment. Workshops can be called outside of routine slots and often with short notice, which may make it difficult for representatives to attend. · Not all Standing Committee reports or Council reports have a workshop. So would miss out on those reports. · May feel unable to speak freely with all Elected Members there. · If Committee only participates in these workshops, it does not allow for transparency on what direction Committee members are providing as the workshops are not held in public. · Attendance of only selected members of the Committee may require an additional mechanism for gaining views of all Committee members and report back.
Things to consider	· Is there value for the Committee members in attending all Workshops or only some? If so, how are workshops of interest identified? · Is there value in the Committee being represented by one or two Committee members at a Workshop? · What would be the point of difference or value of having specific workshops for the Committee instead of the Committee being involved in Council workshops?

Option 2 – attending Standing Committee meetings

Committee Members either formally appointed to Standing Committees as a full member with speaking and voting rights, or provided with speaking rights.

Time commitment	Every six weeks · Future Napier Committee/Sustainable Napier Committee - 4-5 hours of meeting time + equal time for prep = 8-10 hours = 70 hours per annum · People and Places Committee/Prosperous Napier Committee - 2-3 hours of meeting time + equal time for prep = 4-6 hours = 42 hours per annum. · Specific prep for each meeting to gain input from other Committee members– additional 4 hours = 28 hours per annum. · All Committee members to read through specific reports, or all reports, to provide view and seek views from those they represent – 2 -3 hours = 21 hours per annum.
Advantages	· Reasonable volume of material in a meeting so the Committee representatives have adequate time, like Elected Members do, to reflect and discuss. · Can comment on all reports to Standing Committees · Efficient use of time – if removed Standing Committees items from the Committee agenda, then avoid triple debate and associated administrative support.
Disadvantages	· The Committee’s representatives and the rest of the Committee still will not see 30% of all reports as they are submitted directly to Council. · Significant increase of time commitment for some members. · No input to workshops so miss out on early direction-setting. · Only part of the Committee properly get opportunity to consider and provide input to reports at a public meeting i.e. the Committee’s representatives on Standing Committees. So effectively could be seen as reducing opportunity for the entire Committee to participate in items of interest in the public arena. · If keep Standing Committee agendas on the Committee’s agenda, inefficient use of time due to triple debate of reports. Double debate for some Committee members – Standing Committee, and then the Committee.
Things to consider	If appointed to a Standing Committee as a member of that Committee, - Appointment of a particular person is required. Full attendance at each meeting is required by the particular member appointed. - As two Standing Committees are held on the same day, realistically any representative should be appointed to and attend two Committees. To only attend one would mean the attendee would need to wait as the two Committees switch through open and closed agendas, and there is no knowing how long a Committee meeting will go for. - Mechanism for representation of the rest of the Committee and feedback to the Committee is required. - Quorum may need to be updated. - Votes and casting vote to be considered. If want to retain odd number as majority, then would require 2 representatives in addition to the 13 Elected Members. - Council decision whether to appoint external representative(s) to a Committee and appoint a particular person. If appointed with only speaking rights, more discretion for the members of whether they attend and who attends.

Option 3 - provide input prior to the meeting for the consideration of the Standing Committee

The Committee could be held prior to the Standing Committees, in Week 1 of the meeting cycle. The Committee receive bespoke reports of interest (pre-selected, method tbc). Committee makes a recommendation on those reports to the Standing Committee.

Time commitment	Every 6 weeks: 2 hourly meeting + equal prep time = 4 hours every 6 weeks, 7 meetings per annum = 28 hours per annum.
Advantages	· Achieve as similar outcome as Option 2 above to influence Standing Committees · More time efficient - takes only 18% of the time that option 1 takes. · Avoids the need for additional preparation work as per attending a Standing Committee meeting · Allows all members of the Committee to voice their own views on Standing Committee reports of interest to them. · Avoids large volumes of material for the Committee to sift through as in current model – so efficient use of time, and allows Committee to spend greater time of items of interest.
Disadvantages	· Do not get to comment on every report being submitted to Council. · Do not get to attend a Standing Committee meeting or Council meeting and speak so might lose ability to influence Elected Members on the day. · No input to Council workshops so miss out on early direction-setting.
Things to consider	Method for determining which reports are provided to the Committee needs to be defined. Committee has never been held prior to the Standing Committees, but has received only bespoke reports.

Option 4 - Attendance at Council meetings

Time commitment

134+ hours per annum.

Advantages

· Can feed into the 30% of reports that are submitted directly to Council and bypass Standing Committees.

Disadvantages

· Cannot legally be an appointed member, can only be allowed speaking rights, not voting rights.

· Large time commitment for both scheduled and Extraordinary Council meetings. Extraordinary meetings are used frequently so the timings for these are not known until a week or so prior to the meeting, and typically have hearings which mean the meeting length can be very long e.g. all day, or multiple days.

· Large time commitment for only 30% of reports.

· Too late in decision-making to have ability to change decision-making based on Standing Committees, could result in delaying Council business, or input could be ignored by Council. Without voting rights, this could lead Committee to become very disengaged as they do not have ability to influence at this level at this time.

2.3 Issues

How to achieve the right balance

At the forefront of thinking through the most effective and efficient options for how the Committee should be integrated into Council’s governance structure, are the following points,

- enabling the Committee to shape and influence Council decision-making

- effective use of the limited time of the Committee members

- efficient use of Officers’ time to support the Committee.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every option, and the Committee can consider for themselves what works for them at this particular point.

Options need to be informed by lessons from the past

The Committee set-up has changed several times in the last triennium. In order to move forward with the Committee, it is important to consider what has not worked previously in order to not repeat that. For example, although well-intentioned, a policy position such as, Committee “members will be invited to attend Council workshops, standing committee meetings and Council meetings”, lacks substance if the details around implementation have not been thought through and it is not practical.

Whatever option is selected this year, it should be set up to commence in 2022, and a review of it should occur no later than August 2022 so that the findings can inform the options and issues for consideration in setting the next governance structure after the Local Government election in October 2022.

Options need to be grounded in reality

The current reality for the Committee, is that the members are saying they need more induction in order to know what are the right questions to ask; they need better targeted information to make informed input on reports; they need time to reflect on reports; and time to talk with those people they represent.

The members are also busy with their own jobs, and making themselves available for the Committee meetings and workshops is challenging - let alone being called in for Council workshops which can be held at any time, or Standing Committee and Council meetings in which the length of a meeting is unknown and the meetings can go for half a day or even days.

The current expectation of Committee members to read through, seek feedback from those they represent and comment on all reports from Standing Committees in one meeting is unrealistic - it does not provide the Committee with the ability to provide meaningful input.

Being a Committee member is not the same as being an Elected Member, and the role needs to be based on what is a feasible time commitment so that members can actually participate and that they are remunerated appropriately.

Resourcing requirements must also be considered and efficient decision-making. For example, within Council’s current governance structure, due to report review and approval processes and double-debate, it can take 2 months from when an officer has finalised a report, to the point that Council provide a decision on the report.

Council business – defining the value and impact to members

Some critical question that are unanswered include:

- what value do members gain from participating in the Committee?

- what value would members gain under various options for change?

- are there particular areas of Council business that are of more interest due to the impact on Māori?

- how much time can members commit to the Committee?

Time commitment and responsibilities – not just attending a meeting

There is no indication of a time commitment requirement of the members e.g. the Committee’s hui and wānanga, Council workshops, Standing Committees and Councils meetings. Preparation time must be factored in based on the type of meeting/workshop that is being held. Once the time commitment is known, members could make an informed decision on the extent to which they can participate, including what value they would gain from attendance.

Representation

Any option in which only part of the Committee, for example, 1-2 members are appointed to represent the Committee on Council’s other Committees, Council, or at Council workshops, assumes that the Committee can, and are happy to be, represented as a collective, despite the various different groupings they each represent.

It would require a mechanism for the Committee’s representative to gain input from other Committee members on items in the workshop/meetings, in order to be able to represent the Committee’s views. Ascertaining those perspectives would not necessarily tidily align to Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi meetings, so some of that discussion would have to take place ‘offline’, via email for example, which doesn’t foster a space for constructive discussion as a group. To be able to provide this input, other Committee members would need to be provided with information on the topics, which means there would be a time commitment involved for them too, even though they are not the representative on the Standing Committee.

If a mechanism as outlined above is not used, then this would mean that the members appointed outside of the Committee to other Council workshops/meetings would be either representing their own views of their entity or community they represent; or they would be taking a pan view across “Māoridom”. This would result in a lack of representation of all members of the Committee, members of which were selected based on the Maori Responsiveness Framework to meet Council’s legal obligations for engagement (see Policy section).

Participation in Workshops/Meetings outside of the Committee

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out which types of meetings external representatives i.e. non Elected Members, can be appointed to, and under what basis. Council sought legal advice on the matter. In summary:

- the Council cannot formally appoint a person to the governing body of the Council or provide voting rights.

- the Council can appoint members of the Committee to its standing or specialist committees, provided the appointee has the necessary skills, attributes or knowledge to assist the work of the particular committee.

- a person formally appointed by the Council to a committee becomes a member of the committee and has voting rights.

- alternatively, the Council can provide (through standing orders), for a Committee representative to attend as an observer/advisor and have speaking rights, at either Council or committee meetings.

- There are some risks with appointing observers/advisors to Council/Committees with speaking rights, such as whether an observer/advisor with speaking rights but no voting rights could be regarded as a defacto member of the Council or Committee, as a result of their influence over that body through their right to speak.

- Representatives can remain in public excluded parts of any meeting, if the representative has knowledge that will assist the Committee/Council for the matters being considered, and there is a resolution made that provides for them staying in the room.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

Engagement is occurring with the Committee members through wānanga and hui. However, there are invited members who have chosen not to join the Committee. It is recommended that Te Waka Rangapū reach out to those Māori entities to advise about this work that is underway, and invite them to the upcoming wānanga.

2.5 Implications

Financial

There are likely to be financial implications if changes are made to the Committee, e.g. such as if Committee members are appointed to a Standing Committee, or attend Council workshops, then an appropriate remuneration model would need to be assessed and budgeted for within the 2022/23 annual plan. Any changes effective of 1 January 2022 will need to be found within current budgets for 2021/22.

Social & Policy

Council has two policy documents about Māori and decision-making:

1) Council’s Māori partnerships team developed the Māori Responsiveness Framework in 2018. This document is still in draft form. It includes objectives and a Ahuriri Māori Relationship Matrix which informs what entities Council includes in the Committee.

It sets out objectives such as:

- Kei Runga – Governance: To enable effective Māori participation in NCC's governance processes through the facilitation of governing body and local board Māori responsiveness programmes, building capacity to foster effective Māori participation in NCC business.

- Kei Waho – Māori: To contribute to significantly uplifting Māori social and economic wellbeing through the facilitation of cross-organisation and cross-regional Māori well-being programmes.

- Kei Roto – Organisation: To embed Māori responsiveness as a core element of NCC's culture, operations and service delivery. To put in place measures to evaluate NCC’s ‘Māori Brand’ performance.

- Te Waka – Department: To develop a high performance team culture through the effective implementation of the Māori Cultural Competency Framework and Māori Cultural Development Plan.

Council now has a Māori Partnerships Directorate, Te Waka Rangapū, with a Director and 3 FTEs to progress partnerships with Māori.

2) The Significance and Engagement Policy includes a specific section about engagement with Māori, particularly to engage in a range of ways to ensure their views are appropriately represented in the decision-making process (not solely through the Committee). This policy includes engagement with mana whenua and tāngata whenua. In particular, engagement with mana whenua, for any significant decision in relation to land or a body of water.

Risk

Not meeting legislative requirements.

Knowing that the current model does not enable the Committee to provide meaningful input to Council’s decision-making; and the Committee feel they require more targeted information and induction to enable them to participate in decision-making, the risk of not making change is:

- Napier City Council could be seen to provide insufficient opportunity for Māori to participate in decision-making and could be argued that the requirements of sections 77 and 81 of the Local Government Act 2002 are not being met (Appendix A includes a diagram of legislative requirements from the Local Government Act 2002).

Setting up an undesirable and/or unfeasible model

The risk is that without a clear understanding of the time commitment and resourcing requirement to support an option, any decision on an option may result in an unaffordable model.

There is a risk that members cannot commit to a particular option due to the time commitment and responsibilities required, or that they do not see any value in a particular option, so they do not participate as a member or do not attend all meetings.

Missed opportunity

The risk is that both Council and the Committee are missing an opportunity for the Committee to hear and input to long term planning and annual planning, and this could result in:

· frustration for the Committee where they realise they are limited in their ability to provide recommendations to Council for consideration;

· Council misses out on valuable insights from the Committee;

· reputation risk as stakeholders may perceive that Council is not enabling the Committee to be able to influence key budgetary decisions.

Unknown position of iwi entities not currently participating in the Committee

There is risk involved in that options for change are being worked through without a detailed understanding of the concerns held by those iwi entities who have opted not to participate in the current Committee. There may be more issues with the current model that are currently unknown, or strong opinions about potential models that would not be factored into decision making, that ultimately result in an outcome that continues to be unappealing/unfit for purpose to those entities. Targeted engagement with those groups to understand their concerns and aspirations should be pursued.

2.6 Options

The options available to the Committee are as follows:

a. Agree to the definition of challenges and desired outcome provided

b. Modify the definition of challenges ~~problem~~ and desired outcome and then agree to it.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

Either option a or b.

2.8 Attachments

a Local Government Act 2002 requirements for Māori and decision-making

b Presentation for Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi's wanānga on 15 September 2021

c Changes to the Māori Committee from 2016

d Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Adopted Terms of Reference

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 26 November 2021 - Open Agenda

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 11 November 2021

2. Napier Environmental Enhancement Fund Proposal

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1391716
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Cameron Burton, Manager Environmental Solutions

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides information on a proposed Environmental Enhancement Fund to receive and redistribute money from:

· Reparations from enforcement action under the Stormwater, Trade Waste and Wastewater and Solid Waste Bylaws;

· money applied for from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), and;

· bequests or the like.

It is proposed the money would be used to provide a fund for research, remediation, planting, and biodiversity enhancement, or for use by community groups to increase connectivity and identity to Napier’s environment.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Chrystal

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Approve

i. The creation of a Napier Environmental Enhancement Fund to receive money awarded to NCC as the result of reparation, applications to Government bodies or bequests or the like, which will be reviewed and reported on annually.

ii. The use of the money in the Napier Environmental Enhancement Fund for research, remediation, planting, and biodiversity enhancement, or for use by community groups to increase connectivity and identity to Napier’s environment.

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

Napier City Council recently carried out the first prosecution in New Zealand in relation to a breach of a Stormwater Bylaw. The result of this was that a significant amount of money was to be pledged for the remediation of the impact caused, but Council did not have a fund available for this to be deposited into, therefore deposit to a third party Trust was proposed. To avoid this, Council Officers request the establishment of a Napier Environmental Enhancement fund to be used for this purpose.

2.3 Issues

In this particular case, the Judge was not able to legally bind the Company to make this donation, although he did point out that their discharge without conviction was influenced strongly by their reparation towards a planting proposal.

The practical difficulty with the replanting proposal is that NCC already has remediation plans in train for the area involved but due to the contaminated state of the chosen environment and its surrounds, replanting cannot occur until required and extensive decontamination work has taken place. There is a very real risk that if the Company were to proceed with the planting proposal now, the plants would not survive and the contribution would be wasted.

While it would be unfair to suggest that the Company’s planting proposal is not a genuine offer, it may be that if we ask the Company to delay their contribution for the time it will take for remediation work to take place, the organisation’s priorities may have changed. There will be no legal requirement to produce the money as the Judge was not able to enforce this.

As Council matures in the enforcement of bylaws (particularly in relation to the environment) and the good work being done to enhance the city’s waterways, there is an increased likelihood of the receipt of funds becoming a factor that we need to consider. Given the precedent set by the Judge in the recent case, it may be that the result of future prosecutions provides additional funds for planting or remediation proposals.

The administration of this fund will be undertaken by Environmental Solutions Team supported by Infrastructure Administration and Corporate Services.

The aim of this fund would be to support environmental projects which would contribute to the enhancement of Napier’s environment, particularly areas which can directly or indirectly improve the environment of Te Whanganui-a-Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary). It is hoped that this would encourage community groups to take a kaitiaki/guardianship of Napier’s environment, or further financially support enhancements carried out by Council. This would align with the Community Outcomes in the Annual Plan, and the intent of the Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge Masterplan.

It also enables financial support to be given to projects from citizens who wish to bequest monies to support environmental enhancement of the city, through supporting Council or community groups who are working towards enhancement, remediation, and ecological improvement of the environment.

Maintenance of plantings and enhancement works and success of the future of the sites will need to link carefully into the current plans that Council has funded, and need to be well controlled to ensure that adequate ongoing maintenance and replacement programmes (for example) are managed and funded consistently. To assist with this goal, it is also proposed that projects are able to be match funded by Council where appropriate and at the discretion of Council Officers.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

2.5 Implications

Financial

Funding will be received from:

· Grants sought out from stakeholders or central or government funding opportunities.

· Proceedings from prosecutions for (or reparation in relation to) contraventions of the Solid Waste, Trade Waste, Wastewater Drainage, or Stomwater Bylaws.

· Making amends prior to the carrying out of enforcement action of the above.

· Bequests, Donations or Endowments from members of the public or stakeholder groups.

An annual review and report to Council is proposed to transparently detail monies received and what those monies (or part thereof) are to be spent on, with the intent of spending received funds within a calendar year of their receipt. The spending within a year (within reason) is so that a physical outcome of the monies can tangibly be seen.

It is proposed that this money be ringfenced in a reserve fund, assigned to Council, for the purposes within this paper.

Social & Policy

Projects to be funded will be considered based on the following:

· Proposed environmental outcome

· Conflict with other priorities e.g., flood flows and water egress

· Realistic targets in relation to known scientific or cultural data of the proposed site/activity

· Team/community capability and energy (Is there a team of people keen to be involved in and support the project? Is there existing capability within the community?)

· Location (Is the location of the proposed project feasible, practical?)

· Alignment (Does the project align with Council’s Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge Masterplan, Thames Tyne Catchment Management Plan and other Council planning documents? Does the project align with other possible funding sources, eg HBRC?)

· Longevity (Is there a likelihood that the project will remain sustainable over time? What additional commitments are necessary e.g., external time/funds, maintenance, council time/funds)

· Potential leverage (Is there a possibility the project could be further developed over time to incorporate other approaches, stakeholders or cultural groups, for example social enterprise opportunities?)

· Supporting local (Does the project support local businesses and/or incorporate a social/cultural procurement approach?)

Projects that emphasise one or more of the following, will be particulary encouraged:

· Planting and native ecology enhancement (terrestrial, avian, aquatic)

· Flora and fauna (eg, attracting birds, bees, native species)

· Riparian planting, water quality treatment

· Enhanced waterway identity and education opportunities

· Green streets

· Pest and weed control

· Community gardens/Maara kai

· Fruit forests

· Clean, green spaces and waterways.

Risk

This fund will focus on the following critical success factors:

· Great idea – project teams will have an idea for enhancing a waterway which can be easily implemented and fits one or more of Council’s project areas (listed above).

· Community team – projects will involve a group of residents who may already be part of an existing network or who may come together specifically to implement their project.

· Energy and enthusiasm – project teams will demonstrate a ‘can do’ attitude and show interest in being involved in both the implementation and maintenance of their project .

· Community guardians/kaitiaki – project teams will undertake to provide ongoing guardianship of their project.

· Open dialogue – project teams will be open to working in partnership with and receiving advice from Napier City Council staff and other potential providers.

Projects of this nature are typically reliant on a handful of people for implementation and maintenance. If key individuals move on, there is a risk that projects fall over. In other instances, projects may be time limited (ie: community needs may change, community motivation may shift). Council is keen to ensure sustainability, but also recognises that this is not always possible, so gaining an understanding of the ongoing commitment from Council is key.

Application Process

The receipt of donated monies to be accepted should be ring-fenced and kept as a reserve fund specifically for the environmental purposes set out in this report.

Projects will be identified through an Expression of Interest (EOI) process. This will be promoted to the community and stakeholders.

Assessment process

All submitted EOIs will be assessed by staff from the Environmental Solutions Team in conjunction with Parks, Reserves and Sportsgrounds and 3 Waters Teams (where relevant).

Assessment will ensure the project is eligible, aligns with the intent of the fund and contributes to meeting the goals of the fund. All assessments will be undertaken using a customised assessment form.

Approval Process

For projects requesting funding valued up to $25,000, the assessment and recommendation will be sent to the Manager Environmental Solutions and the Environmental Projects Lead.

Budget/Ongoing Financing

The budget will not be required to draw on general rates or capital reserves, but will be administered only for the purposes set out in this report. As with Waste Levy funding (for example), amounts paid into this fund will be ring fenced for the purpose of waterway enhancements.

Reporting

Successful applications and amounts funded to be reported for information to the Executive Leadership Team/Sustainable Napier on a six weekly basis.

An annual review and report to Council is proposed to transparently detail monies received and what those monies (or part thereof) are to be spent on.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the creation of a Waterway Enhancement Fund.

b. Decline the creation of a Waterway Enhancement Fund.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

Officers have developed the proposed options with the creation of the Waterway Enhancement Fund being the preferred option for the reasons set out in the report.

At the Meeting

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

· This fund’s focus is to enhance the biodiversity of Napier city. The outcomes of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) come under a different fund.

· This fund would be ring fenced, report on, and kept for the purposes for which it was set aside.

· Fines that come to Council through prosecutions are handled differently as the mechanisms for them are slightly different. Where there is a discharge without conviction, and the reparation is for the purpose of environmental enhancement, this fund is where the money would go. Often reparation payments have conditions imposed on their use by the Court.

· In relation to contestable applications, the operational procedures around that are yet to be established. This paper was to see if the Committee approved in principle of the fund being established.

· Allocating money to projects from this fund would need to be managed to make sure the best outcomes were achieved, based on the funds available at the time.

· Significant capital funding is already allocated to environmental projects, particularly to the quality of stormwater. This fund would be for reparation payments to go to particular areas which may not already have a capital project assigned, although this would not prevent the money from being used for a capital project if appropriate.

· The Community may also be able to have input into what the money is used for through this process.

· Whether Council promotes what the fund is used for will have to be decided as money is received.

· Council will look to have a conversation with the Hawke’s Bay Foundation about money that comes from bequests, as they are very active in that space.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 26 November 2021 - Open Agenda

3. Report on Napier Water Supply Status End of Q1 2021-2022

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1392321
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anze Lencek, Water Quality Lead

3.1 Purpose of Report

To inform the Council on:

- the status of Napier Water Supply (NAP001) at the end of first quarter (Q1) of 2021-2022 compliance year

- the Annual Compliance Napier Drinking-water Supply report by Drinking Water Assessor, for the 2020/2021 compliance year

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Recommend Council endorse the:

i. Report on Napier Water Supply Status end of Q1 2021-2022.

ii. Annual Compliance Napier Drinking-water Supply report for the 2020/2021 compliance year.

Carried

3.2 Background Summary

Information presented in this Report is NCC 3 Waters Team’s best understanding and interpretation of Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2008 (revised 2018) (DWSNZ) and Health Act requirements and our adherence to those requirements – the regulator body (Taumata Arowai) might have a different view when undertaking an annual compliance assessment at the end of the compliance year.

3.3 Issues

The following points highlight the main issues and events relating to the supply that occurred in Q1.

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

§ Dechlorinated Water Stations. On 18 August 2021 both stations have been temporarily shut down due to Covid-19 lockdown. Both stations have been put back into service on 9 September, after the government lowered Covid-19 restrictions to Level 2, however only two taps (out of four) at each station are in operation to enable social distancing.

§ C1 bore. Due to increased demand C1 bore has been reintroduced to supply on 26 August 2021.

§ Water Safety Plan (WSP). Consultants Tonkin & Taylor have facilitated four risk assessment workshops with all relevant stakeholders to NCC water supply, including HBRC, HDC, Water Testing Hawkes Bay and various internal stakeholders. The draft WSP is expected to be shared with NCC for review mid October 2021.

§ Mains cleaning. This year’s 9-week annual mains cleaning programme (aka pigging) has started on 10 August and is due for completion 21 October. Next areas have been included in the programme: Onekawa, Marewa, Pirimai, Bay View, Tamatea and Parklands – unfortunately last two areas were dropped from schedule due to Covid-19 lockdown in August and September and works will be carried out next year.

§ Taumata Arowai. New regulator Taumata Arowai will be taking over as regulatory body from Ministry of Health on 15 November 2021. At this stage it looks like the existing DWSNZ and compliance requirement will not change before 30 June 2022 (end of 2021-2022 compliance year). It is expected that new draft DWSNZ and draft Operational Rules will be released early 2022 and will undergo public consultation.

B) Summary of progress against the WSP Improvement Plan

At the end of Q1 (as at 31 September 2021) there were 17 actions to be completed in the WSP v4.4 Improvement Plan, out of those 2 were overdue (Action 24 and 39 below).

- Action 24 - ‘Develop dedicated location for taking water from hydrants (Thames Street 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 and the Covid-19 lockdown period in August and September 2021.

- 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) Summary of significant reactive maintenance and major operations events

Q1:

- Nil.

D) DWSNZ Treatment Plant / Bores Compliance overview

To date, no transgressions have been recorded at Treatment plants / Bores in 2021/2022 compliance year. Compliance per category per quarter and Overall Compliance is presented in the table below.

Bore / Plant name

Bacterial Compliance

Protozoa Compliance

Chemical Compliance

Radiological Compliance

Overall Compliance

2020-2021

A1 Bore

pending

C1 Bore

pending

T2 Bore

pending

T3 Bore

pending

T5 Bore

pending

T6 Bore

pending

T7 Bore

pending

E) DWSNZ Distribution Zone Compliance overview

To date, no transgressions have been recorded within Distribution Zone in the 2021/2022 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	2021-2022
Napier NAP001NA									pending

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

Customers’ Service Requests (SR) are captured in MagiQ software. 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

Jul21

Aug21

Sep21

Oct21

Nov21

Dec21

Jan22

Feb22

Mar22

Apr22

May22

Jun22

Q – Clarity

Q – Odour

Q – Taste

Q – Pressure / Flow

G) Production summary figures and water take Resource consent compliance

Summary of the drinking-water production (abstraction):

Water Production – All Bores

Jul21

Aug21

Sep21

Oct21

Nov21

Dec21

Jan22

Feb22

Mar22

Apr22

May22

Jun22

Production [m3 x1000]

649

667

677

Summary on the current Resource Consent compliance and conditions:

- To date NCC has been fully compliant with Resource Consent conditions for 2021/2022.

H) Report on Annual Compliance Napier Drinking-water supply for 2020/2021 compliance year

On 15 November 2021 Drinking Water Assessor at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board issued a report (presented below) on annual compliance of Napier’s drinking-water supply for 2020/2021 compliance year, stating that the supply has demonstrated full compliance against the requirements set in the Health Act 1956 and the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (revised 2018).

3.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

3.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

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

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

At the Meeting

The Officer took the report as read, noting Council have been fully compliant this year:

· The number of discolouration complaints received by Customer Services has dropped substantially compared to recent years, which is encouraging.

· There was a spike in complaints on the 23^rd of October 2021 after ad hoc maintenance on a big water valve.

· Council had consulted on installing up to four declhorination stations and from this have settled on installing two.

· Taumata Arowai will be taking over as the regulatory body from Monday 15 November 2021. Going forward, the current drinking water standards are going to stay in place until 30 June 2022, and on 1 July 2022 new standards will come in to force. The new standards still have to go through a consultation process, so there may be changes made. Council would be noncompliant with the draft new standards if they were to go live today, but are working to have additional bores on line in time which will be compliant.

· The conditions to for a city to have chlorine-free water come under the Health Act 1956, and are administered by the Ministry of Health, so there will be no change to these.

3.8 Attachments

Nil

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 26 November 2021 - Open Agenda

4. Update on Ahuriri Regional Park Project

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1390869
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

4.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on progress made toward what is currently known as the Ahuriri Regional Park project, and to seek the endorsement of Council to confirm the priorities for the future use and development of Lagoon Farm in a way that positions Napier as a leader in climate resilience and city sustainability.

The report also seeks to address how critical partnerships with Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and Mana Ahuriri Trust (MA) can be fostered through the stages of park master-planning and implementation.

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Brosnan / Mayor Wise

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Endorse that the future park to be located at Lagoon Farm be a platform for climate resilience and city sustainability, delivering flood mitigation, stormwater quality, biodiversity and estuarine environment restoration.

b. Endorse that the boundary of the park currently known as the Ahuriri Regional Park be confined to the legal boundaries of Lagoon Farm (Lot 1 DP 388211).

c. Endorse the preparation of a Masterplan for the park currently known as the Ahuriri Regional Park and the appointment of an independent project manager.

d. Endorse Officer’s exploring options for project governance structures for the purpose of endorsing a draft masterplan (including a multi-party Regional Committee), for public consultation to be brought back for Council consideration next year.

Carried

4.2 Background Summary

The Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan included an initiative which sought to capitalise on the opportunities brought by the Lagoon Farm land, located on the edge of the middle reaches of the Ahuriri Estuary immediately adjacent to Prebensen Drive. The size of the Farm, its proximity to the City and a nationally recognised wildlife reserve as well as being the discharge point of 70% Napier’s urban storm water, gave ample reason to explore the creation of a publicly-owned ‘park’. In Napier’s case the Lagoon Farm park could also hold flood waters in times of heavy rain and polish some of the City’s stormwater while at the same time growing the biodiversity and ecology of the estuary itself.

Napier City Council and HBRC have established a working party to advance the concept. The Terms of Reference for the working party can be found at Attachment 1. Importantly the working party identified high level potential work streams for their respective Councils which made their way into draft Long Term Plans.

During the LTP consultations, both Councils specifically identified a “Regional Park” at the Lagoon Farm area as a major project with sub projects identified spanning multiple years. The community supported the concept and the investment in the park in both LTP’s. A summary of NCC LTP submissions which can found at Attachment 2.

The project has substantial budget identified in both NCC and HBRC LTPs and is now at a crucial stage where:

· The Park needs an identity

· The boundaries of the Park are understood, and the priorities around stormwater detention clearly identified

· Partnerships with mana whenua is in place and formalised

· The values of the site investigated and information about the opportunities and constraints identified

· A draft masterplan based on the above programmed for stakeholder and public consultation

· The stages of development and the obligations of the core parties defined; and

· Appropriate governance structures considered for the various stages developed and agreed.

Of the contributing projects that potentially fall within the boundaries of the “regional park”, there are two stormwater related projects that make up the bulk of the capital and priority for investment into the park (see Attachment 3). Importantly recent further investigations to understand Napier’s stormwater capacity issues, the Stormwater Masterplan (which is currently being peer reviewed) has recommended development of a stormwater detention area located within the “regional park” as a high priority. This will enhance resilience to flood events for a substantial portion of the City. It is likely the detention of stormwater on this site should be progressed as a priority.

Our changing climate will see an increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events as we have very recently experienced during last year’s floods. The stormwater detention area proposed will deliver not only a resilient stormwater network capacity, but also improved biodiversity outcomes and potentially recreational values in time.

This project gives both Councils a unique opportunity to show case how Napier City can demonstrate climate resilience and sustainability outcomes in a highly visible way transforming an area right in the middle of our City from pasture to a place that will help us keep our people dry during extreme weather events, clean the stormwater and actively foster environmental improvements to the estuary.

4.3 Issues

1. Purpose, size and scope

The identification of a “regional park” in the Ahuriri Estuary Masterplan was notional. Recent investigations have shown that Council can provide flood and water quality benefits by developing this site. HBRC have identified significant opportunities for biodiversity and environmental improvements along the Taipo confluence with the estuary. Preliminary discussions between both Councils have identified that we have an opportunity to realise those benefits in a very visible way, layering cultural, recreation and education opportunities with a central overarching goal for the park climate resilience.

2. Prioritisation of Essential Works.

Work is already underway to form partnerships with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, the Department of Conservation, and mana whenua representatives to develop a ‘Regional Park’ at Lagoon Farm, with multiple purposes including stormwater management, habitat restoration and recreation. Although this will likely be the outcome for this site in the medium to long term, it is vital to prioritise Napier’s stormwater network needs for this property – specifically in relation to improving climate resilience through capacity enhancements, before other needs and desires are accommodated. Once this is fully understood other interventions such as biodiversity creation around the Taipo Stream or polishing wetlands before the floodgates can be overlayed without constraining the detention requirements.

3. Definition of the Site

The “Regional Park” was identified as being the parcel of land that is currently known as Lagoon Farm and is owned fee simple by Council. Keeping the focus of the project on Lagoon Farm means that there is the ability for NCC to progress essential infrastructure without requiring any further approval outside of consultation through the LTP.

4. Identifying the correct legal instrument for Lagoon Farm to become “Regional Park”

As Lagoon Farm is in NCC ownership, consideration needs to be given as to how the site can be developed into a park for the people of Napier, and the rate payers specifically. There are various options in this regard including designations for the site for the water assets, formalising the land into a Regional Park or keeping ownership as it is and using the draft District Plan zoning to enable the range of activities contemplated in a park such as this. Officers have sought legal advice on the matter which has concluded that the latter may be the best option allowing maximum flexibility, full accountability to Napier rate payers, control over the delivery of key infrastructure projects and some protection from the asset being vested in any future three waters entity. Legal advice in relation to the ownership of land that has “Regional Park status has raised the question as to whether this project should continue to be called “Regional Park”. The implications of this title require further investigation, but the use of this term may result in the expectation that the ownership and management of this property is transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, when this is not a decision that has yet been made. It is recommended that the project have a different working title in the interim.

5. Defining benefits

A significant amount of technical work is required to further understand our needs, starting with our detention needs including how much land is required, how much of that should remain dry and where on the site it should be. In terms of storm water quality, Council needs to understand polishing wetlands potential on the site using the extensive investigations done to date to understand whether this can achieve desired outcomes, and if so, how these interfere with storm water detention areas. Other data sets around biodiversity, flood structures, ground water and climate change implications also need to be identified. Further cultural overlays also require unbundling including aspirations of mana whenua through Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga. These data sets can then form the of a basis masterplan.

6. Community endorsement of the masterplan

Currently there is no single vision of what a “regional park” on lagoon farm actually means. The masterplan process can provide that single vision, enable buy-in of stakeholders and get community support for the projects overall direction. This is a project of amazing potential that needs a “picture to paint a thousand words”. The master plan process and consultation should provide that picture in a similar way to that recently delivered on the Library and Civic precinct.

Once the various layers to this project are understood from the data sets, a masterplan will bring together how the site will be developed over time, taking into account those constraints and opportunities the site and its surrounds presents, and establish a vision for a park that delivers a resilient and sustainable Napier. This is seen as a crucial next step that can be developed alongside the flood detention project.

7. Partnerships with mana whenua

Through the working party stage of this project Te Komiti was fully consulted and invited to the table. It is likely in the not too distant future that Te Komiti will have full legal status through Te Tiriti settlement.

In that light it is essential that the partnership with Mana Whenua continue to be fostered, regardless of the stage of the project.

8. The stages of development and an integrated work programme.

The two Councils have identified work streams in various years in their respective LTP’s. Alignment and prioritisation of budgets may require clarification. For example whilst it is clear that the water detention project is fundamental, delivery occurs in year 6. This may be perfectly legitimate allowing detailed planning etc. to occur but it may also be impeding progress on other projects. An integrated project budget needs to be identified as a priority – using sufficient base information from the data sets. Therefore the data sets come first.

9. Single point project management

Sub projects of this magnitude between two Councils are a recipe for misunderstanding or inertia. Preliminary discussions between HBRC and ourselves agree that a single project manager similar to that being used on the Coastal work is the best way to advance matters in a coordinated way. There is now sufficient clarity in terms of the purpose of the park and what is involved to brief a project manager effectively. This is seen as a priority.

10. Appropriate and timely governance structures

A governance framework spanning both Councils and Mana Whenua needs to endorse the development of any masterplan as a draft before it is discussed formally with stakeholders and the community at large. There is time to consider the options noting that a Regional Committee may be a useful mechanism provided it takes into account the legal advice as to how lagoon farm should best be legally treated to enable the Napier community’s interest to best be served.

4.4 Significance and Engagement

Engagement with the community will be a significant feature of this project. A governance group is likely to oversee the release of a draft masterplan for public consultation. Input from our key partners and stakeholders, during the development of the masterplan will ensure opportunities are provided from those with specialist knowledge and interest.

4.5 Implications

Financial

LTP funding allocated to the stormwater detention area starts at Year 1, with the majority being available from Years 6 to 8. Although it is possible to bring this project forward, doing so would impact on the delivery of the wider Council programme (particularly three waters) as well as the rates cap, and so any decision to re-prioritise this project must consider Council’s entire work programme. Funding for the polishing wetlands is available in Years 4 and 5, allowing sufficient time for the three-year stormwater study to be completed and technical investigations and design. Funding is also available in this financial year to complete a masterplan, to provide ‘park-related’ assets, and from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (refer Attachment 3).

It is fair to say that there should be further refinement and coordination of the NCC and HBRC budgets and work programme. It is suggested that this matter will be revisited as part of the master-planning process.

Note: There is funding available to procure project management resources, initiate the data sets, and begin the master planning process.

Social & Policy

The work detailed in this report is consistent with the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan. The matter has been considered in HBRC and NCC LTP’s. It is intended that any future masterplan fully consult with stakeholders and the wider community.

Risk

There is a real risk that progress stalls through lack of a compelling vision and clear project development process.

4.6 Options

The options are best considered within each issue identified. There is little benefit from identifying each possibility given the multitude of issues, we have opted instead to recommend as follows:

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

1. That the regional park be a platform for climate resilience and city sustainability

2. That full investigation work commence to design the extent and location of any flood water detention infrastructure.

3. That the site legally known as lagoon farm be confirmed as the boundary of the regional park.

4. That Council ensure that the zoning for lagoon farm is appropriate in the draft District Plan and that no further encumbrances are placed on the land.

5. That work commence on collating data sets into a full story board to underpin masterplan development.

6. That Council develop a Masterplan for the purposes of full community consultation on what is intended for the “regional park" including the order of works.

7. That NCC and HBRC engage with Mana Ahuriri Trust as a key partner in this project.

8. That the LTP budgets be reviewed in light of the data sets and investigations around water detention and storm water in particular. The review should be done as part of the masterplan development and in conjunction with HBRC and their LTP budget allocations.

9. That an independent project manager be appointed as soon as practical.

10. That options around governance structures appropriate to being able to endorse a draft masterplan for consultation (including a Regional Committee) be explored and brought back to Council next year.

11. That an appropriate name is developed for the Park in due course.

At the Meeting

The Chair acknowledged the presence of the General Manager, Biodiversity (Debbie Monahan), Angie Denby (Ahuriri Protection Society) and noted the apologies from Councillor Hinewai Ormsby (HBRC) for this item.

The Strategic Planning Lead, Ms Lincoln provided an update on progress made on the Ahuriri Park and sought endorsement of priorities for future use and development of Lagoon Farm. Substantial budget had been allocated in the Council’s and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Long Term Plan and the next steps needed to be clearly programmed.

In response to questions from councillors it was clarified that:

· Through the LTP process there were a significant number of interested affected stakeholder partners interested in how Council would proceed with this project.

· Legal advice received has questioned whether the project should continue to be called a “Regional Park”.

· The Lagoon Farm site legal boundary should be confirmed as the boundary of the park.

· The Ahuriri Masterplan was developed at a high level and will be unbundled into focused components on lagoon farm to develop a masterplan into which detailed design will be incorporated at that stage.

· The committee endorsed the appointment of a Project Manager as soon as possible.

· Investigation is to be undertaken to understand the parcels of land as to the number of hectares that need to be set aside for stormwater polishing and flood detention areas as a priority.

· The Project Manager, when appointed will be considering all aspects of the development including Lagoon Farm continuing as a viable working farm and the short term lease of the Blowcart activity and would work with all parties going forward.

4.3 Attachments

a Attachment 1 Joint Working Party Terms of Reference

b Attachment 2 LTP submissions on Regional Park

c Attachment 3 - Project Background

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 26 November 2021 - Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1. Street Naming - Greenstone Development Te Awa

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1326190
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Paul O'Shaughnessy, Principal Resource Consents Planner

1.1 Purpose of Report

To obtain Council approval for two new street names for the recently approved ’Greenstone’ subdivision within the Te Awa Development Area.

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report. It was noted that the two alternative new street names were provided by Te Waka Rangapū and endorsed by the Council’s Kaumātua Piri Prentice. The developer has given feedback that the two alternative names are not their preference as they are not New Zealand rivers and do not tie into the rest of the street names in the subdivision. The alternative names could instead be used in other parts of the Te Awa suburb yet to be developed.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· In 2011 a list of street names for the Te Awa subdivision based on the theme of New Zealand rivers was adopted. Council recognises the process followed then is not be the same as it would be now in regards to consultation with mana whenua, as such it is seeking the Committee’s feedback on which names are more appropriate.

It was decided by the Committee to use the names already earmarked for the development. The Committee liked the two alternative names and suggested they could be used in another part of the Te Awa suburb which is yet to be developed.

ACTIONS:

- The Māori Committee would like visibility of any pre-approved lists of names for streets/subdivisions.

- Council Officers to review existing naming lists for the whole city in the near future.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

The Māori Committee:

a. Endorse the use of Rangataiki and Whangaehu as the street names for Stage 1 and 2 of the Greenstone subdivision within the Te Awa Development Area.

b. The two alternative names, Wai Whatu and Wai Orotū, be used in future developed areas of the Te Awa suburb.

Kua Mana

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.

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report and it was noted in discussion that:

· The Minister for Local Government, Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is going to have a hui with Māori leaders. Chad has received an invitation for this. It was agreed Chad would liaise with the organiser of the hui to get the online link sent to all the Committee members.

· After the regional planning day a letter was sent to Hon Mahuta requesting exploration of other models for three waters delivery. It also proposed a regional model for Hawke’s Bay. There had been a review of the region’s water delivery carried out recently so this was able to inform the proposal. The region’s Local Government leaders want to have a further conversation with iwi about the proposal also. No response has been received as yet from the Minister.

· Council will be submitting on Central Government’s proposal. The consultation period closes at the end of September so Council will need all feedback by mid-September so it can work on the submission. It would like feedback from this Committee to form part of the submission.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· Under the Central Government’s proposed model entity C would have a governance group which would be made up of six mana whenua representatives and six Local Government representatives from across the whole area of entity C. This group would appoint the selection panel which would then appoint the entity board, which would govern the entity itself. There is no guarantee that mana whenua would be part of this board, and Council is concerned about the ability to have a local voice in this structure.

· The Council are seeking feedback from the Ahuriri community on the proposed entity C model currently via it’s website (https://www.sayitnapier.nz/ncc/three-waters-reform/).

· There has not been a lot of feedback from mana whenua to the Council in regards to the three waters reform to date. It is hoped the meeting between the Minister and iwi will spark conversation.

· Council is sending out weekly updates to all its Māori partners to keep everyone informed on what is happening in the three waters space. This will continue for the next four weeks.

It was requested that Council work with mana whenua to equip them with the tools to have a voice in this reform process.

ACTION: Chad to liaise with the organiser of the online meeting with Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to get the link sent to all of the Committee.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

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).

Kua Mana

3. Māori Committee - Terms of Refence Proposal

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1370498
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Helen Barbier, Team Leader Governance Mōrehu Te Tomo, Pou Whakarae

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is seek approval for the latest updates in the Māori Committee Terms of Reference.

Robbie Paul joined the meeting at 9.48am

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report and noted:

· The suggested names came from the Council Kaumātua, Piri Prentice. These were Ngā Mānukanuka o te iwi, Te Roopu Toi Tu te Mana, and Te Kāhui Mātārae.

· Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi was selected by the Committee as the explanation has some key principles that the Committee members should hold. Also that individual people, elements of projects, and anxieties are brought together, along with knowledge or matauranga, to combine and stand strong.

· The Committee’s Terms of Reference is a living document and can be amended as the Committee evolves.

· Committee representatives sitting on Council’s Standing Committees and Council meetings as non-voting members will be considered as part of a wider Council governance review. As part of this review, the extra time commitment by Committee members to attend these meetings would need to be considered.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

The Māori Committee:

a. Approve the new name for the Māori Committee:

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi

b. Approve as members of the Māori Committee:

i. The Chair of the Napier People and Places Committee

ii. The Chair of the Sustainable Napier Committee

iii. The Chair of the Future Napier Committee

c. Approve the content of the terms of reference (Doc ID: 1372268) with the following amendments:

i. Under Membership, replace ‘Councillor’ with ‘Chair of the Napier People and Places Committee, Chair of the Sustainable Napier Committee, and Chair of the Future Napier Committee and delete the phrase: ‘Councillors will be appointed by the Mayor’;

ii. Include the definition of the new Committee name, Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi;

iii. Under ‘Purpose of the Committee’, add ‘The role of the Committee in advocating on behalf of Mana/Tangata whenua is in addition to Council’s responsibility to engage directly with Mana/Tangata whenua’.

d. Request a paper is brought to the 15 October 2021 Māori Committee hui providing options for Māori Committee members to participate as non-voting members in Council and Standing Committee meetings.

Kua Mana

Attachments

1 Maori Committee Draft Terms of Reference 03-09-2021.pdf

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).

At the Māori Committee meeting

There was no discussion by the Committee on this item.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took this report as read. It was a Decision of Council at the Napier People and Places Committee meeting, but feedback from the Māori Committee was welcomed on alternative sources of external funding for future Council events. The Committee will be notified of workshops on this topic, and encouraged to attend if they are able to.

Chair’s recommendation

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. 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).

b. Direct that a workshop be held and a paper then be brought to Council through the Future Napier Committee 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.

c. Recommend staff explore alternate external funding sources, including non-gaming funding grants and sponsorship, for the New Year’s Eve event.

d. Recommend existing Council budgets be examined to consider internal funding options.

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

Council Resolution

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

3. Napier Hastings Smokefree Policy Review - Joint Working Group Establishment

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1355120
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Michele Grigg, Senior Advisor Policy

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to appoint two elected members to a Joint Smokefree Policy Review Working Group in order to proceed with the review of the joint Napier City and Hastings District Councils’ Smokefree Policy.

At the Māori Committee meeting

There was no discussion by the Committee on this item.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Brown

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Mawson / Simpson

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Approve Deputy Mayor Brosnan and Chair of the Napier People and Places Committee, Councillor Boag, as Napier City Council’s representatives on the Joint Smokefree Policy Review Working Group with Hastings District Council.

b. Endorse the draft Terms of Reference for the Joint Smokefree Policy Review Working Group.

Carried

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

There was no discussion by the Committee on this item.

Māori Committee's recommendation

R Paul / R Brown

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

With agreement of the Committee this item was taken out of order.

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took this report as read. It was noted that Option A used to be a traditional pathway many years ago. This project will help to reinstate that pathway for cultural and recreational reasons.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

Reports from Prosperous Napier Committee held 12 August 2021 continued

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report and in response to questions it was noted that Stormwater had the biggest reduction in satisfaction. This was not because it had been trending downwards, but because of the significant flooding event which was experienced within the last year. Council is working hard to improve the resident’s satisfaction with the stormwater network.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 19 August 2021 continued

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).

At the Māori Committee meeting

The report was taken as read. In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified that:

· These events will be run as zero waste events, something the organisers wanted, but also a condition of their resource consent. Council rubbish bins will either be removed or covered up. Attendees will be given paper bags if needed, so they can take their rubbish home with them.

· Attendees can use the toilet facilities at the Botanical Gardens during the event.

Māori Committee's recommendation

Mayor Wise / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took the report as read. This plan has been through the Māori Committee previously. In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· The first level of engagement is optional under the Reserves Act, and is purely calling for suggestions, any parks and reserves co-governance model conversations would occur after that but prior to the drafting of the Reserve Management Plans. That process has about a 12 month timeframe.

· Once the over-arching co-governance framework, which Te Waka Rangapū is taking a lead in developing, is in place it can then guide any co-governance models that sit beneath it in regards to particular projects.

Decision of Council

Councillors Chrystal / Simpson

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

Council Resolution

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the information report. In response to a question from the Committee it was clarified that the sediment in the Thames and Tyne waterways, at a depth of 450ml, dates back to before the 1931 Napier earthquake. If it is decided the best option for remediating the waterways is to dredge 450ml of sediment off the top it could be done by Council with existing budget.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Browne / Chrystal

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the results of the sediment core sampling.

Carried

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

This report was taken as read and there was no discussion by the Committee on the item.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to this report. In response to a question from the Committee it was clarified that if a resident cannot afford to pay for a replacement bin, or a charity cannot afford to pay for an additional bin Council will work out a payment plan with them so they can receive the new bin as soon as possible.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took the report as read. There was no discussion on this item by the Committee.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report. There was no further discussion on the item by the Committee.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Crown / Mayor Wise

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Receive the Capital Programme Delivery report.

Carried

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.

At the Māori Committee meeting

It was noted that this report is the same as item 3 on the agenda and no further discussion was required.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / RTK Hawaikirangi

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Officer’s recommendation

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a) 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.

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

Reports from Future Napier Committee held 19 August 2021

1. Resource Consent Activity Update

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1278532
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

1.1 Purpose of Report

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

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

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

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took the report as read, noting that the lifestyle village which has been proposed at Willowbank is currently under appeal. The project went before a Commissioner who imposed a number of engineering and infrastructure conditions as part of the consent. The applicant is appealing these.

Māori Committee's recommendation

R Paul / R Brown

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Boag / Crown

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Note the resource consent activity update for the period 15 June to 27 July 2021.

Carried

2. Draft Library and Civic Area Plan

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1323545
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement for the release of the Draft Library and Civic Area Plan prior to the notification of the Draft for public consultation.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report, noting an updated copy of the Draft Library and Civic Area Plan (Doc ID: 1372480) was circulated to the Committee just prior to this meeting. This Draft now establishes the relationship Council will have with mana whenua throughout this project, and also establishes some draft Māori design principles.

It was also noted that Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū, Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust, and Mana Ahuriri are working with Council on this project. Mana Ahuriri is going through some elections at the moment, but once this process is complete the entities should be able to come together to discuss the proposed design.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Brosnan / Mayor Wise

The Future Napier Committee:

a) That the Future Napier Committee resolve to discuss the “Draft Library and Civic Area Plan” that was left to lie on the table at the 8 July 2021 meeting.

b) Approve release of the draft Library and Civic Area Plan (Doc ID 1372480) for community feedback, noting that there is a placeholder page relating to mana whenua partnership that will be updated for the Full Council Meeting.

c) Note the Consultation Plan (Doc ID: 1372479) for this project is under development and will be presented to Council at the Full Council Meeting.

Carried

Attachments

1 Final Draft Library and Civic Area Plan

2 Final Consultation Plan Library and Civic Area Plan - Alert level information

The meeting adjourned at 11.02am and resumed at 11.09am

3. Parking Technology Upgrade - Pay by Plate

Type of Report:	Contractual
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1312927
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

3.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Committee approval to adopt ‘pay-by-plate’ parking technology for Napier, and to commence implementation of this upgrade.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer took the report as read. In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· Lollypop meters are not being made anymore and access to parts from decommissioned ones is becoming difficult. The blue Pay and Display meters come from a European supplier and access to parts is very difficult.

· Pay-by-plate meters are made by a supplier in Aotearoa.

· The data from the meters can be used to inform which areas of the city have a high demand for parking. The data collected may be useful for enforcement of outstanding fines.

· There will not be an increase in parking charges with the installation of the new meters.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Chrystal / Mawson

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Approve the existing parking meters to be upgraded to pay-by-plate meters.

b. Approve $515,000 Parking Technology funding for 2022/23 to be bought forward to 2021/22 to fund the purchase of the replacement meters and related equipment.

c. Note that, following this report, a proposal will be bought to Council to amend the Napier City Parking Bylaw 2014 to update the bylaw to pay-by-plate meter systems.

Carried

4. City Ambassador & CCTV Programme Proposal

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1327039
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

4.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Committee approval to adopt the service design for the City Ambassador & CCTV programme for Napier, and to commence implementation of the programme.

At the Māori Committee meeting

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

· The City Ambassador roles are not security roles, they are there to support safety initiatives. These roles will be filled by people who are community champions and who can interact with all kinds of people on the streets to support their needs. This may be helping tourists with directions, being in areas which do not feel safe at certain times of the day to be a presence supporting others as they pass through, it may also be calling Police if they see an incident unfolding that requires their attention. The Ambassadors will be dressed so they are easily identifiable. They will not only be in the central city, but also in the outer suburbs, as required.

· Council Officers are exploring if there is an external option for the CCTV monitoring. If there is a good option this will be compared with the pros and cons of running it in-house.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Brosnan / Mayor Wise

Item of business to lie on the table

a) That pursuant to Standing Order 25.2(d) that Item 4 – City Ambassador and CCTV Programme Proposal lie on the table to enable Council officers to obtain further information on the private supply and monitoring component prior to the Council meeting scheduled to be held on 16 September 2021.

b) Note that feedback sought from the Māori Committee in regard to the City Ambassador and CCTV Programme Proposal”

Carried

5. Napier War Memorial Centre Policy

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1356597
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

5.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to adopt the Napier War Memorial Centre Policy.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Officer spoke to the report. The Committee’s feedback was sought in specifically in regards to the appropriate use of the Napier War Memorial forecourt.

· The Committee suggested Council engage with the RSA and local Kaumātua for feedback on this.

· It was also suggested it could be used as a marae ātea, the formal area in front of a wharenui where pōwhiri, for example, might take place, but correct tikanga would have to be followed if it was used that way.

· It could also be used to display art works.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Tapine

Item of business to lie on the table

That pursuant to Standing Order 25.2(d) that Item 5 – Napier War Memorial Centre Policy lie on the table and that authority be delegated to the Mayor to select a small group of Councillors to work on the wording of the draft Policy (Doc ID 1367511) and report back to the 16 September 2021 Council meeting.

Carried

6. Local Alcohol Policy Review

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Document ID:	1357811
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

6.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on the Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Joint Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) and to gain a resolution on when a formal review of the Policy must commence.

At the Māori Committee meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report and in response to a question clarified that if the review period adopted for the policy was six years it could still be reviewed earlier if needed.

Māori Committee's recommendation

R Paul / R Brown

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Taylor / Boag

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Note the contents of the “Local Alcohol Policy Review” of 19 August 2021; and

b. Approve a review of the Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Local Alcohol Policy (Doc ID 1367514) in six years (commencing October 2024), or sooner if required, as per Section 97 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Carried

7. Exemption to Trading in Public Places ByLaw

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1360190
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Stephanie Kennard, Planning Projects Facilitator

7.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a resolution of Council to allow trading within a road reserve for events run by Napier City Council, Art Deco Trust and Napier City Business Inc (NCBI) within the Napier CBD boundary until the end of October 2026.

At the Māori Committee meeting

There was no discussion by the Committee on this item.

Māori Committee's recommendation

C Tareha / R Paul

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

Kua Mana

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Tapine / Chrystal

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Approve the sale of food and beverages to the public on public land within the city centre as part of the events hosted by Napier City Council, Art Deco Trust, Napier City Business Incorporated or Taradale Marketing Association until 31 October 2026, subject to the following conditions:

1. Trading must occur as part of a short term event or pop-up event

2. Trading must only occur within the street reserve (not on reserve land)

3. Trading of food and beverages only.

4. Permission must be obtained from the Transportation Team Leader.

5. Consultation with nearby retailers must be completed at least one week prior to the event and all issues resolved

6. Trading is limited to the following streets: Hastings Street; Market Street; Tennyson Street; Emerson Street; Dalton Street; Clive Square East; Herschell Street; Marine Parade

7. The usual road closure procedures will be followed if road closures are deemed necessary.

Carried

Updates from Partner Entities

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul

· The main activity at the moment has been promoting the Covid-19 vaccination to whanau. They filmed Kaumātua, Robbie and rangatahi for this promotion, which is working really well and is in partnership with Te Kupenga Hauora.

· Due to the Covid Lockdown their AGM has been postponed until the end of September. They did have elections for two new trustees, but the votes were very close so they are having to do a recount. The results should be out today.

· The Trust is looking for a new Project Manager, a Team Leader, and six field crew for the restoration of their awa, Te Ngarue, and also Te Arapawanui project. These positions start with paid training at the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) for three months.

Napier City Council – Mayor Kirsten Wise

· Primary focus is the Covid-19 response. In the level four Lockdown everything was closed that needed to be, and staff have been working from home. The services that have needed to continue have, but with precautions in place to keep everyone safe.

· Council has an eight week period to make a formal submission on the Government’s Three Waters Reform proposal. Council aims to have a more in-depth informed conversation with the community about this.

· The Draft District Plan is open for consultation. This sets the rules and regulations for the growth of the city.

· The Spatial Picture is also open for consultation with the community now. This outlines parts of the city where Council is considering future development occurring. Approximately 2500 new dwellings are required in Ahuriri over the next ten years and Council also needs to consider areas for intensive development.

· Council is also consulting on Māori Wards currently. This consultation closes on the 10^th of September.

Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha

· Ngāti Pārau has teamed up with Karma drinks, an international company which is currently supporting eight villages in Africa with financial aid. They have an office in Auckland and are looking for kaupapa to support here. The company want to support environmental projects and heard about Ngāti Pārau’s environmental kaupapa and are interested in supporting it.

· Ngāti Pārau are working on creating a book on Ōtātara Pā in partnership with Huia Publishers.

· Ngāti Pārau teamed up with EIT to support the establishment of the Ōtātara Outdoor Learning Centre. They have created a learning and nature kaupapa, and this has been selected as one of two New Zealand finalists for the Green Gowns Awards Australiasia. These awards aim to inspire, promote and support change towards best practice sustainability within the operations, curriculum and research of the tertiary education sector.

Updates from Māngai ā-Hapori

Renee Brown

· Renee just wanted to remind whanau to stay safe and stick to the rules and guidelines the Government have set out in their Covid response.

· Use technology to stay connected to whanau.

Rapihana Te Kaha Hawaikirangi

· Congratulated Chad and Beverly Kemp-Harmer on their election to the Mana Ahuriri Trust.

· New nursary staff and Kaitiaki Rangers have been employed for the Te Wai Mauri kaupapa. The new Rangers are likely to be with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust’s new staff for the EIT three month training.

· Te Matau a Māui Waka Hourua - the team are working towards sailing to the Chatham Islands in January. The Waka has been practicing for this.

· Te Ātea-a-Rangi Trust – the equinox is on the 23rd of September. This is an early morning kaupapa.

· Waiohiki marae’s AGM was postponed from last week. The whanau are enjoying have a wharanui there again now.

Update from Council Pou Whakarae

· Te Waka Rangapū is busy with the Three Waters Reform and looking at how mana whenua are going to be represented in this reform. Also with the Māori Wards consultation. The consultation closes soon so hopefully whanau will get their submissions in. The Council Hearings will be held in October.

· Also congratulations to Chad and Beverly for their appointment to Mana Ahuriri. Hoping the relationship between Council and Mana Ahuriri can move forward.

General business

Nil

The meeting closed with a karakia at 11.50am

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

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

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

[1] At the 3 September 2021 meeting of the Nga Manukanuka O Te Iwi, the Committee requested a report be brought to the 15 October 2021 hui to provide options for the Committee members to participate as non-voting members in Council and Standing Committee meetings. At the 3 September 2021 meeting Officer’s advised that Committee representatives sitting on Council’s Standing Committees and Council meetings as non-voting members will be considered as part of a wider Council governance review. As part of this review, the extra time commitment by Committee members to attend these meetings would need to be considered.

[2][2] Membership details can be found in the latest iteration of the Terms of Reference in Appendix B.

[3] 30% of reports are not submitted through Standing Committees and are submitted directly to Council.

Meeting Date:	Friday 26 November 2021
Time:	9.00am
Venue:	Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook site

Committee Members	Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha (Chair) Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee - Adrienne Taputoro Māngai ā-Hapori - Renee Brown Māngai ā-Hapori – Rapihana Te Kaha Hawaikirangi Mayor Kirsten Wise Deputy Mayor Annette Brosnan Councillor Maxine Boag Councillor Keith Price Mana Ahuriri Trust – (Vacant) Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū – (Vacant) Pukemokimoki Marae – (Vacant)
Officer Responsible	Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo)
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) Meeting 25 February 2022

Y.1	Y.2	Y.3	Y.4	Y.5	Y.6	Y.7	Y.8	Y.9	Y.10
100k	206k	211k	216k	222k	1.1m	935k	10.2m

Y.1	Y.2	Y.3	Y.4	Y.5	Y.6	Y.7	Y.8	Y.9	Y.10
			325k	2.22m

Y.1	Y.2	Y.3	Y.4	Y.5	Y.6	Y.7	Y.8	Y.9	Y.10
							1.5m	5m	3.5m

Y.1	Y.2	Y.3	Y.4	Y.5	Y.6	Y.7	Y.8	Y.9	Y.10
		1.2m	1.2m	1.2m	1.2m	1.2m	1.3m	1.3m	1.3m

	Hastings	Napier
Short term (2020 – 2023)	1,920	1,160
Medium term (2023 – 2030)	3,360	2,040
Long term (2030 – 2050)	7,590	4,060

Meeting Date:	Friday 3 September 2021
Time:	9.00am – 11.50am
Venue	Via Zoom and Livestreamed on Council’s Facebook page

Present	Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha (In the Chair) Mayor Kirsten Wise Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul Māngai ā-Hapori - Renee Brown Māngai ā-Hapori – Rapihana Te Kaha Hawaikirangi
Also Present	Councillor Keith Price Councillor Apiata Tapine
In Attendance	Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi) Director City Strategy (Richard Munneke) Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell) Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson) Director Infrastructure Services, (Jon Kingsford) Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo) Strategic Planning Lead (Fleur Lincoln) Manager Community Strategy (Natasha Mackie) Manager Water Strategy (Russell Bond) Water Quality Lead (Anze Lencek) Team Leader Planning and Compliance (Luke Johnson) Team Leader Governance (Helen Barbier) Team Leader Parks and Reserves and Sportsgrounds (Jason Tickner) Manager Environmental Solutions (Cameron Burton) Manager Regulatory Solutions (Rachael Horton) Principal Resource Consents Planner (Paul O'Shaughnessy) Māori Partnership Manager – Te Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori (Beverly Kemp-Harmer) Event Manager (Kevin Murphy)
Administration	Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)