Agenda of Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee)

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 25 February 2022 - Open Agenda

Reports from standing committees

Ngā mānukanuka o te iwi (Māori COMMITTEE) RECOMMENDATION

That the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (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 3 February 2022

1. Napier Civil Defence Siren Network Removal

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1311200
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

1.1 Purpose of Report

To approve the decommissioning of Napier’s siren system and removal of the siren infrastructure.

Committee's Amended Recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Browne

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Approve the decommissioning and removal of the remaining Napier City Council-owned siren warning system infrastructure from the remaining locations, and support the Emergency Management Alert (EMA) system and continue to support the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group education and public information campaigns.

b. Request CDEM group provide to Council, for information, their proposed public education programme, including the frequency and outreach components.

Carried

1.2 Background Summary

Napier City Council (NCC) had established a siren-based public alerting system from 1963 which was upgraded in the late 1990s. Two additional sirens were added in the 2000s to address the more critical gaps in the network. The last siren to be installed was in 2014 at a site close to the Hawke’s Bay airport. The network has not been operational or maintained since 2019 for reasons outlined below.

The siren system was based on a network of 17 rise and fall tone sirens which are affixed to buildings and in some cases, are on stand-alone towers. Four of these sirens are dual purpose sirens. Three are owned by FENZ, located on their property and are also used for fire volunteer activations. One is owned by, and located at, the Port of Napier and is also used for the emergency evacuation of the Port for fire and hazardous substances emergencies. The sirens are powered by three-phase mains power and are activated using a VHF radio network. The locations of the sirens are set out on the map attached. (Attachment 1).

Prior to 2018, the network was maintained and tested by the NCC civil defence manager. An ongoing maintenance budget of $50,000 per annum was provided and a public test of the network took place twice a year (typically on the daylight savings beginning and end dates).

With the move to concentrating the delivery of the region’s Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) functions in 2018, HBCEDM took over the responsibility of the siren testing and maintenance requirements on behalf of NCC, who continued to fund the system. The system was last tested publicly in 2018/19, however with the closure of the Napier City Civic Administration buildings, the ability to trigger the sirens was limited as the aerials and communications equipment was removed. The sirens continued to the tested until the end of 2019 by way of an individual ‘flick test”.

In late 2019 Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) removed the ability for sirens under their control or on their property to be used for public alerting. This was in response to a false alarm in the Bay of Plenty where the VHF system was compromised by a third party, activating the sirens, causing public alarm. This national direction has seen the removal of three of the NCC sirens from the 17-siren network (Taradale, Bayview and Napier City Fire Stations).

In July 2020, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) technical standard on Tsunami Warning Sirens [TS03/14] came into force. As the sirens do not meet this standard in terms of tone, they can no longer be used as tsunami warning sirens. This standard goes further and also states “Sirens (signal-only or PA capable) are not regarded as effective or reliable alerting mechanisms in local source tsunami events… the use of fixed coastal sirens for tsunami warning is not advised”.

Given the inability of the system to be used for tsunami warning, and the removal of the FENZ sirens creating gaps in the network, it is recommended that this method of public alerting is replaced fully by the already in use, nationally recognised Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMA) supported by mobile apps as recommended by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Systems Alerting Review (Attachment 2). The remaining sirens in the network should therefore be decommissioned and removed.

1.3 Issues

In August 2021, the HBCDEM Group commissioned a review into Hawke’s Bay’s regional alerting systems which was carried out by the Joint Centre for Disaster Research in conjunction with Massey University. The purpose of the review (the Review), completed in December 2021, was to conduct a gap analysis and assess the current suite of public alerting options in the Hawke’s Bay region. The two most critical considerations for alerting the public were identified as providing (1) a “heads-up” ahead of the threat and (2) instruction on the detail i.e. what is happening, where, when and what action is required in response to the threat.

This review has yet to be presented to the HBCDEM Group or Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) for consideration and action from a regional perspective. However, given the analysis, this has particular implications for the Council as the owner of the Napier siren system. This is especially the case given the issues identified above which means that timely decisions need to be made on the future of the system.

In the report, the cost, reliability, reach functionality and effectiveness of each alerting option was assessed using a range of criteria developed from information from international and national case studies and theory-based research. Indicative costs of each option were derived from past studies’ estimates and will have likely increased since however are useful for the purposes of comparing cost-effectiveness of options.

The Review recommends that Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMA) through cell broadcasting, supported by mobile apps (e.g. Red Cross Hazard app) , should be considered the “backbone” of public alerting in Hawke’s Bay.

Specifically to the Napier Siren System, the Review identified that the current signal-only siren system in Napier is not fit for the purpose of contemporary public alerting. Although it provides a heads-up, it cannot provide detailed instructions. The rise and fall signal only intends to communicate the need to seek more information. The public might not know what the siren signal means unless this system is accompanied by extensive education on the appropriate actions to take when the signal is heard. This is further complicated by the fact that a number of private agencies use a similar siren tone for on-site emergencies.

Upgrading the current system to a PA (public address) loudspeaker system can be considered, so instructions can also be provided. However, a PA loudspeaker system has a high start-up cost and will have substantial ongoing maintenance costs. Its coverage is also restricted to narrow geographical areas and impacted by weather. It is therefore considered that the costs do not outweigh effectiveness in areas with already existing or alternative alerting options. Napier City, as an urban area, already has excellent coverage with EMA and mobile apps.

CDEM Groups and CDEM Group members are responsible for evacuations. The Tsunami Warning and Advisory Plan covers the three different categories of tsunami (distant-source, regional-source, and local-source). NEMA and GeoNet work to provide threat advice for all tsunami. However, an official warning may not be possible for local-source tsunami. The National Tsunami Warning and Advisory Plan makes further clarification that official warnings are unlikely and should not be relied upon to take action. Natural felt signs are the primary warning for local-source tsunami.

1. Distant-source tsunami: generated from a long way away, such as from across the Pacific in Peru or Chile. In this case, we will have more than three hours warning time for New Zealand. These tsunami sources have been modelled to a maximum wave height at the coast of around 5m (red and orange zone). The deployment of Deep Ocean Assessment of Tsunami (DART) buoys around the Pacific and international warning and assessment centres means that there is likely to be time to issue detailed public warnings and evacuation advice using a variety of systems from mainstream media, social media and the cell phone enabled emergency mobile alerting system.

2. Regional-source tsunami: generated between one and three hours travel time away from their destination and limited warnings may be received. An eruption from an underwater volcano in the Kermadec Trench to the north of New Zealand, could generate a regional tsunami – sources modelled under 5m (red and orange zone).

3. Local-source tsunami: The more serious risk to Hawke's Bay is from a local source tsunami, such as those generated by a subduction zone earthquake (Hikurangi Subduction zone). This type of tsunami is very dangerous because we may only have a few minutes natural warning from the earthquake itself. The earthquake itself will result in significant damage to infrastructure and buildings across the Hawke's Bay. If a tsunami is generated this could arrive at the coastline within 15 to 40 minutes and is modelled to reach heights of up to 13.5m at the Napier coast (all zones). Currently official warnings with advice and time for people to react, cannot be issued in this timeframe. In New Zealand, public information (e.g. Long or Strong – Get Gone) is the preferred method of increasing community and individuals’ resilience to this threat.

As the sirens are “all hazard”, it they were to be activated for a distant or regional-source tsunami people would need to seek further information as to the nature of the threat and what actions to take. Despite public education programmes many members of public believe that the sirens are only tsunami sirens and if they are activated that they should immediately evacuate to higher ground. Most would try do this using motor vehicles. This uncoordinated approach to evacuations can result in unneeded risk to life and interfere with the movement of emergency services and evacuees to/from areas likely to be impacted.

If the event is a local-source generated tsunami, the issues and challenges will be entirely different. It is likely that the earthquake that generates a local source tsunami will severely damage the existing siren network and result in the power being cut. It is unlikely that the system will be usable in this scenario. Even if the system is operational after the earthquake, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient time for it to be activated given it is not an automated system.

For this reason, the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group public messaging over the last eight years has been, “if you feel a long or strong earthquake evacuate immediately from coastal areas” (Long or Strong – Get Gone). The earthquake itself is seen as the warning, not any other public alerting system such as sirens or mobile alerts.

The above conclusions are backed by international scientific research particularly after the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami (Tsunami Evacuations: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March 11 2011, GNS Report 2012/17). In a survey after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, 17 out of 27 affected municipalities responded that their tsunami alert transmission system failed from power cuts or earthquake damage and did not function properly at the time of the disaster.

International research (especially from Japan) also shows that the existence of sirens creates a false sense of comfort with the public in that they expect to be warned by the siren, rather than making a decision to respond to the earthquake itself and immediately self-evacuate.

In other cases, sirens have led to people ignoring them or delaying evacuation due to false alarms. This was especially true in places where the sirens are triggered automatically without a human decision.

The research has found that casualty rates from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami were higher in municipalities that had a tsunami siren system, compared to those who did not. In the municipalities without sirens there was significant public investment in “tsunami tendenko” (which roughly equates to Long or Strong – Get Gone). In these areas many people and schools immediately self-evacuated. Waiting even a few minutes for a siren or other warning to sound had a negative impact on casualty rates.

The research with regards to the impact of false alarms on effectiveness is also relevant to the Napier system. The tone of the sirens is the same as used by FENZ at their fire stations and some private industrial site sirens. This has created several false alerts and resulting public enquires every year. This impacts on the public confidence in any warning system and therefore increasing complacency.

Another issue which has been identified through surveys after every public test of the Napier siren system, is the audibility which is impacted by topography, wind and rain. This is likely to be worse now given the removal of the three sirens on FENZ property.

It is likely that the operation of public warning systems such as the Napier sirens will come under greater scrutiny in the future and the fact this system is not compliant with the NEMA national standard means this may be a liability issue if they are used as such.

Since the siren system was put in place there have been significant changes to communications technology that allow for messages to be more efficiently and effectively distributed to the public in the event of an emergency. As mentioned, sirens in themselves cannot tell people what the threat is or what actions to take.

The implementation of the national Emergency Mobile Alert (EMA) system in 2018 has provided a tool which is far more effective and timelier in providing warnings and information to the public than sirens. The last national test of this system in 2019 confirmed that 77% of cell phones received the alert. The Napier City area has complete cell phone coverage so all smartphones are capable of receiving the alert.

Under the National Tsunami Advisory and Warning Plan 2020, in the event of a local source tsunami threat, NEMA will directly issue an EMA to those coastal regions that are subject to a land threat telling people to evacuate from coastal areas. This is delivered through cell phone technology directly to mobile phones. This network is also subject to the impacts of a major earthquake, but should the system still work this gives the best information to people who have not already self-evacuated. The system also does not only rely on local emergency management staff, who are likely to be directly impacted by any earthquake, to activate the system. NEMA are also in the process of standing up a national 24/7 staffed monitoring centre. This will further accelerate the capability to issue EMAs.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and does not trigger any thresholds or criteria within the policy.

1.5 Implications

Financial

Decommissioning and removal of the remaining siren network will be funded from existing maintenance budget of $16,000 which was made available for the 2021/22 financial year only for this purpose. There will therefore be no savings going forward.

Only high level estimates for comparison purposes have been made to upgrade and/or replace the siren network with a system compliant with the NZ Standard for Tsunami Sirens i.e. fixed PA loud-speakers. This is estimated to be in the region of $1.4M to 1.6M capital costs with significant ongoing operational costs.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

The risks of retaining the fixed siren system are outlined in the report and in the attached review. These risks are primarily around the risk of over-reliance on the system causing people to wait to hear the siren before acting on natural warnings. This is where the Long or Strong – Get Gone public messaging and education is critically important.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. To decommission and remove the siren network infrastructure from the remaining locations and continue to support the HBCDEM Group education and public information campaigns.

b. To investigate an upgrade and/or replacement of the existing siren network to meet the NZ Standard for Tsunami Sirens.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is to decommission and remove the existing siren network. The network is non-compliant and is not as effective or indeed relevant as the more effective EMA system is now in place. The Review recommends that a backbone public alerting system of the EMA supported by mobile apps such as the Red Cross Hazard app is the most cost-effective public alerting option with the greatest population reach. This is particularly so for Napier City as it has full mobile coverage. This backbone public alerting system will be supported with ongoing education and public messaging to ensure our community are well prepared on how to respond to an event. The costs of upgrading the current siren system to a PA loudspeaker system are unlikely to outweigh effectiveness in areas with already existing and proven to be effective alerting options such as the EMA system.

At the Meeting

The authors of the paper spoke to the report and a PowerPoint presentation, with support from Dr Graham Leonard.

In response to questions from the Committee the following points were clarified:

· If a large Tsunami is triggered from a local source it could occur within minutes. The most important alert is a long and strong earthquake. People should evacuate inland or to higher ground immediately if that occurs, and not wait for an Emergency Mobile Alert (EMA). When a tsunami is coming from further away the EMA will emit a loud noise on a person’s smart phone, with words saying evacuate now with greater detail of the event.

· Resourcing would be required to educate community groups, walking them through evacuation procedures on an ongoing basis. A rough estimate of need is a NCC resource per 25,000 residents.

· The Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management group (HBCDEM) have educational documentation which is being worked on. They want to take a very deliberate approach to the community education, and have already started preparing communications for a response to the decision being made by the Committee today.

· The EMA can be activated at specific cell phone tower sites, but some site’s coverage overlaps with others. For example an alert for the Napier Hill would reach Taradale. New Zealand has been split into 20km domains for the EMA initial alert, there are about 2 domains in Napier. From that initial alert more specific information could be sent via particular cell phone towers.

· In the case of a local earthquake which triggers a tsunami an automatic message could not, and should not be relied upon. In that situation it would be a very strong quake no one could sleep through, and residents should evacuate as soon as possible.

· For residents who do not have a cell phone to receive EMA the community education will be encouraging friends and family to make a plan to alert these people in the case of an emergency. For any system there are always going to be people who are hard to reach, in the case of the sirens it was the hearing impaired. There is a possibility that other systems will be able to support the EMA, for example Police and Fire can be deployed with lights and sirens to alert people in some emergency situations.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Approve the decommissioning and removal of the remaining Napier City Council-owned siren warning system infrastructure.

1.8 Attachments

1 Civil Defence sirens map.(Doc Id 1423064)

2 HB Alerting Review - DSR Report 2021-4. (Doc ID 1423063) (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 25 February 2022 - Open Agenda

2. Strategic Housing Review

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1412891
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Natasha Mackie, Manager Community Strategies

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report summarises the Strategic Housing Review findings and seeks approval to undertake a Special Consultative Procedure on the three options outlined.

Committee's Amended Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Browne

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Approve Council consult on three options, being the status quo, part retain/part sell, and transfer (CHP, Regional or local community housing provider, or Kāinga Ora) options.

i. Note the removal of the open market sale, as it is not likely to achieve the affordable housing outcomes the council is looking to achieve through its housing portfolio.

b. Note that further consultation may be required dependant on the decision made following this consultation.

c. Resolve that Council approve the detailed consultation plan and consultation document.

Carried

2.2 Background Summary

Council started providing community housing over 50 years ago when, like many councils around the country, it received government low cost loans to build housing units. Of the 377 units we now have, 80% are for retirees or people with a disability. Council housing is for people who need affordable homes and who are able to live independently. The 377 units are spread over 12 villages across the city, on a total of 10.7 hectares. While not considered high density, these homes are in very close proximity of each other. Council supports tenants by providing subsidised rents based on income (set at a maximum of 30% of household income). A team within Council manages tenancies including administering tenancy agreements and arranging repairs and maintenance to the units. Asset management and capital projects are also managed in-house.

In 2018, Morrison Low completed a Section 17a of the Local Government Act (LGA) review of the housing activity. Councils are required under the LGA to complete S17a reviews of their activities. Alongside a sample-based condition assessment, the review identified ongoing sustainability issues with the current delivery model and identified two options for Council to consider. These options were to:

a) Divest a number of villages in order to reinvest in the portfolio (offset costs and replace ageing stock), or

b) Partner with a Community Housing Provider (CHP) who could attract market rent through the Government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) which is not available to councils, thereby generating more income to offset growing costs.

Following this report, a more detailed assessment of options to retain the housing was undertaken by PwC. This review identified a potential option to sell part of the portfolio to help fund development of two sites that could generate additional income to fund the remaining portfolio along with a rent increase. This option introduced a high level of complexity, and therefore risk, to managing the portfolio. Another option identified was to continue as is with the deficits being funded through a ratepayer contribution. Both of these options could include an increase to rents. It also identified a transfer of the portfolio (sale) as the alternative option.

In late 2019, the rent policy was reviewed and rents were increased, but capped at 30% of tenant income. This percentage is a generally accepted level for housing affordability.

With continued forecast deficits, a detailed phase two review was initiated on two options, transfer of the portfolio and a part retain / part sell option and compared with the new status quo (with new rent policy). This review is now complete and the options are detailed below. The PwC report is attached. Some information in the PwC report is redacted due to commercial sensitivity.

2.3 Issue

Council delivery of Housing

As identified above, councils were encouraged to provide housing when the Government provided low-cost loans first in the 1960s and again in the 1980s. These loans saw many councils across the country create housing portfolios. Councils have differing tenant cohorts but traditionally the earlier housing was created for ‘pensioners’ or retirees. Rental policies also differ between councils with many adopting a subsidised market rent policy. Over the last decade, many councils have opted out of providing subsidised housing due to issues of financial sustainability as housing stock has aged and costs to maintain housing has increased.

In 2014, the Government introduced an Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) for registered Community Housing Providers (CHPs). This allows the provider to receive full market rent for a property with the tenant being charged 25% of their income and the remaining rent being topped up to market rent by the government. This enables financial sustainability for existing stock while also being able to increase and/or replace portfolios. Kāinga Ora are also able to access the IRRS.

CHPs and Kāinga Ora are also afforded exemptions or allowances to legislation related to residential rental provision. For example, the Residential Tenancies Act allows them to terminate tenancies should the tenant become ineligible for social housing, and compliance to Healthy Homes standards timeframes are longer.

It would appear, the Government, through current legislation and policies, are not actively encouraging councils to continue to provide affordable housing. However, some councils, are investing heavily in their housing stock and also increasing their portfolios either alone or through partnership arrangements. Responses to our Long Term Plan 2021-31 consultation identify a mixed view from the Napier community on the matter. Consultation on the options identified in this report may provide clearer information to Council on the community view around whether or not the community supports Council continuing to provide a housing service.

Condition of Units

Housing units have been maintained to a reasonable standard. Some medium scale renewal work has been completed e.g. re-roof of units and replacement of unit components (e.g. degraded aluminium joinery) has also been completed. A detailed condition assessment of each of the 377 units was completed as part of this latest review process and it has shown many of the units are nearing or at ‘end of life’. The results of the condition assessments identified the capital expenditure requirements for the next 25 years. This expenditure is to maintain current service levels but does not address other ‘fit for purpose’ issues that arise from the age of the homes not aligning with modern living requirements or accessibility needs. Our current service level is to ‘replace at failure’, resolve any health and safety hazards and to meet compliance requirements. While the condition assessments are very detailed, and forecasts are based on assessing each component of each unit, the actual point of failure timings may not directly align with forecasts. This means there is a risk that expenditure may be needed sooner (which would increase early deficits) than predicted.

Financial sustainability

While there was some investment from Council when the units were first established, the portfolio has largely funded its costs through rents received from tenants – paid for itself, until this year when funding in reserves was depleted and large forecasted deficits came into effect. In 2021, Council consulted with the community to fund these forecast deficits through loan funding until the Strategic Housing Review was completed and a decision could be made about the future provision of housing.

Loan funding on an ongoing basis cannot be sustained as loan repayments compound each year while deficits also increase.

Retaining retirement villages and selling the three ‘social’ villages to fund the deficits was considered but not investigated further. While it provides a short term fix, it does not provide a medium to long term solution. This option would reduce income from rents (reduction of 72). The remaining villages will still generate a shortfall once the sale proceeds are used and the position would end up the same as the current situation with fewer units.

The retention options analysed by PwC – Status Quo and Part retain / Part sell identify an approximate $2.2-2.3 million annualised shortfall that require ratepayer and/or tenant (rent) support.

The book value of the portfolio sits at $65 million. This is based on a Telfer Young market valuation as at 20 March 2020. Market valuation represents highest and best use (e.g. capitalised ‘market’ rent or redevelopment value). However, the transfer (sell) options that best align with Council’s criteria (selling to a CHP or Kāinga Ora) would attract a ‘discounted cashflow’ (DCF) price (lower sale price) based on future forecasted cashflows of the portfolio by any given buyer. This would be materially lower than the market value. In addition, any sale price would be further impacted should any covenants be placed on the transfer e.g. retention of current tenants and the retirement criteria. However, a sale does remove the liability (ongoing deficits). Removing the liability coupled with attaining sale proceeds provides a positive financial outcome for the Council.

Rent Setting Policy

In 2019, the rent setting policy changed to increase the total rental income while also keeping rents ‘affordable’ (30% of income). This meant that tenants receiving Superannuation or Supported Living Benefits had an increase (5% of their income) and rent for a social village unit was set at 92% of market rent or 30% of the tenant’s income, whichever was lowest. The effect of this saw a total increase in rent revenue for the retirement units, but this was largely offset by reduction in the overall rent payable in the social units. Unfortunately, maintaining this income-related rent setting policy will not achieve financial sustainability through tenant income (rent) alone. For either of the retention options to be viable, the rent setting policy will need to change to a subsidised market rent model with market rent valuations reviewed on a regular basis (e.g. every two years) and applied, with CPI adjustments made in the alternate year.

Adopting this policy would have impacts for tenants both in terms of affordability with rents higher than 30% of income in most cases and add uncertainty with changing market rent values. Retirement housing tenants receive an increase in income with annual Superannuation increases and are able to apply for an increase in accommodation supplement if rents increase. Other tenants on low incomes are able to also apply for increases to accommodation supplement as rents increase. Council rentals, even applying a market rental formula, is still significantly lower that the private rental market (e.g. Council 1 bedroom unit - $283 per week versus Private 1 bedroom unit - $345 to $390 per week – source Trademe 21/12/21). This difference could partly be a result of the ‘level’ of market rent applied. We generally use the lower to median range where private rentals may use the upper range to determine rent.

While there is no legislative maximum rent increase, it is advisable that the rent increases outlined in the Status Quo and Part sell / Part retain options be phased in over a two-year period. Rents can only be increased once every 12 months. For the majority of our tenants these increases can be applied in April of each year, giving 60 days notice.

Meeting demand – additionality

Demand has remained high in the affordable rental market. Our waiting list of over 100 people/households has been closed to new applicants since June 2019. Our occupancy rates remain high with very low turnover. Without capital investment into the portfolio, there is no ability to increase its size. The retirement housing provided by Council is one of the few options available in Napier to those whose income is limited to Superannuation and who have no asset base. This cohort is set to grow as more and more working age people are unable to enter the housing market and either rent through the private market or are supported through public housing.

In Napier, over the next twenty years, based on the latest Census data, this could be as many as 2,430 people. These are the people currently aged 40-64 years of age who rent in the private market and who earn $30,000 or less. Of those who earn $30,000 or less in this age group, 72% are renting in the private market and 25% are in public housing with 1.9% in Council housing. At this level of income and the current rent prices, this cohort is likely to seek the type of rental housing currently provided by Council.

Demand for public housing is high in Napier with 753 on the Housing Register, with 732 of those being in the high priority Category A (as at September 2021). Napier’s numbers on the register are the second highest for a provincial city.

Tenancy Management Changes

Tenancy rules changed with the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). One of the main changes, the removal of the 90 day no reason termination clause, has introduced complexities for tenancy management and policy eligibility criteria. In order for tenants to access Council housing, they must be below the low income and low asset threshold. We initiated regular eligibility reviews in 2018 which found that on average around 5-8% of sitting tenants no longer met the eligibility criteria. Prior to the RTA changes we were able to manage these situations with the tenant whereby they either resolved their eligibility issue (e.g. reduced their income) or found alternative accommodation. The removal of the 90 day no reason termination no longer provides a lever for us to rectify eligibility issues. However, our policy does provide for the charging of full market rent should the tenant become and remain ineligible. This creates a situation where ineligible tenants are able to remain in housing potentially subsidised by ratepayers while those in need remain on our waiting list.

A priority placement process was introduced in 2019 so people with a high need for housing were placed first as opposed to being ‘first in’ on the waiting list. This has meant that tenants are often experiencing more complex situations which can be challenging in ‘close proximity’ living arrangements. Dealing with neighbourhood tension and tenant behaviour under the RTA changes has required a higher level of administration and management oversight.

These tenancy management issues, along with the growing compliance and asset management requires additional resource allocation should the portfolio be retained or until any transfer can be completed (a minimum of one extra staff member in the tenancy team).

Legal

Two village sites are listed in Schedule 3 of the Napier Borough Endowments Amendments Act 1999 (amendment of the 1876 Act).These villages are Carlyle Place and Hastings / Munroe. Both parcels of land were transferred to Council from the Crown and were originally in Māori ownership prior to their transfer to the Crown. The option to Part Retain / Part Sell identifies Carlyle Place for divestment and the option to Transfer (sell all housing) identifies both Carlyle Place and Hastings / Munroe for divestment. A high level review of the legislative and contractual obligations conducted by PwC (Legal), given these option pathways, identified that both sites are subject to the requirements of both the Napier Borough Endowments Act 1876 (NBEA) and Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). They are also subject to the terms of the registered endowment instruments and the historical endowment agreements themselves. Where Council originally acquired the sites from the Crown, there may also be Public Works Act 1981 obligations.

The legal review concluded that:

“there were legally compliant pathways available for each of the proposed options. Importantly, there are strategy options and implementation pathways that are potentially able to preserve, and make workable the spirit and intent of the original endowment purposes (some of which are currently ineffective) which focus on benefits to the community.”

In addition, PwC advised that although not strictly required under the legislation, where sites are identified as having been in iwi ownership (prior to transfer to the Crown and then Council), consultation with mana whenua is recommended to preserve iwi environmental, cultural and heritage values in the sites and this also provides an opportunity for meaningful consultation and partnership.

Any development will require regard for ‘Sites of Significance’ to Māori. The Hastings / Munroe site is situated in such and area and would therefore necessitate consultation with appropriate Māori entities.

The divestment options (Part Retain / Part Sell or full transfer) involve a Strategic Asset and could only be actioned if provided for in an LTP. Therefore, if either of these options were selected as the Council’s decision, further consultation would be required through the next LTP process or an LTP amendment to the current LTP.

Should the Status Quo option be selected as Council’s decision, involving a rates impact, this would need to be informed to the community through an Annual Plan consultation process, with the next available Annual Plan process being the 2023/24 year. The Annual Plan 2022/23 process will be underway prior to the decision. If this option were selected as the decision funded solely by rent increases, the Residential Tenancies Act applies with a 60 day notice period for rent increases being required, so could be implemented immediately.

There are no substantial contractual arrangements that would be affected by proceeding with any of the options.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter requires a Special Consultative Procedure as part of the decision-making process because it involves the potential transfer of ownership (and control) of a Strategic Asset. In addition, the matter is deemed significant given that the potential decision could:

· have ongoing significant increases to rates which require changes to key financial policies and settings e.g. Revenue and Financing Policy and rates caps (retention of portfolio with loan funding the gap)

· be difficult to reverse or be irreversible (transfer of portfolio)

· change the levels of service (all options)

· impact on affected individuals - tenants (potentially all options)

· significantly impact on rating levels (retention of portfolio)

· financially impact Council’s resources – e.g. balance sheet, proceeds of sale and income reduction (transfer of portfolio)

· have significant decision costs (all options will incur costs to implement)

Council’s decision around the future provision of its housing will be of high interest to key stakeholders including mana whenua, iwi and post settlement governance entities (PSGEs), Māori service providers, the Crown and its relevant agencies, potential purchasers and developers, Community Housing Providers (CHPs), community support service providers and other councils. Direct engagement with key stakeholders will be undertaken alongside wider community engagement on the matter.

As affected individuals, tenants will be consulted utilising a range of approaches in order for each tenant to be able to engage in the process. Tailored information will be provided to each tenant on how the options would directly impact them (e.g. rent rates etc).

A High Level Consultation Plan is attached.

2.5 Implications

Financial

As outlined above the current model of funding and delivery of the housing activity is not sustainable. Deficits are being funded by loans with future ratepayers funding present costs and services. The Long Term Plan 2021-31 consultation identified loan funding as a short term measure to deal with the shortfalls until the Strategic Housing Review was completed and a decision could be made on the future provision of housing.

All options identified each have financial implications.

The options that have Council retain the housing would require changes to current financial policies and strategies, particularly the revenue and financing policy (how rates are set) and rates caps. The rent setting policy will require changes unless deficits are fully funded directly by rates.

Transfer options will take time to complete necessitating further loan funding and/or rates increases to cover the intervening period.

While there has been detailed financial modelling completed through the PwC analysis, there are still a range of variables that can affect each option including cost escalations, market value changes, changes to the timing of capital expenditure (asset failure), costs to implement and costs around legislative change. While these variables could affect the specific financial detail, the underlying premise of each option remains.

Social & Policy

Secure and affordable housing is considered a key driver of wellbeing. Poor housing is linked to reduced health, education and associated outcomes. In addition to the tangible effects related to the physical home, improved wellbeing is also related to sense of belonging, connection and autonomy. Secure housing allows whānau to establish a home, a base from which to establish social supports and networks and to improve social and economic mobility. Inadequate housing has ripple effects across our community from higher levels of homelessness, increased demands on health and education systems and higher prevalence of social issues.

In New Zealand, a large proportion of public/social housing is provided by the Government, either directly through Kāinga Ora and Ministry of Social Development or indirectly through CHPs. Councils often aim to provide for housing needs that aren’t met by the other main social housing providers such as Kāinga Ora. In Napier, Council provides around 10% of the public or social housing available. It is estimated around 90% of current tenants would be able to access public housing from other providers.

Previously, although subsidised rents have been provided, the Napier ratepayer did not directly subsidise this activity. However, with rates funding now being provided, and set to increase substantially to maintain the provision of housing, consideration of continuing this activity is required given that the direct benefit of this activity is low across ratepayers and high for individuals (tenants).

1.6 Risk

Changes to Local Government Provision of Services

There are two key pieces of reform work that could significantly affect local government service provision – 3 Waters and the Future of Local Government.

Should 3 Waters provision be aggregated to new regional bodies, there will be an effect on Council’s asset base and its income. While the option to retain housing (with rates contribution) won’t cost any more, the proportion of rates spent to subsidise housing would be greater – the overall income pie would be smaller.

The Future of Local Government reform focus is on what the appropriate role and functions of local government should be given its contribution to community wellbeing and its close connection with local communities. The transfer option may diminish Council’s status should more emphasis be placed on councils taking a greater role in the provision of housing in the future. A draft report on the reform for public consultation is due in September 2022. This should provide information on the direction the government may take with the reform and allows for adequate time to adjust the decision made by Council in May / June 2022 before implementation becomes irreversible.

Changes to Government Support

Successive governments led by both the National Party and the Labour Party have not made any changes to allow councils to access the Income Related Rent Subsidies (IRRS) that are available to Community Housing Providers and Kāinga Ora. Local Government NZ, prompted by councils across the country, has submitted several remits to change this policy. These have been unsuccessful. Current communication on the matter indicates no changes will be made to the policy. Access to the IRRS has been identified as the key factor that would allow the Council to continue providing housing.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) is examining the pressures on councils to continue to delivery housing. We have contributed some of the PwC review information to this work. In discussions with MHUD, they have been very clear that this work in no way changes the IRRS policy setting and that currently the public housing funding has a strong emphasis on new builds.

Information Currency

Financial information is based on current pricing and other assumptions are identified under each option within the PwC report. The changing nature of the construction industry will have an impact on costs, access to materials (supply chain) and capacity to deliver (labour constraints) – this is an issue for every option that has the Council retain some form of ownership.

Other variables that could impact on the currency of information include any delays in consultation or decision-making and subsequent delays in implementation. If these delays are significant, updates to the financial modelling may be required.

It has been difficult to source details around the funding of the initial development of the housing apart from amounts and funding sources. There appears to be no conditions on the donation provided by Henry Charles who contributed funds for a Hall and some housing units. The information we have relied on is what is held in Council’s archives. There may be information held in the community that may come to light as part of the consultation process, which may have an influence on decision-making and can be dealt with as part of that process.

Tenant Welfare

This process was initiated in 2017 and has required two subsequent reviews to achieve the level of detail required by decision makers. The length of time and uncertainty has had an effect on some tenants who have communicated a level of anxiety for their future. In addition, some misinformation has also been unsettling. Communication with tenants has been maintained and information and progress updates have been provided throughout the review process. In Council’s last two Long Term Plan consultation processes, the housing situation has been outlined.

In August 2021, a meeting was held for tenants where assurance was provided by the Mayor that tenants would not lose their housing. Tenants have been consistently advised that any options that significantly change the provision of housing would require direct consultation with them.

The Housing Team continue to be available to discuss any concerns about the review and targeted consultation is planned as part of the next steps in this review process.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Identify a proposed option and undertake Special Consultative Procedure to inform the decision-making process

b. Present the feasible options identified below and undertake a Special Consultative Procedure based on the attached Statement of Proposal to inform the decision-making process (preferred)

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

Proceed with consultation on the options outlined below:

1.Status Quo

Deficit funded by:

(a) Rates only

(b) Subsidised rents

2.Part Retain / Part Sell

Deficit funded by:

(a) Rates only

(b) Subsidised rents

3.Transfer (Sell)

Potential buyer:

· CHP

· Kāinga Ora

· Regional Housing Trust

· Open market

1. Status Quo

Description:

The Status Quo option sees Council continuing to provide housing at current levels of service.

This option generates an annualised deficit of $2.2 million and without any rates or increased rent adjustments the accumulated cash shortfall would reach circa $70 million after 25 years (2046).

Ongoing loan funding to fund long term deficits is not considered a feasible option.

In order to cover this deficit, income from rates or rents (or a combination) is required.

Key benefits of this option include the relative ease of implementation, retention of housing (and land) in Council ownership and a higher level of certainty for tenants. Moving to a subsidised market rent policy will provide predictable income and reduce the administrative requirements that income-related rent settings cause.

This option does not provide for additional housing to meet growing demand, or upgrades to existing housing to meet modern living standards or accessibility. This option does not address the issue of the units being very close to ‘end of life’ and while replacing componentry will extend the life and buys some time, ultimately decisions on full replacement may still be needed in the future. In addition, the actual capital expenditure may vary from the forecasts, and should they arise earlier, would be challenging given the lack of cash reserves and the time needed to build these up.

Combined contribution

When considering how an activity is funded, i.e. through rates or user pays or a combination of these, Council must consider the proportion of benefit received from the activity and therefore how the cost should be fairly split. This is determined by a series of assessments required by Section 101A of the LGA.

The table below shows examples of rates / rents splits, actual splits may differ following the completion of the assessment and the Revenue and Financing Policy may be affected.

A change in the rent setting policy is advocated under this option. This requires a change from rent being based on a tenant income affordability and moving to a subsided market rental approach. Any initial significant rent increase could be phased in over two twelve month periods. Full rent increases would then be effective from April 2024. Deficits up to April 2024 could continue to be funded through loans as outlined in the Long Term Plan 2021-31. The rent setting policy would form part of the implementation process with the intention to undertake market rental valuations every two years and applying a CPI increase in the alternate year.

While rent increases may potentially be unpopular with current tenants, and in some cases unaffordable, the opportunity for the housing to remain with Council may outweigh these concerns.

The tenancy management issues outlined above require additional staff resources in order to comply with legislative requirements and tenancy matters, this is not currently factored in to the costs.

The following table shows the impact on rates and/or rents depending on the contribution settings. The splits are provided as examples only.

Status Quo – 377 units - $2.2 million deficit pa

Contribution Level to meet deficit

Ratepayer pays*

(rates increase)

Tenant Retirement Pays (rent increase pw) **

Current rent is $127

45% market rent

Tenant Social Pays

Current rent $151

39% market rent***

100%

3.1% or $85per annum

Deficit split by tenant type – ‘break even’

78% market rent

63% market rent

70% or $88pw increase

($215 rent pw)

(51% of tenant income)

61% or $92pw increase

($243 rent pw)

(32% of tenant income)

Increase to 92% market rent

100% or $126pw increase

($253 rent pw)

(58% of tenant income)

136% or $205pw increase

($356 rent pw)

(47% of tenant income)

Deficit split equally across tenants

88% or $112

increase

($239 rent pw)

85% of market rent

(56% of tenant income)

74% or $112

increase

($263 rent pw)

93% of market rent

(35% of tenant income)

50/50

1.6% or $43pa

44% or $56pw increase

($183 rent pw)

66% of market rent

(43% of tenant income)

37% or $56pw increase

($207 rent pw)

73% of market rent

(27% of tenant income)

60/40

1.9% or $51pa

35% or $45pw

increase

($172 rent pw)

62% of market rent

(41% of tenant income)

30% or $45pw

increase

($196 rent pw)

69% of market rent

(26% of tenant income)

40/60

1.3% or $34pa

53% or $67 increase

($194 rent pw)

70% of market rent

(46% of tenant income)

45% or $67 increase

($218 rent pw)

77% of market rent

(29% of tenant income)

*Average annual rates increase per rateable property

**Based on a single person in a one bedroom unit

***Based on an average of the market rent for 1,2,3 bedroom units

2. Part Retain / Part Sell

Description:

This option retains 301 retirement units in 8 villages. It loses 76 houses and builds 49 new units. It proposes to transfer the three social villages to another entity with sale proceeds to contribute to the development of 49 new units. The new development would take place on existing sites.

The Hastings/Munroe village would demolish the four units and replace 11 new units that would be rented at full market rent, thereby generating an ongoing income to contribute to the costs associated with the remaining housing. The second site, Greenmeadows East, with land already set aside for additional Council housing, would see the development of 38 new units.

The 72 houses in the three social villages would ideally transfer to a CHP and therefore retain them as affordable rentals for the city. However, with the lack of ability to add new units on these sites, CHPs may not find these villages attractive given the delays in receiving IRRS and the inability to attract the government support available for additionality.

The sale of the Carlyle Village has added complexity due to its inclusion in the Napier Borough Endowment Act. The Carlyle Village is identified as a ‘Site of Significance’ to Māori having been part of the Pukemokimoki site, a site of particular significance to Ngāti Pārau. Particular regard for ‘Sites of Significance’ is needed should any development be proposed. The Carlyle Village has not been identified for development in any of the options being considered. The Hastings/Munroe village also sits in a wider ‘Site of Significance’ area, Te Ahi o Te Waru (the fires of Te Waru). Given its potential for development, engagement with mana whenua is vital to understand any implications for development, opportunities for cultural expression and a potential partnership approach. The site has been significantly modified already but will likely require archaeology oversight during any development process.

While the new units will attract a higher asset value, with the sale of 72 units, the overall asset value for the total portfolio is either likely to decrease or maintain current value. It is unlikely to increase the asset value significantly (e.g. sell at value of $16.2m, new builds with a conservative value of $21.96m (costs to construct) - positive balance of $5.76m).

Key benefits of this option include the refocus of the portfolio to be providing for retirees or those with a disability only, its retains the majority of the housing and land in Council ownership with a higher level of certainty for retirement tenants and it adds new fit for purpose housing to the portfolio.

The sale of the three villages would impact the current tenants in these villages, and depending on the buyer could either have a positive or a negative impact. The preference to retain the housing for community housing would likely result in a positive impact.

The development at Hastings/Munroe creates a higher level income source in the longer term. Moving to a subsidised market rent policy will provide predictable income and reduce the administrative requirements that income-related rent settings cause. The development of the two sites offer potential partnership (and possibly co-funding opportunities) with PSGEs, Iwi and/or Kāinga Ora.

Council currently does not have the resources in-house to implement the development aspect of the option, with the cost of sourcing this function being relatively unknown. The ability to secure consultants and construction contractors is challenging in the current market conditions. Availability of building materials is affecting the supply chain creating project delays and increasing costs.

This option does not fully address the issue of the remaining units being very close to ‘end of life’, and while replacing componentry will extend the life and buys some time, ultimately decisions on fully replacement may still be needed in the future. In addition, the actual capital expenditure may vary from the forecasts, and should they arise earlier, will be challenging given the lack of cash reserves and the time needed to build these up.

A key challenge with this option is the added complexity and uncertainty regarding both the sale of the three villages and the development aspect. Complexity and uncertainty increase the risk.

This option generates an annualised deficit of $2.3 million and without any rates or increased rent adjustments the accumulated cash shortfall would reach circa $65.9 million after 25 years (2046).

In order to cover this deficit, income from rates or rents (or a combination) is still required. Initially the number of tenants would be lower than the Status Quo option meaning the individual tenant share of the deficit would be higher. The same factors apply to this option as the Status Quo option in terms of tenancy management issues, rent setting policy changes, phased in rent increases (and temporary loan funding) and financial policy reviews.

The following table shows the impact on rates and/or rents depending on the contribution settings. Note that the social village tenants are not included in this table. The splits are provided as examples only.

Part Retain / Part Sell – retains 8 ‘retirement’ villages, develops 45 new units, sells 3 ‘social’ villages - $2.3 million deficit pa
Contribution level to meet deficit	Ratepayer Pays* (rates increase)	Tenant Pays **
100%	3.3% or $89pa	115% or $145pw increase ($272 rent pw) 96% of market rent (65% of tenant income)
50/50	1.6% or $44pa	57% or $73 increase ($200 rent pw) 71% of market rent (47% of tenant income)
60/40	2% or $53pa	46% or $58 increase ($185 rent pw) 65% of market rent (44% of tenant income)
40/60	1.3% or $36 pa	69% or $87 increase ($214 rent pw) 76% of market rent (51% of tenant income)
Average annual rates increase per rateable property *Based on a single person in a one bedroom unit Based on 304 units (will vary according to development stage)

3. Transfer option

Description:

This option would see all 377 units transferred (sold) to another entity.

Council direction during the review process has been to focus on ensuring the housing remains as affordable rental housing. As part of the review at a workshop in October 2020, Council selected a sale or lease option to a CHP to be evaluated in detail as the favoured option for transfer. The protection of tenants and the special character of the retirement villages was identified as important and therefore any transfer contract would need to contain the following covenants:

· Ensure existing tenancies, under the current (or better) terms and conditions, remain in place,

· The portfolio can only ever (in perpetuity) be used to provide housing to retirement or community tenants, and

· The Council retains the right of first refusal (on the same sale conditions) if the buyer was to sell the portfolio.

A market sounding process identified that the option to lease the portfolio would not be attractive. Leasing the portfolio would also not achieve any financial benefit to Council, and would likely exacerbate the current financially unsustainable position.

The opportunities for redevelopment of the two villages identified and the potential to demolish and intensify other currently under-optimised sites allow for additionality which is a key driver to access government funding for CHPs and is a key focus for Kāinga Ora.

Transfer to a CHP

The portfolio would most likely be valued on a discounted cashflow (DCF) basis. In addition, any covenants would negatively affect the overall value. A CHPs DCF might be half the Book Value. There are examples of councils successfully selling their housing to CHPs with covenants including Hamilton City Council.

Transfer to Kāinga Ora

Kāinga Ora is potentially in a better position regarding cashflow as we understand they are able to access the IRRS (full market rent) for existing eligible tenants. A sale to Kāinga Ora might be expected to deliver a sale price similar to, or slightly more than, the value that might be achieved through a sale to a CHP. This may result in a higher purchase price, although there is no guarantee of this given the limited market for this stock and the need for Kāinga Ora only to outbid the next highest bidder.

Transfer to a Regional Housing Trust

There is a potential for the region’s councils to ‘pool’ their portfolios and form a Regional Housing Trust and there is an intention to discuss this further with the other councils to understand the shape of a possible Trust.

There are examples of councils establishing CHPS. Under current legislation, councils and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) are excluded from registering as a CHP and securing access to the IRRS. In order to be successful, any Trust would need to be completely independent of Council once established, however Council would be able to influence the purpose and objects of any such Trust. The transfer of housing into this type of Trust would requires councils to ‘vest’ the assets into the Trust, whereby there would be no sale proceeds back to Council. Council could impose the covenants above on such a transfer.

The transfer options identified above allow the portfolio to continue to support an affordable rental housing approach. These potential options also enable the portfolio to be retained in ‘community ownership’.

Advantages of a transfer option to the social housing sector are ultimately financial for both tenants and Council (ratepayers). CHPs provide wraparound support services in addition to tenancy management and are able to apply the IRRS discount rent rate (rent set at 25% of income) to new eligible tenants (tenants coming from the MSD Social Housing Register). Under a transfer to Kāinga Ora, we understand all eligible tenants (existing and new) would be able to access the subsidised rent. Should the covenants be put in place, there would be no negative impact on current tenants. A full transfer would remove all liabilities (forecast costs and deficits).

Sell through the open market

This option is not favoured by Council as it does not align with the review objectives and may result in a loss of affordable rental housing for the city. However, this option would most likely provide a higher sale price more aligned with the current book value of $65 million. A sale through the open market may not afford any protections to current tenants.

Any sale proceeds received (noting a transfer to a Regional Trust would not yield any) would be available for any of the following, in consultation with the community:

· Repay debt

· Invest to generate income

· Pay for current / future loan funded projects

· Implement new or deferred projects

All of the above options have a positive impact for the ratepayer.

The asset would be removed from balance sheet. Council has assets valued at $2 billion (includes $0.5b water assets). While $65 million book value would be removed with the sale of the portfolio, this is not material in of itself to affect Council’s ability to raise loans and would still not be an issue should the 3 waters assets also removed.

While direct operational costs would be eliminated, e.g. labour costs, there will be residual internal costs (stranded overheads) that will need to be spread across the remaining business units (departments) requiring a rates contribution. However, if the sale proceeds are invested, there will be no impact as the table below shows.

	Ratepayer*
Residual costs	0.6%
Return on investment of sale proceeds (based on $40m and 2% interest rates)	-1%
Reduced interest rates (paying off loans)	-1%
Net rates saving	-0.4%
*Average annual rates increase per rateable property

The time it may take for a transaction to be completed could be at least 12 months and should, ideally, be timed to coincide with the beginning of a financial year. Interim funding is required to fund the deficit during the transaction period. The Long Term Plan 2021-31 confirmed funding through loans to account for this deficit in the short term.

The option to transfer the entire portfolio to another entity was recommended by PwC as the most sustainable option available.

Summary of Options – Financial Implications

1. Status Quo – 377 units - $2.2m deficit pa
Contribution level Rates/Rents	Annual rates impact	Tenant - Retirement rent increase per week	Tenant – Social rent increase per week
100%	3.1%	$88 - $112	$92 - $205
50/50	1.6%	$56	$56
60/40	1.9%	$45	$45
40/60	1.3%	$67	$67

2. Part Retain/Part Sell – retains 8 ‘retirement’ villages, develops 45 new units, sells 3 ‘social’ villages - $2.3m deficit pa
Contribution level Rates/Rents	Annual rates impact	Tenant – increase per week
100%	3.3%	$145
50/50	1.6%	$73
60/40	2.0%	$58
40/60	1.3%	$87

3. Transfer option
Impact on rates	Invest sale proceeds	Repay debt
Estimated residual costs	0.6%	0.6%
Return on investment (based on $40m and 2% interest rates)	-1%
Reduced interest costs		-1%
Net rates saving	-0.4%	-0.4%

At the Meeting

The Council Officer and Kirstyn McKeefry spoke to a PowerPoint presentation and the report. In response to questions from the Committee it was noted:

· Conversations have been had with central government about councils not having access to the Income Related Rent Subsidies (IRRS) that Community Housing Providers (CHP) and Kāinga Ora have access to. This will not change at this stage.

· Consultation requirements are driven by legislation, and the Council needs community feedback to make informed decisions. The community’s preferred option for this project can either be consulted on via the Annual Plan process in 2023, or if the preferred option is the transfer or sale of the assets it would be consulted on as part of Long Term Plan process.

· Consultation materials based on the Statement of Proposal are being worked on currently by officers. There will be a range of interactions with the community about the options available. Also tenants will also receive individualised direct communication addressing their particular situation.

· As part of a standard consultation process, the Council would not normally receive the detailed consultation plan and consultation materials for consideration. Councillor Boag as the Housing portfolio holder would however be included in the development process.

· The original Morrison Lowe report in 2019 did not recommend the continuation of the status quo, only selling or leasing some or all of the portfolio. This option was subsequently added by Council and further investigated for the PwC report.

· If the status quo option is selected and the funding for the housing activity is going to come from rental income, then that could be implemented by Council immediately. Alternatively if the funding is going to be from rates, or partly by rates, this decision would need to be part of an Annual Plan process.

· The transfer option is a sale of the buildings and land. It is possible to put a condition on the sale that if the buyer decides to sell, or use the property for a different purpose other than community housing, the Council will have the first option to buy the properties back under the same conditions of sale the buyer acquired them under.

· The rental income received since 2007 has gone back into maintaining the housing portfolio, and in due course council officers will provide insight into what that maintenance was. Previously surplus rental income was put in the Housing Reserve Fund (a savings account for council housing). This fund has been used to pay for significant maintenance such as replacing roofs. There is no evidence that rental income has been used for anything but housing. To ensure this continued, in 2018 the rental income was deliberately ring-fenced so it could not be used for any other council project.

· Council owned vacant land blocks attached to the villages would be included in the sale or transfer. These will make the properties more appealing to a housing provider or buyer as they will be able to grow their investment.

· If the transfer option is chosen, new valuations will be undertaken prior to a sale price being agreed.

· All feasible options must be presented for consultation; the option to sell the portfolio on the open market is a feasible option which should be considered, alongside transferring to another housing entity. For the community feedback, council will outline the pros and cons of each sub-option which make up the Transfer option.

· The Regional Housing Trust idea came up late in the review process. It would be a similar option as transferring the portfolio to a CHP. Initial conversations are underway with other councils about the viability of this. Council officers will provide further information on this as soon as it comes to hand. If this option was progressed, it is understood it would take a minimum of twelve months for the Trust, once established, to be registered as a CHP, but clarity will be sought on this.

· There is no standard formula to work out the discounted sale price of a housing portfolio from its book value when transferring ownership to a CHP. The purchase would be affected by covenants council put on the sale of the portfolio. If the housing had to stay as low income housing, for example, the purchaser would make an offer based on market value balanced with the rental income expected from it within the bounds of the covenant. The rental income would be significantly less than if the houses could be rented at market rate, and as such the offer is likely to be significantly less than an open market sale.

· Restrictions on property titles and the sale of council housing portfolios have been used successfully before by Tauranga and Hamilton. Tauranga also specified current tenants and rental conditions remained the same. These conditions would have had an impact on sale price though.

· At this stage of the consultation process council is just seeking community feedback with the best information it has to hand. It is not locked into the options stated in this report and could discount options for feedback if it wanted to. Also if there are further developments during the feedback process the options can be modified.

· Currently the housing activity is running at a loss. If you sell the assets with the condition the same service is provided buyers will see the portfolio as having a negative value. To get a good sale price the portfolio would need to be sold without conditions, so a buyer can get best and highest use from it. If Council want to keep the assets in the affordable housing space there will be a trade-off on sale price. CHPs and Kāinga Ora will be able to get better cash flow from the portfolio than Council can with the additional government funding available to them.

· A CHP cannot apply for IRRS for existing tenants in properties newly acquired, it would only be available for new tenants who meet the criteria. However Kāinga Ora can get IRRS for existing tenants in newly acquired property.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Resolve to undertake a Special Consultative Procedure based on the Statement of Proposal on all three options with no preferred option identified.

b. Note that further consultation may be required dependant on the decision made following this consultation.

2.8 Attachments

1 Draft Statement of Proposal - Council Housing (Doc Id 1426519) (Under Separate Cover)

2 High Level Consultation Plan - Council Housing (Doc Id 1426518) (Under Separate Cover)

3 PwC - Strategic Housing Review (Doc Id 1426520) (Under Separate Cover)

COUNCIL	PROJECT	VALUE
Napier Total - $12.51m	Capital Projects: • Alternative Water Supply – address dirty water issues • Water Safety Plan - delivery of improvement items • Fire Flow Network Upgrades to meet levels of service • Scoping Three Waters Master Plan Projects – additional resources to assist with the delivery of the current and reform capital plan • Te Awa Structure Plan – Three Waters - additional funding to develop water infrastructure in Te Awa • Pandora Industrial Waste – works associated with trade waste and understanding flow and composition • Review of private water supplies – provide upgraded supply for the Meeanee School hall	$8.45m
Planning and Asset Management Projects: • Parks Water Bores Investigation and Implementation – assessment of bores and commence consenting process for water conservation • Essential Service Planning and Contributions Policy – ensure that three waters programmes are funded appropriately to develop the networks • Maintenance Management Practices - Develop maintenance management practices and workflows and integrate these into the Asset Management System • Delivery Improvement Review – systems and process development • Asset Management Systems & Data Collection • Three Water Models & Masterplans – peer review of models, additional calibration, and peer review of master plans	$3.16m
Collaborative Projects: • Iwi engagement on Three Waters and Cultural Values Assessments – extending the capacity and capability for engaging with Māori, including development of a cultural values assessment • Regional Water Projects	$900k

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 25 February 2022 - Open Agenda

3. Report on Napier Water Supply Status End of Q2 2021-2022

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1420222
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 the second quarter (Q2) of 2021-2022 compliance year

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Chrystal

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the:

i. Report on Napier Water Supply Status end of Q2 2021-2022.

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.

Previously Officers reported quarterly to the Drinking Water Assessor as the regulator via the District Health Board on water supply. Taumata Arowai are now the regulator and it is Officers understanding that reporting to Taumata Arowai is only required annually and by exception. Officers will continue to report to Council quarterly and this report will form part of the annual report to Taumata Arowai along with all other testing results.

3.3 Issues

The following points highlight the main issues and events relating to the supply that occurred in Q2.

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

§ Dechlorinated Water Stations. Since putting both stations back into service on
9 September 2021, only two taps (out of four) at each station are in operation to ensure social distancing (Covid-19 measures).

§ A1 bore. Due to increased demand A1 bore has been reintroduced to supply on
10 November 2021. This has since resulted in increased number of discoloured water complaints in areas that are fed by this bore such as Napier South, CBD, Marewa, Te Awa, Hospital and Bluff Hill where this has not previously happened to this extent.

§ Water Safety Plan (WSP). Consultants Tonkin & Taylor are due to produce a draft WSP early 2022.

§ Mains cleaning. This year’s 9-week annual mains cleaning programme (aka pigging) started on 10 August and was completed 21 October 2021. Onekawa, Marewa, Pirimai and Bay View have been pigged as scheduled, however Tamatea and Parklands were dropped from schedule due to Covid-19 lockdown in August and September and works will be carried out in 2022.

§ Taumata Arowai. Latest draft versions of DWSNZ and Compliance Operational Rules have been released on 26 October 2021 and will undergo public consultation early 2022 (no timeframes set yet). NCC set up a corporate Hinekōrako account with Taumata Arowai in December 2021, which is a website based self-service portal for drinking-water suppliers, and completed registrations for both Napier’s supplies (Napier and Meeanee Hall & Sports Centre).

B) Summary of progress against the WSP Improvement Plan

Improvement Plan is currently being reviewed and updated within WSP review process and the progress against the Plan will be reported once again when the new WSP is finalised and published.

NCC has however completed and commissioned a dedicated Water Take Site at Thames Street in December 2021. The transition period for all contractors to start using this site ends end of February 2022 - after this date any previously permitted water takes through fire hydrants will cease and those permits revoked.

C) Summary of significant reactive maintenance and major operations events

Q1:

- Nil.

Q2:

- Otatara Reservoir hatch alarm incident. An open hatch alarm was received 8:05 pm on 22 November 2021. Due to inconclusive evidence on what triggered the alarm, operators preventatively isolated the reservoir 8:30pm and secured undisrupted provision of the supply area fed by the reservoir by forcing-on the Otatara booster. Extensive sampling including microbial, chemical and physical tests revealed no signs of contamination of the water inside the isolated reservoir. The reservoir was drained, cleaned, superchlorinated and retested before put back to service on 27 November 2021 at 2pm. Assessments into alarm systems and security of all reservoirs have already been included in the current WSP review process and the potential deficiencies will be addressed and appropriate corrective actions outlined in WSP’s Improvement Plan.

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 over.

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	Q1			Q2			Q3			Q4
Service Request category	Jul21	Aug21	Sep21	Oct21	Nov21	Dec21	Jan22	Feb22	Mar22	Apr22	May22	Jun22
Q – Clarity	4	7	9	58	29	66
Q – Odour	0	1	1	2	0	0
Q – Taste	0	0	1	0	2	0
Q – Pressure / Flow	1	0	1	0	4	2

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

753

809

860

Summary on the current Resource Consent compliance and conditions:

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

3.4 Significance and Engagement

N/A

3.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

No risks have been identified.

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, but provided an update on section 3.3 of the agenda item. Since the report had been compiled Taumata Arowai have released final drafts of the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand and the Compliance Operational Rules which are out for public consultation. The consultation closes on 28 March 2022. The Hawke’s Bay Councils are considering doing a joint submission on these.

3.8 Attachments

Nil

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 25 February 2022 - Open Agenda

Reports from EXTRAORDINARY Sustainable Napier Committee held 17 February 2022

1. Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1431044
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to recommend the approach to address the capital and operating investment required for the Napier Aquatic Centre.

Committee's Amended Recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Mawson

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the risks to ongoing service delivery at the Napier Aquatic Centre;

b. Note the interdependent relationship with the new aquatic development and the Napier Aquatic Centre capital expenditure requirements;

c. Endorse an additional $8,626,435 of capital funding (loan funded) be included in the Annual Plan 2022/23 over 2022/23 and 2023/24 to perform the recommended health and safety and service continuity capital improvements; and

d. Endorse an additional $80,000 of operational expenditure per year of the remaining life of the asset to enable repair and maintenance of end of life components (funded from existing budgets).

e. Direct officers to prepare a phased plan of the proposed detailed expenditure to bring back to Council for endorsement.

Carried

Councillors Browne, Simpson, and Wright voted against the motion

1.2 Background Summary

Napier City Council (NCC) recognised that our city’s current aquatic centre is not fit for purpose and has undertaken a programme of works, dating back to 2013, to investigate a new facility to address our community aquatic needs.

While the new aquatic facility was being investigated, investment into the existing facility was minimised due to the limited remaining life of the asset. These decisions were made prudently to minimise ratepayer costs and avoid over-investment in a facility with limited remaining life.

While significant progress was made towards a new aquatic facility, further information was sought by Council to allow for informed decision making on the design and location of the new facility. Much of this information is included in the second report (Aquatic Redevelopment: Options for Consultation) being presented to Sustainable Napier today.

Given the new project was paused, the design and build tender cancelled, and the construction funding removed from the Long Term Plan, Napier now has an aging and poor condition asset, with many parts at end of life, that is required to operate for a number of years to come.

Should Council support a decision to progress with a new aquatic development as part of the LTP 2024-34 deliberations, depending on the option and the design selected, a new facility will not be completed for a number of years (i.e. until at least 2027/28), meaning that the existing centre is required for at least another five years.

This has implications for asset management to provide continuation of some levels of service and mitigate the risks of health and safety risks, breakdowns, service outages, degradation of service, and decreased customer satisfaction.

Current state and performance

1. A level of community dissatisfaction with Napier’s aquatic facilities over the previous ten years.

a. Napier Residents Survey has over the last ten years shown a consistent level of dissatisfaction with aquatic facilities, with swimming pools in the poorest performing categories for NCC’s results and comparing unfavourably to a New Zealand benchmark satisfaction result of 64%.

b. Specific themes for this level of dissatisfaction are ‘old, run-down, needs upgrading’, ‘too small, overcrowded, more and larger pools needed’. There have also been negative comments about cleanliness noting that at times this may have also related to wear and tear at the facilities.

2. Design limitations restricting use, impacting community benefits delivered and affecting financial and environmental sustainability

a. A lack of deep water, limited leisure and play features, a lack of FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur or International Amateur Swimming Federation) compliance for competitive swimming, poor sight lines for lifeguards and multiple spaces that increase operating costs

b. Older and inefficient systems, with multiple plant rooms and a lack of thermal efficiency (old pool has gas-fired heating and poor insulation);

c. A small and poorly designed reception and very limited onsite retail and catering options;

d. A facility that does not meet modern standards for universal accessibility; and

e. A lack of ability to meet new or growing activity areas, including hydrotherapy, aqua programmes and group fitness.

3. Deteriorating facility condition, impacting visitation, performance and safety

a. The existing facility is aging, at end of life and requiring capital and operational funds to maintain an acceptable standard and continue to operate;

b. Any investment required to extend the life of the existing facility for the plus years, will not provide any more space or additional facilities to meet the community demand;

c. Increasing service outages due to end of life components failing, impacting the ability to provide community programmes and services reliably;

d. Financial results and visitation levels may decline as the facility ages, meaning less benefits delivered to our community, increased unmet demand that Napier cannot meet, and increasing ratepayers costs of operation;

e. National benchmarks indicate a facility should achieve between 5 – 7 visits per annum per head of population. Napier is between 2.7 and 3.6 visits per head of population; and

f. Napier Aquatic Centre staff are restricted with the development of new programmes and services, and also have to decline requests from community groups for new programmes due to a lack of capacity.

4. There is a long standing community demand that is not being met

a. A Hawke’s Bay regional shortage of aquatic space equivalent to three 25m pools was identified by National Facilities Strategy in 2013. NCC Napier Aquatics Strategy endorsed this shortage in 2015. This Strategy document is now dated however recent trends and developments continue to signal strong community demand:

i. Future requirements for Hawke’s Bay in this document projected slow population growth for Napier to 2021, where it will peak and begin to decline. Actual population growth for Napier since 2015 outstripped these projections by 14% or the equivalent of 8,180 people;

ii. Since this information was compiled, the Mitre 10 Sports Park Aquatic facility due to be completed mid-2022. However it is expected that given its location and design there will continue to be community demand for Napier’s community aquatic facilities.

iii. There is currently no public access available at Napier Aquatic Centre on weekdays from 3 pm to 7 pm as space is prioritised for club swim training and learn to swim. This is a peak time for users in other aquatic centres.

The Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme

To respond to these issues with the condition of the existing facility, Council commenced the Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme in 2021 to understand the current condition, and the work and investment required to extend its useful life by ten plus years. The scope of this piece of work includes:

· Providing a clear understanding of condition, scale and complexity

· Defining the desired level of service

· Providing expert recommendations and costings for the identified improvements

· Providing information for effective decision-making to manage ‘acceptable’ risk

As this work progressed and the understanding of the current state condition increased, the investment required started adding up to extremely significant amounts. Accordingly, officers in October 2021 conducted a workshop with Council to discuss results to date and seek direction to proceed.

Summary of workshop with Council

The information presented in the workshop included the following key points:

· The current state of the facility:

o Increasing costs for maintenance and repair

o Slowly declining revenue (noting the impact of Covid-19)

o Visitors on slow downward trend (noting the impact of Covid-19)

o NRB Engagement Survey at 49%

o Missed opportunities to deliver more to our community due to lack of capacity

o Over-crowding at weekend and the customer experience, staff and safety issues this creates

o Increasing unplanned outages due to failure

· The future state is likely to feature:

o Operations costing rate-payers more

o Visitation continuing to decline

o More frequent breakdowns

o NRB results

o Potential closure of facility

· Across the 12 categories of identified improvements, the total cost to perform all of the identified improvements works totalled close to $12 million dollars

· Within the improvements were replacements to critical plant components that are at high risk of failure. Failure of these parts will result in a significant outage as replacements are designed, sourced and implemented.

· Significant water damage to the internal walls of the Ivan Wilson complex, caused by a lack of concrete nibs in the original design to protect framing from water. The baseplates in large parts of the Ivan Wilson complex are rotten, have a significant mould presence and lack structural integrity

· Poor condition of the changing rooms, flooring, ceiling cladding across much of the facility.

· Weather tightness issues caused by failed membranes , missing or incorrect flashings, incorrect or failed fastenings, poor standards of workmanship with original install or subsequent repairs, undersized gutters, areas of corrosion, gutter failures and issues with debris in gutters and catchments causing egress of water into the facility from numerous points.

· A number of improvement projects to address operational issues, including customer flow and security, over-crowding during weekends, and enhancing the attractiveness and features of the outdoor area.

· Recommendations to improve the accessibility standards to reduce barriers for use and enable more of the community to access the facility.

· The identified costs are far in excess of the capital budgets over the next ten years.

· To undertake wide-scale improvement projects will requiring master planning and project management

· With improvements as recommended, enhanced maintenance budgets will still be required to manage the asset to its new time horizon.

· Any investment to upgrade will not address unmet community need or provide additional community benefit

A summary of the information presented in this workshop is included as an attachment to this document.

Council direction from this workshop indicated:

· A focus on the recommendations that relate to the health and safety of customers and the Napier Aquatic Centre staff; and

· A desire to minimise investment to manage the identified service continuity risks or improve the level of service.

As befitting the age and condition of the centre, the more ‘rocks that were turned over’, the more issues were discovered and the more investment was required to address.

Accordingly, this report seeks to present the recommendations and subsequent work completed since October 2021 under three categories:

· Health and safety and legislative compliance

· Reliability and service continuity

· Levels of service

The impact of the new aquatic development

In parallel with the work to develop a new aquatic centre, officers have been working to progress the development of a new aquatic facility in Napier. Since the pausing of the project, work has been focussed on developing a greater understanding of the site constraints at Onekawa to inform the development of options to go to community for consultation.

If the new aquatic project proceeds to be incorporated to the next LTP, taking into consideration timeframes for consenting, site preparation, detailed design and construction, a new aquatic centre will not be completed for another 5 - 7 years.

Alternatively, if Council decide to fast-track this project, then a new facility could potentially be completed within 4 - 5 years.

These timeframes to completion for a new aquatic facility has a major impact on the investment required for the existing facility. The less the remaining life of the existing centre is, then the less investment is required to extend the life. Some certainty around the remaining life also enables a different ‘lens’ to be applied to specific improvement needs.

This ‘lens’ for many of the required areas of work will have a significant impact on the scope and costs.

The condition of the Napier Aquatic Centre is such that irrespective of the timeframes for completion of a new facility, investment is required to continue to provide a safe and functioning centre. Required investment cannot continue to be pushed out.

Caveats and limitations

There are important caveats and limitations to the information produced to date. These are:

· Age and condition of the facility will result in further ‘discoveries’ when actual work is undertaken.

· Costs reflect the best estimates with current knowledge and stage of review.

· All costs are subject to market forces including cost escalation, availability of product, and the constrained construction market.

These estimates are the result of the exploratory work undertaken by the Building Asset Management and Sport and Recreation teams. The work to date is not exhaustive, conclusive or reflects the sum total of all the work required to extend the life of the existing centre. Producing a complete picture of requirements is a significant undertaking requiring project management, external contractor master planning, and additional condition assessments.

Health and safety and legislative compliance

This group of identified improvements are related to the health and safety of customers and staff, and also compliance with relevant legislative standards

It is important to note that urgent health and safety issues are, and will continue to be dealt with, as they arise.

These improvements are:

· Switchboard and earthing recommendations (priority)

· Inspect brackets and ductwork above the 25m pool;

· Remediate outdoor air ventilation non-compliance;

· Implement automatic dosing control;

· Install hold-down bolts to splash-park tanks;

· Remedial work on primary steel structure;

· Remediating roof;

· Implement the Flanders Road entrance to Allan’s Pool as an accessible entry point;

· Install a lowered area at reception in compliance with NZS4121;

· Install suitable hoists for access to pools and spa, and ensure proper training for staff;

· Seismic review - all plant;

· Remedial work on U Bolt in changing rooms;

· Review secondary fixings;

· Remedial work on Girt Brackets in Hydro Slide tower;

· Remedial work on column base in plant room;

· Acoustic ceiling panel replacement; and

· Remediation of internal walls.

By far the item with the largest cost attached is the remediation of the internal walls of the Ivan Wilson complex, at an estimated cost of $3.4 million. Mould was found present on the base plates and lower parts of the studs most of the areas that were surveyed. Subsequent testing revealed no presence of Stachybotrys (Black Mould), but high levels of an unidentified dematiaceous fungus. The presence of this unidentified dematiaceous fungus is the reason that the internal wall remediation is included within the health and safety and legislative compliance category.

The remediation option that has been designed and costed was scoped for an additional ten year life and uses good practice approach to addressing the significant issues. How this improvement is addressed is dependent on the remaining life of the asset however at this stage no alternative methods to address this have yet been investigated.

Reliability and service continuity

This group of identified improvements are related to ongoing reliability of the facility, and the ability to provide service continuity to our community without large outages from failure of building, plant and equipment.

These improvements are:

· Building Management System replacement;

· Remedial work on Old Pool (adjusted 2014 estimates);

· Complete (minor) remedial works to air handling systems;

· Develop Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) programme;

· Develop Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals;

· Compile plant and mechanical as-built plans;

· Minor items including stock to be held of spares;

· Safety recommendations - Priority B and C;

· Switchboard and earthing recommendations - Priority B and C;

· Water quality analysis and assessment;

· Invasive inspection of Roof Cavity and Mezzanine area; and

· Heat pump remediation.

This category features the heat pump remediation and the replacement of the Building Management System. The main heat pump plant in the Ivan Wilson complex is assessed to be a critical failure risk that would result in an inability to heat the water should it fail and a long period of no service while a replacement system is designed, sourced and installed. Options for replacement and costings have been developed by Jackson’s Engineering, with the costs for the preferred option included in the total budget.

Similarly the Building Management System (a computer-based control system installed in buildings that controls and monitors the building's mechanical and electrical equipment) is a legacy unit and requires replacement in the short term. Critical failure of this item will likely lead to extended closure of the Ivan Wilson facility.

The remedial work on the Old Pool is an item that is dependent on the remaining life of the building. As befitting its age and lack of significant upgrades, the building and cladding is in poor condition. The shorter the remaining life of the asset, the less investment is required on the Old Pool structure.

Levels of service

This group of identified improvements are related to levels of service for our community. These items do not relate to health & safety or legislative compliance, nor do they necessarily impact the ability to provide a reliable service. Rather, they impact the quality of the service and experience to our customers and community.

These improvements are directly aimed at addressing ongoing community input around the condition of the pools, and improve the level of service through a reception redesign, an update of the outdoor play area and the construction of an outdoor eating area to help spread the congestion during busy weekends.

Given the condition of the facility, these improvements are important to be able to provide a facility in an acceptable condition, though the scale of investment required will reduce the less remaining life the existing facility has.

These improvements are:

· Ivan Wilson - Refurbishment of male, female and family changing rooms

· Ivan Wilson - Interior painting

· Old Pool - Refurbishment of male and female changing rooms

· Old Pool - Asbestos ceiling replacement or treatment

· Old Pool - Interior painting

· Old Pool - Flooring replacement

· Gym - Refurbishment of male, female and family changing rooms

· Allan's Pool - Refurbishment of male, female and staff changing rooms

· Allan's Pool - Ceiling and wall lining replacement

· Accessibility - Install new signage at reception and throughout facility

· Accessibility - Use colour contrasts and textured pathways for entry and navigation

· Accessibility - Door upgrades including width of frame, effort required to open, accessible door hardware and glazing panes and kick plates

· Accessibility - Amend existing and construct new accessible changing and toilet facilities

· Reception and office redevelopment

· Construct covered, all-weather outdoor eating area

· Outdoor area refresh including shade, BBQs and playground

The H1/AS2 Energy Efficiency requirements that will become mandatory from November 2022 should be a consideration for any work involving replacement of facility cladding.

The understanding of these new requirements is that if it is a like-for-like replacement of a building element, then it is permitted to remain as it is. So a simple replacement of profiled metal roofing with profiled metal roofing would not cause a requirement to upgrade insulation requirements.

However, if work was undertaken to change the building fabric, then the works will have to comply as if it were a new building. For example, if it was decided to replace the profiled metal roofing with an insulated panel system, or to insulate the outside of the block walls, these would have to comply with the requirements of the H1/AS2 energy efficiency standards if consented after November 2022. Ratings for the existing building are well short of the requirements of the standard.

Cost estimates for remedial work

	From	To
Health and safety and legislative compliance	5,289,603	5,405,303
Reliability and service continuity	3,498,076	3,811,616
Levels of service	2,020,472	2,422,972
TOTAL	$10,808,151	$11,639,891

For the purposes of this paper the higher cost estimates (i.e. far right column) will be used noting that Officers will continue to look for cost savings in project management.

Additionally, please note the above table reflects the estimated costs of the remedial work. The further tables will consider and subtract the existing LTP budgets.

Additional CAPEX requests

Given the time and complexity of the required works, the investment across the three categories has been spilt across the following three years of the LTP. However given the current contractor and supply chain constraints, Officer’s will maintain flexibility in bringing forward or postponing work as appropriate within overall budgets.

As noted above, the existing LTP budget amounts have been subtracted to identify the differential amounts requested.

The options for remedial works to address Health and Safety, Reliability/Service Continuity and Levels of Service are outlined and costed as follows:

Option 1: Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance only

	Y02	Y03	Y04	Total
Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance	2,702,652	2,702,652	-
Existing LTP CAPEX	-348,121	-242,363	-
TOTAL	2,354,531	2,460,289		$4,814,819

Option 2: Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance and Reliability/Service continuity (recommended)

	Y02	Y03	Y04	Total
Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance	2,702,652	2,702,652	-
Reliability/Service continuity	1,905,808	1,905,808	-
	4,608,460	4,608,460	-
Existing LTP CAPEX	-348,121	-242,363	-
TOTAL	4,260,339	4,366,097		$8,626,435

Option 3: Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance, Reliability/Service continuity and Level of Service

	Y02	Y03	Y04	Total
Health & Safety/Legislative Compliance	2,702,652	2,702,652
Reliability/Service continuity	1,905,808	1,905,808
Level of Service	807,657	807,657	807,657
	5,416,117	5,416,117	807,657
Existing LTP CAPEX	-348,121	-242,363	-116,459
TOTAL	5,067,996	5,173,754	691,198	$10,932,948

It should be noted that depending on Council’s decisions around new pool facility investment, parts of Option 3 may not be needed.

The economic value of investment into the current facility

BECA in conjunction with Architecture HDT completed a structural assessment of the Old Pool for inclusion in this scope of work. This report included the following statement in its conclusion:

‘Significant investment will be required if the building is to continue to be operated beyond 10-15 years. A more detailed scope of work could be developed and a cost estimate be prepared to understand the feasibility and benefit of upgrade works when compared with a new building. Given the age and condition of the building, it is unlikely that such an investment would be considered economical.’

Though the subject of the above statement was the structure of the Old Pool, the condition of the entire facility as evidenced by the review to date is poor, with more investment identified the more aspects are reviewed. The costs, complexity, risks of cost overruns due to ‘ongoing discoveries’ as befitting an asset of its age and condition indicate that there is a high risk of significant improvements being a project with large cost and time overruns.

Significant investment in the facility, while providing a safer, more reliable facility and improving the customer experience, will not provide any further aquatic space and features to meet community demand.

1.3 Issues

Dependence on the timeframes for the aquatic development: the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option is considerably shorter in terms of project completion, and therefore will reduce the capital and operational investment required to extend the life of the Napier Aquatic Centre.

1.4 Significance and Engagement

Additional investment will need to be included in the Annual Plan Consultation Document and consulted on as part of this process.

1.5 Implications

Financial

· Additional capital investment for recommended renewals and improvements

· Operational increases for enhanced maintenance and repair.

Social & Policy

· The contribution of the existing centre to the social wellbeing of its community. Despite the age, condition and capacity limitations, the facility is an integral contributor to the wellbeing of a large number of Napier’s community, with an average of 180,000 visits per year.

Risk

· Project cost and timeframe overruns due to poor condition of facility and general cost escalations

· Master planning costs for a significant project (including level of service recommendations) have not been included in cost estimates.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Endorse an additional $4,814,819 capital in the Annual Plan to include the work required to address health and safety and legislative compliance, or

b. Endorse an additional $8,626,435 capital in the Annual Plan to include the work required to address health and safety and legislative compliance and service continuity/reliability, or

c. Endorse an additional $10,932,948 capital in the Annual Plan to include the work required to address health and safety and legislative compliance and service continuity/reliability and level of service, and

d. Endorse an additional $80,000 of operational expenditure per year of the remaining life of the asset to enable inspection, repair and maintenance of end of life components, or

e. Consider closure of the Napier Aquatic Centre.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preference is for additional capital and operating expenditure as endorsed by Council to be incorporated within the current Annual Planning process. If this is not achievable given decisions or timeframes, then the additional investment will require inclusion is an out of cycle process or a future Annual Plan or LTP process.

1.8 Attachments

1 Attachment A: Summary of Workshop with council - 5 Oct 2021

2 Attachment B: Summary of cost estimates by category

3 Attachment C: Napier Aquatic Centre LTP Capital Budget

4 Attachment D: BECA - Napier Aquatic Centre Updated Condition Report 2021

PDF Creator

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) - 25 February 2022 - Open Agenda

2. Aquatic redevelopment: Options for consultation

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1429954
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council the next steps for the new aquatic facility development process.

Committee's Amended Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Crown

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Note the geotechnical and contamination reports and implications for potential aquatic redevelopment.

b. Note the independent multi-criteria site analysis results for the Onekawa and Prebensen sites.

c. Note the interdependent relationship with the new aquatic development and the work required to extend the life of the existing facility.

d. Note the impact of increasing construction costs.

e. Councillors are to forward all questions to Council Officers to investigate and bring responses back before the Council meeting on 10 March 2022.

Carried

Extraordinary meeting of the Sustainable Napier Committee

This report was not able to be included in the Sustainable Napier Committee agenda for 10 February 2022 due to dependant external information arriving too close to the meeting for Officers to properly review, and for Council to digest ahead of the meeting. Due to the need for this item to be addressed in this meeting cycle due to prior public commitments for the delivery of the information, and to fit any relevant decisions of Council into the annual plan timelines, a requisition for an Extraordinary Meeting of the Sustainable Napier Committee on Thursday 17 February 2022 was approved by Mayor Kirsten Wise.

2.2 Background Summary

Why Napier City Council (NCC) provides aquatic facilities

The Council has a civic obligation to provide recreational facilities for the wellbeing of its community. These facilities are important infrastructure in contributing towards health and wellbeing outcomes for the community.

Across the four different wellbeing categories, aquatic facilities make the largest contribution to social wellbeing. This includes the physical and mental wellbeing from exercise and play, as well as the social connectivity and cohesion benefits.

The specific contribution that aquatic facilities make to its purpose as a local government entity; and to strategic vision, outcomes and goals; were formalised through the Aquatic Strategic Framework that was adopted by Council in August 2021 (included in Attachment A).

This contribution of Napier’s aquatic network is summarised by:

· A purpose of developing skills, improving wellbeing, building confidence and growing connections; and

· Critical success factors of:

o Value for money - our aquatic network provides value for money for customers and ratepayers.

o Water safety - teach more Napier people to be safe and confident in the water

o Balanced outcomes - ensure the right balance of provision, space and utilisation among our four outcome areas across our regional network

o Social cohesion - improve social cohesion and inclusivity to ensure everyone benefits from our aquatic facilities

o Pride and connection - NCC has a network of aquatic facilities that are shaped by our community, that our city is proud of and are uniquely Napier.

From a customer perspective, the specific benefits that a customer can seek within an aquatic facility can be categorised into the following four categories:

· Health and fitness (including fitness swimming, aquaerobics, rehabilitation);

· Leisure and play (such as family fun, birthday parties and similar);

· Sport development (including swimming club training and events, other aquatic sports, triathlon); and

· Physical literacy (including provision of swimming lessons for schools and individuals).

For these reasons Napier City Council considers it important that it provides aquatic facilities and services to its community.

History of Napier Aquatic Centre

The Napier Aquatic Centre in Onekawa was opened in 1963. Over the 59 years the facility has been operational it has gone through a number of changes, with the Ivan Wilson complex being completed in 1998, and in 2006 the outside 50m pool and dive pool closed, with the splash pad erected a few years later.

Prior to construction of the facility, the Onekawa site was an active landfill from approximately 1932. Landfill material covers large areas of the site, though this has been capped with clean fill. Landfill first started before 1932 and was active for at least 15 years.

The current facility is a mixture of different buildings and bodies of water that have reflected this development over the last 60 years. Allan’s Pool (the small learn to swim pool at the Flanders Road side) is an original feature from 1963, while the Old Pool was built in the early 1970s. Neither of these pools has had a significant upgrade in that time, and both are considered at end of their useful life.

The Ivan Wilson complex, while much more recent in terms of construction, is considered to have limitations in terms of design, features and functionality.

Napier’s Aquatic Network

The aquatic facility network in Napier comprises the Napier Aquatic Centre, Marine Parade Pools (Ocean Spa) and the Taradale Community Pool. The Napier Aquatic Centre is the community pool that services the ongoing aquatic needs of our community through health and wellbeing, sports development, leisure and play and learn to swim. Marine Parade Pools is a different but complementary destination facility with a focus on relaxation. This facility also has a gym and small outdoor lap pool for recreation and fitness. The complex is current operated by a third party. Taradale Community Pool is owned by and located at Taradale Intermediate School, and provides a four-lane 25m pool for the school, club swimming and learn to swim.

Hastings District Council (HDC) operates a network of indoor and outdoor pools, including Flaxmere and Clive indoor facilities. Splash Planet is also an HDC-owned facility that is a water-based theme park.

In addition to the council provision across Napier and Hastings, the Mitre 10 Sports Park has a new aquatic facility under construction based around a 2m deep 50m pool, due to be completed mid-2022.

Further details on our aquatic network is detailed in Attachment B.

The need to develop and improve Napier’s aquatic provision

Please note, the issues below are also documented in the paper “Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme” being considered at today’s Committee Meeting, however they are repeated in this paper for completeness.

Work undertaken by NCC since 2014 identified and documented the following issues with existing aquatics provision.

1. A level of community dissatisfaction with Napier’s aquatic facilities over the previous ten years.

b. Specific themes for this level of dissatisfaction include ‘old, run-down, needs upgrading’, ‘too small, overcrowded, more and larger pools needed’. There have also been negative comments about cleanliness of the facilities which may be related to wear and tear at the facilities.

2. Design limitations restricting use, impacting delivery of community benefits and affecting financial and environmental sustainability

a. These limitations include but are not restricted to a lack of deep water, limited leisure and play features, a lack of FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur - International Amateur Swimming Federation) compliance for competitive swimming, poor sight lines for lifeguards and multiple spaces that increase operating costs;

b. Older and inefficient systems, with multiple plant rooms and a lack of thermal efficiency;

c. A small and poorly designed reception and very limited onsite retail and catering options;

d. A facility that does not meet modern standards for universal accessibility; and

e. A lack of ability to meet new or growing activity areas, including hydrotherapy, aquatic-based programmes and group fitness.

3. Deteriorating facility condition, impacting visitation, performance and safety

a. The existing facility is aging, at end of life and requiring capital and operational funds to maintain an acceptable standard and continue to operate;.

b. Any investment required to extend the life of the existing facility will not provide more space or additional facilities to meet the community demand;

c. Increasing service outages due to end of life components failing, impacting the ability to provide community programmes and services reliably;

e. National benchmarks indicate a facility should achieve between 5 – 7 visits per annum per head of population. Napier is between 2.7 and 3.6 visits per head of population; and

f. Napier Aquatic Centre staff are restricted with the development of new programmes and services, and also have had to decline requests from community groups for new programmes due to a lack of capacity.

4. There is long standing community demand that is not being met

Many of these issues were recognised by NCC in 2014, and led to the commencement of a process to determine the right aquatic solution for the needs of the community.

New aquatic facility – what our community has told us that they want

Through the consultation and engagement with our community conducted since 2014, the following themes have been consistently expressed:

· A modern facility that meets the community needs now and into the future;

· A desire to ‘do it once and do it properly’;

· A facility with sufficient space to cater for all user groups and areas of demand;

· Much more leisure and play space and features to provide a fun environment for tamariki, rangatahi and whānau;

· Improved accessibility for all users; and

· Affordability for our community in terms of capital cost, costs to operate and costs of entry.

Further information around these current state issues and community expectations are included in Attachment C.

New aquatic facility – possible sites

The Onekawa site of the existing Napier Aquatic Centre is the site of an old landfill. Landfill materials cover much of the site, though the landfill material is covered with a cap of topsoil. NCC has commissioned a number of reports into the Onekawa reserve site and surrounding area to understand the presence of and the nature of this landfill material.

An investigation carried out by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited (PDP) between 2009 and 2012 identified:

· Landfill waste was found in 11 of the 19 test pits excavated

· The topsoil cover over the waste varied from nil up to 1m, with the average cover being 0.35m

· Groundwater was observed at a depth of between 1.7 and 2 m.

· Heavy metal concentrations typical of that expected were found in samples containing waste, including lead, arsenic, copper and zinc

· The unconfirmed but likely presence of asbestos given commonness of asbestos-containing materials in construction and household products during the years the landfill was active (Note: the presence of asbestos was confirmed through further investigations by Tonkin & Taylor in 2021).

Due to a number of outstanding questions, in December 2018 PDP was re-engaged to provide an expert assessment of the Onekawa site and the implications of the known contamination for the development of an aquatic centre. This assessment concluded:

All other things being equal, a site free of contamination is easier and cheaper to develop than a site with soil contamination. There is also additional risk for the Onekawa site because the full extent and degree of contamination is not known and there is uncertainty whether all the soil would be accepted at the Omarunui Landfill. While the known contamination at the Onekawa site is not particularly great, and the onsite risks during construction should be readily manageable, additional time will be involved and greater cost will arise relative to a “clean” site from:

· additional soil and possibly groundwater investigation

· additional consenting requirements

· additional onsite excavation management (particularly if asbestos is present)

· possibly managing contaminated water from excavation dewatering

· additional soil disposal costs

The greatest additional cost is probably from soil disposal, depending on the volume of soil requiring disposal.

In this assessment, an assumption was made that similar geotechnical conditions existed below more recent reclamation fill and/or landfill, being soft estuarine sediments prone to liquefaction under earthquake conditions.

Informed by these external reports, a risk assessment performed by The Building Intelligence Group (TBIG) and technical advice of qualified Napier City Council staff, it is considered that the Onekawa site is more complex and more expensive than a greenfields alternative, and with a more risk of cost and time overruns due to site conditions.

Tonkin & Taylor contamination and geotechnical

This information was discussed during a workshop Council workshop on 10 March 2021, and, due to assumptions made about geotechnical conditions, it was agreed that Officers would engage Tonkin & Taylor to conduct further site investigations at Onekawa for both contamination and geotechnical conditions.

Following on from this, options were developed and canvassed with Council to potentially fit an aquatic centre on the Onekawa site.

Considerations in the development of these siting options included:

· The position of the facility and car-parking

· Access from the road to the facility

· Operational impact of the construction period on the existing facility

· Existing infrastructure on the site.

These options were:

Option 1: New aquatic centre and relocation of netball courts

Located to the northern end of the site in order to minimise the impact to the existing centre during construction and to avoid the landfill area as much as possible. Involves demolition of existing tennis and netball courts and construction to the eastern corner of the Onekawa site.

Option 2: Redevelopment of existing aquatic facility

Retaining and upgrading the existing Ivan Wilson complex, demolishing the Old Pool and constructing new add-on facility where the Old Pool is currently located.

Option 3: Demolition of minor structures for new aquatic centre

A new facility centred on the site where the existing Allan’s Pool (Learn to Swim) and Pavilion are located.

Option 4: New aquatic centre (south-western corner)

A new facility constructed at the southwest corner of the facility.

These site options were provided to Tonkin & Taylor to determine the scope of its geotechnical and contamination investigations.

Tonkin & Taylor geotechnical and contamination report findings

A workshop with Council was held on 30 March 2021 for Tonkin & Taylor to present and discuss the findings and implications of the geotechnical and contamination reports.

Critically, the Tonkin & Taylor geotechnical report provided new information for the geotechnical (ground stability) conditions present. The geotechnical conditions across the entire site are soft compressible silt and layers of liquefiable sand. This means that for any significant construction on the site to have solid foundations to mitigate the risk of differential settlement, significant and costly ground works are required.

In addition to the challenges presented by the uncontrolled (land)fill materials that requires removing and disposal, the contamination levels are variable across the site and for all four options assessed, the groundwater levels require mitigation and the existing infrastructure underground requires either relocation (water main) or excavation and disposal (remains of old outdoor pool and dive well), which indicates that the geotechnical conditions present may provide the most significant and expensive challenge on the Onekawa site.

The previous PDP assessment in 2018 was focused on contamination rather than geotechnical conditions and expressly assumed that ’similar geotechnical conditions exist at both the Onekawa and Prebensen/Tamatea Drive sites’. The Tonkin & Taylor results assert that this assumption isn’t correct and that in addition to the contamination implications of the Onekawa site, that geotechnical conditions are also significantly more challenging than the conditions on the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive site.

The Tonkin & Taylor report provided additional information on the specific risks present for each of the four site options being explored, with Option 1 being the preferred location of the four options on the Onekawa site. Following from Tonkin & Taylor’s recommendation, Council agreed to eliminate options 2, 3 and 4, and progress further investigation of Option 1 for community consultation on site options for a new aquatic facility.

A more detailed summary of the investigations is contained in Attachment D.

The geotechnical and contamination reports were released in December 2021 and are located at https://www.napier.govt.nz/napier/projects/napier-aquatic-centre-redevelopment/onekawa-park-investigations/

Outcomes of Council workshop

Through workshopping with Council on 30 March 2021, Officers were to progress to detailed investigations based on:

· Eliminate Options 2, 3 and 4 due to the geotechnical and contamination information provided.

· Prepare detailed information to allow for community consultation on the new aquatic centre location based on:

a. Option 1 build at Onekawa (i.e. relocation of netball courts at Onekawa); and

b. the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive greenfields option.

· For Option 1: New aquatic centre and relocation of netball courts

a. Conduct design work to make the Prebensen facility and features right for the specific site.

b. Conduct further ground investigations through the tennis courts to provide further information and assist in mitigating the risk of the intended site.

· For each consultation option include:

a. Design and artist mock-ups.

b. Quantity Surveyor-produced costings for each site, factoring in the additional costs and risks of the Onekawa site.

c. Identification of the risks and implications.

· Prepare a Council paper to include contamination and geotechnical outcomes, implications, next steps and the impact to the existing facility.

· Consider a public seminar or session to enable interested members of the public to be directly engaged.

This paper reflects the next steps as indicated by Council.

Planning implications of the Onekawa options

The identification of Option 1 as the preferred option comes with a higher risk profile for resource consent due to the proximity to residences along Gallipoli Road. For this reason Option 3 was also carried through to the next stage of assessment to include an option that is not subject to the same resource consent risk, though it has a more significant risk profile with uncontrolled fill and contamination, and it would involve a much greater level of impact on the current facility during the construction period.

Planning consultants, Stradegy, were engaged in October 2021 to provide views on planning matters pertaining to Options 1 and 3 and specifically, which may be able to progress through the resource consent process with less resistance. This input was sought to enable these views to be considered by Council alongside other information to inform decision making.

Stradegy’s conclusion was that ‘Option 3 would progress through the planning process with less resistance’, though recommended that Option 1 not be discarded as the greater challenges with planning and consenting due to the closer proximity to residences may be able to be overcome.

Included in the report were recommendations for Council to assist with deciding the preferred option. These recommendations were:

· Undertake an Acoustic Assessment against District Plan noise limits

· Perform a preliminary Visual Impact Assessment

· Conduct a Traffic Assessment to inform the need to any surrounding intersection and roading upgrades

· Obtain a Certificate of Compliance for the relocation and reestablishment of courts as planned under Option 1

· Define the implications and costs associated with the removal of material under Option 3 to better inform the options assessment

· Prepare a Consenting Strategy for the selected option.

Ahead of Council agreeing on the preferred option for the Onekawa site, it is recommended that Officers work through these additional planning steps.

Site assessment: Prebensen/Tamatea Drive and Onekawa

Geoff Canham Consulting (GCC) was engaged in late 2021 to provide an objective, rigorous and independent site assessment of the Prebensen Drive/Tamatea Drive site and the Onekawa site. This piece of work was commissioned partly in response to a Council request to assess both the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive sites and the Onekawa site holistically to identify all pros and cons, and partly to provide an objective and independent assessment to address the prominent feedback during the 2018 process from some members of our community.

GCC have prior experience performing similar assessments with Tairawhiti/Gisborne District Council, Hauraki District Council (Waihi), Bay Wave Aquatic Centre (Tauranga City Council) and Lansdowne Park Relocation (Marlborough District Council). All site assessments performed by GCC have been informed by relevant national guidelines.

The site assessment criteria performed by GCC included the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option, and the two options for development on the Onekawa site. The assessment was scored along a criteria based on the critical success factors from the Napier City Council Aquatic Strategic Framework that was adopted by Council in 2021.

It is important to note that across Napier there are very few sites that met the original criteria for an aquatic development, and that irrespective of the site chosen there were going to be positive and negative aspects. A perfect site for an aquatic development in Napier does not exist.

The site assessment results for the three options were:

Criteria	Prebensen Drive	Onekawa Option 1	Onekawa Option 3
NCC Strategic Drivers	20	17	17
Balanced Outcomes	13	11	11
Social Cohesion	8	9	9
Pride and Connection	12	9	9
Value for Money	13	8	8
Best Practice Design	11	9	9
TOTAL	77	63	63

GCC’s conclusion states:

While it is difficult to identify the perfect site, guidance via the established NCC criteria for a future NCC aquatic centre helped to ensure a neutral process throughout the entire site assessment process.

Through onsite and desktop assessments using the Site Assessment Tool, we were able to identify strengths and weaknesses across both sites which then showed through in final scoring.

While the current Napier Aquatic Centre has a strong history at its Onekawa location, the risk and cost associated with soil contamination and significant ground engineering required made it difficult to attain higher scores in terms of future site development.

Prebensen Drive has shown to be a low risk, greenfield site that matches a lot of the desirable aspects of the assessment criteria as well as the NCC Aquatic Strategic Framework. This leads to the Prebensen Drive site attaining the highest score.

GCC’s Napier Aquatic Centre Site Assessment Report is included as an attachment to this report.

Prebensen/Tamatea Drive site and status

Council adopted as part of its Long Term Plan 2018-28 a resolution to progress a new pool at a new site. Following this decision a tender was released on 17 May 2019 for the ‘Design and Build for the Napier Aquatic Centre’. These plans were put on hold subject to a Judicial Review from the Friends of Onekawa Society challenging the Council process and decision making.

The Judicial Review judgement of 30 April 2019 saw all nine causes of action being dismissed by the Court.

Prior to Council pressing pause on the aquatic development at Prebensen/Tamatea Drive, considerable progress had been made to progress this development. While the site has remained inactive, the following summarises the advanced status of this site development:

· Geotechnical and contamination surveys completed, with no contamination and geotechnical conditions consistent with most of the Napier area.

· The resource consent application was completed, including technical assessments of acoustics, visual amenity and traffic impact. This consent application, with a quick update, is ready to be submitted.

· Pre-loading has been completed on the site, with significant time to settle.

· Stormwater treatment on site designed, constructed and working effectively.

· Detailed location specific designs were completed for the Design and Build tender process.

Due to these reasons, the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive site has an advantage over Onekawa in terms of:

· Planning and resource consent issues including traffic, proximity to neighbours

· Planning and resource consent timing, with much of the work completed

· The planning and construction timeline, with no need to wait for any pre-loading settlement or other ground mitigation, demolition and removal of existing structures, or relocation of existing infrastructure (tennis and netball courts)

· The risk profile of construction.

Recommendations regarding Preferred Design

The detailed concept design (see attachments) as developed for the preferred option on the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive site has been used for the options on the Onekawa site. While there have been some changes in the regional picture, it is considered that this design will provide a facility that meets the current and future needs of Napier’s community across all user groups.

In summary the process to date has included includes the development of:

· Napier Aquatic Strategy

· Taradale Feasibility Demand Study Assessment

· Business Case Options for Expansion

· Pre-engagement and consultation through a Special Consultative Procedure as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28

· High level design of preferred option

· External reports to inform resource consent.

This process has also involved consultation with users, stakeholders and the community, from the development of the options to public consultation, to engagement with an Aquatic Stakeholder Group in the development of the design.

An Aquatic Subcommittee of council was formed to provide Councillor input and direction to the project, including detailed design, preparation of tender documentation and specifications, and site preparations. This Subcommittee met on four occasions during the six months from August 2018 to March 2019 until the point where the project was paused due to the legal proceedings with Friends of Onekawa Society.

It is considered that the key changes in regional aquatics provision discussed in this document do not impact the design’s ability to meet the needs of the community, projected utilisation or ongoing financial sustainability.

If Council decide that the current designs need more than minor changes, then this would likely necessitate a recommencing of the process, from strategy development, to the business case, to the detailed design.

This will lead to additional time required on the programme to deliver a new aquatic facility to our community, and will incur additional costs.

This Detailed Concept Design was approved by Council in March 2019.

As per Council direction to ‘conduct design work to make the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive facility and features right for the specific site’, a review of the specific site conditions, alignment and environmental conditions was performed. This assessment identified that alignment of the facility on the Onekawa site was similar to the alignment at the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive and would provide similar advantages in terms of aspect, wind and sun. The proposed positioning of the facility on the Onekawa site is as similar as possible to that at Prebensen/Tamatea Drive. This has resulted in no revisions or amendments to the preferred design will be required to locate at Onekawa.

The Detailed Concept Design approved by Council for the design and build tender is attached to this report. Note that subsequent to the Detailed Concept Design being signed off by Council, the concept designs were further amended as the Request For Proposal (RFP) documents were prepared for tender.

Geotechnical and Land contamination implications

Following on from Tonkin & Taylor’s geotechnical and contamination investigations completed in February 2021, Tonkin & Taylor were re-engaged to undertake an engineering risk review into geotechnical and contaminated land aspects of the proposed Onekawa aquatic centre development.

This engineering risk review is to inform costings of the ground remediation requirements to construct on the Onekawa site and enable the development of comparative costings with the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option.

A summary of the key design risks and potential effects on remedial works costs as identified by Tonkin & Taylor is included in Attachment E.

Tonkin & Taylor concluded that:

Overall, both “Option 1” and “Option 3” have a similar risk profile and similar quantum of earthworks. Option 1 includes redevelopment of the court areas which will limit the ability to dispose of material on site, while Option 3 will involve more demolition works and potentially encroach on existing buildings and access points.

Prebensen Drive site has a much lower ground risk profile, largely reflective of its “Greenfield” status and the fact that much of the groundworks have already been completed, with minimal hindrances.

Storage of uncontrolled fill on the site itself, rather than disposal at an approved landfill was identified by Tonkin & Taylor as a potential method to avoid the costs of disposal of uncontrolled fill and the contaminants within. This is through the creation of bunds or mounds of uncontrolled fill that can then be covered with clean topsoil.

The maximum amount of material that can be accommodated on the Onekawa site has been calculated. This approach is not recommended by Officers due to:

· Not eliminating the risk of contaminated materials, but simply moving them from one place to another

· The perception of surrounding neighbours and reserve tenants to having the potentially contaminated uncontrolled fill relocated and covered on the site

· The longer-term risk of the topsoil on the mounds eroding over time, exposing the potentially contamination fill material

· The consenting risks and conditions for storing the uncontrolled fill on the site.

This option however is on the table for discussion by Council. The additional costs for cartage and disposal of the uncontrolled fill quantities should Council decide to dispose at a landfill are included in the provisional items.

Programme implications

As part of the Tonkin & Taylor report, a comparative programme was developed to compare project timeframes for the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option and the two options at Onekawa. The report states:

A comparative programme has been developed between future works at the Onekawa site and the Prebensen Drive location, which is approximately 80% through the enabling works phase before the works were mothballed.

The Onekawa project is in its infancy and provides a much more challenging consenting/development programme. Accordingly, the programme for the Onekawa design and consenting is likely to be relatively long and subject to increased escalation costs of the project lifecycle.

The report identified a total of 30 months of time required given the challenges of the site to effectively get the site to a comparative position that Prebensen/Tamatea is at currently. Including the additional time allowance for completely enabling works at Prebensen/Tamatea Drive (if required), and assuming a construction period of 2 years for all three options the total months to completion for each option is as follows.

Table: Project timeframes for each option (once approved by council)

	Prebensen/ Tamatea Drive	Onekawa Option 1	Onekawa Option 3
Master planning to commencement of enabling works	0	30	30
Enabling and consent works	14.5	12	12
Construction period	24	24	24
Total months to completion	38.5	66	66

Tonkin & Taylor’s full report is included as an attachment to this document.

Costings

As per Council direction, Quantity Surveyors Dean & Quane were engaged to take the key design risks and potential effects on remedial works identified through the Tonkin & Taylor report and provide estimated costs for these. These costs are required to enable a like-for-like comparison between the Onekawa site and the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive site.

Dean & Quane’s costs for each option are attached to this document.

Element	Prebensen/ Tamatea Drive	Onekawa Option 1	Onekawa Option 3
New aquatic centre as per RLB estimate Aug 2021	51,238,800	51,238,800	51,238,800
Construction cost increases (Aug 2021 to estimated project start date of mid 2024)	7,455,245	7,455,245	7,455,245
Construction cost increases – (Master planning to commencement of enabling works)		7,336,756	7,336,756
Construction cost increases - Enabling and consent works	3,521,643	3,301,540	3,301,540
Cost escalation during construction period	6,221,569	6,933,234	6,933,234
Demolition (as per note to costings below)		-13,300	-344,500
Site Preparation		10,043,480	8,752,500
Additional Site Works		2,743,625	2,064,750
Sundries		-	-
SUB TOTAL	68,437,257	89,039,380	86,393,325
Preliminaries		-	-
Margins		-	-
Contract Contingencies	3,119,947	13,355,907	12,958,999
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (excluding GST)	$71,557,204	$102,395,287	$99,352,324
Other Development Costs
Provisional items		5,610,000	8,855,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (including provisions items (excluding GST)	$71,557,204	$108,005,287	$108,207,324

Summary of key cost differences

· The excavation and disposal of uncontrolled and contaminated fill

· Mitigation of ground conditions

· The site works complexities of dealing with known landfill and contaminants and the consenting conditions likely to be imposed due to the nature of the site

· The construction of stormwater detention ponds

· For Option 1, the costs of relocating the tennis and netball courts, including demolition of existing, site clearance and earthworks, and construction of new courts and changing room facilities

· For Option 3, the costs of changes to the surrounding infrastructure and ground features (including changing sewers, stormwater and water supply, removing buildings and excavation)

· Provisional items including cartage and removal of uncontrolled fill; should Council not want to explore disposing of on site, any roading changes, earthworks construction monitoring. These provisional items have been separated out to identify potential costs that require either decisions of Council or further work to understand requirements and costs.

Notes to the costings

Demolition costs

Depending on the intended future use of the Onekawa site, it is likely that demolition of the entire existing facility is required for both options at some stage of the process. All that differs between the Onekawa options and the Prebensen/Tamatea option is the sequencing, in terms of a one-time demolition or a staggered demolition to enable construction on Onekawa. The RLB estimate for Prebensen/Tamatea Drive includes $600,000 for demolition of Onekawa. To avoid double-counting of demolition items the amounts have been entered as negatives in the costings.

Mitigation of ground conditions

The method to mitigate the geotechnical conditions on the Onekawa site that has been included for costing purposes is excavation, filling and preloading. The alternative approach is to use Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs), which are stone pillars that are vibrated into the earth to provide ground improvement. This approach could avoid ten months of programme timeline by removing the need to wait for preloading to settle, but comes at an additional project cost. It is considered that the additional project cost is comparative to the cost escalation savings from the reduce timeline, therefore is cost neutral to the construction cost estimates.

Comparing the three options

	Prebensen/Tamatea Drive	Onekawa Option 1	Onekawa Option 3
Cost	$71.6 million	$108.0 million	$108.2 million
Risk	Moderate (2 high risks, 6 moderate risks)	High (8 High risks, 13 moderate risks)	High (8 High risks, 13 moderate risks)
Timeframe to completion (once approved)	2.71 years	5 years	5 years
Site assessment results	77	63	63

The table above shows the differences in costs, complexity and risk between the options at the Onekawa site and the Prebesen/Tamatea Drive option. As per the advice throughout this process, development can be done on the Onekawa site, though it involves a much greater degree of cost, complexity and risk.

Opportunity cost of Prebensen/Tamatea Drive

The Prebensen/Tamatea Drive parcel of land comprises a total area of 12.71 hectares. It is currently zoned as main residential.

Should the land not be utilised for an aquatic development there is an opportunity for council to divest this land.

A valuation performed in late 2020 of the parcel of developable land (estimated 3.5 hectares) on the site identified a value of $1,671,000 per hectare. For the portion of the site that has been earmarked for the aquatic development (approximately 2.51 hectares) this valuation had an estimated market value of $4.2 million.

The land is subject to the Hawke’s Bay Endowment Land Empowering Act 2002. This doesn’t stop the sale, but confirms that along with the Lagoon Farm and Parklands land, it was derived from the old Harbour Board. This was vested in Council as an income earning asset to compensate for the liability of the Inner Harbour and Harbour Board Foreshore reserves.

Similarly, for the Onekawa site should a future development not be progressed, there provides an opportunity for alternative use. The site is zoned as a reserve, and has considerable existing infrastructure and services (Plunket, Omnigym, Onekawa Kindergarten), but provides the opportunity provide additional active or passive recreational space, or a repurposing of some or all of the existing aquatic centre structures (pool halls).

The impact of construction cost escalation

An important aspect to note is the escalation of construction costs. Over recent years these have increased markedly due to a number of different factors including:

· Construction industry capacity is currently stretched beyond capacity.

· Further supply chain disruptions for getting construction materials to New Zealand

· Continuing high global consumer demand, exceeding available shipping and port capacity

· Consumer inflation rising at its fastest rate since 1990.

To illustrate this point, the costings of the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option has increased from a budgeted $42.1 million in 2018 to a projected $51.2 million as at August 2021, and a projected $58.9 in July 2024 (the commencement of a new LTP). Continuing high rates of cost escalation (using a rate of 5% per annum from the Cordell Construction Cost Index (CCCI) – Quarter 3, 2021) will mean that the differences in time to complete the project will translate into increased capital costs for NCC and ratepayers, with a 12-month additional period potentially costing $2.8m.

Interdependence with the Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review

In parallel with the work to develop a new aquatic centre, officers have been working to understand the capital requirements of the existing site. Due to the pausing of the project to develop a new facility, the years of under-investment beyond basic maintenance due to the impending demolition, and the complete removal of funding for a new aquatic development from the LTP, the facility has been reviewed by posing the question ‘what do we need to do to extend the life of this asset for ten or more years?’.

As detailed in a workshop with Council in October 2021, extending the life of this asset over ten years comes with a significant price tag should we want to provide a reliable service at an acceptable level of service for our community.

Investment in this facility to extend its life however will only extend the life of the asset as it is currently, and will not go any further to meet the community needs that have been understood and documented over the last nine years.

This piece of work is tightly woven into the development of a new aquatic centre. The longer time is takes to construct a new facility, the more investment is required to maintain the existing facility.

To explore a couple of scenarios, should NCC fast-track the new development, then a new facility could be completed within 4 - 7 years. Clarity over a completion date for this project will enable officers to prioritise the level of investment required in the existing centre to minimise expenditure.

In an additional scenario, if a new aquatic development remains outside of the current LTP period, then completion date will be beyond a ten-year horizon and the investment required to extend Napier Aquatic Centre’s life will be much more significant. This scenario will have the ‘opportunity cost’ of a decade more of unfulfilled demand, and community wellbeing benefits unrealised. This will be subject to cost escalation which runs the risk of a new aquatic centre being unaffordable to Napier.

2.3 Issues

· The public perception of consultation on options that provide the same facility, but 1.5km apart with a cost differential of $33 million.

· The cost impact that the time to completion of a new facility has on the investment required to extend the life of the existing facility.

· Council direction on either the disposal or on-site storage of uncontrolled fill.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

The Council has committed to consultation with the community on the aquatic redevelopment options.

This matter is deemed significant given that any decisions could have ongoing and significant increases to rates and either increase or decrease current levels of service. In addition, the matter is likely to be of moderate public interest with higher interest from key stakeholders including adjacent residents of both sites.

Given its significance and history, it is recommended that Special Consultative Procedure is undertaken with the proposed option being the construction of the facility at the Prebensen Drive site. Consultation could take place through a future LTP or an LTP amendment should there be a preference to initiate momentum. The pathway for redevelopment has implications for the level of capital investment of the current facility which has its own impacts on potential rates increases, with consultation planned through the Annual Plan 2022/23 consultation process.

2.5 Implications

Financial

· Construction escalation - the longer it takes to complete a new development, the more it is going to cost in terms of capital expenditure

· The longer time taken to complete a new facility, the more costs will be required to maintain service at the existing facility

· The provisional items identified in the costings but not included in the total costs for each option may add costs as these items are worked through by officers and consultants

· Construction cost escalation exceeds the projected figure used in the costings, increasing the financial impact over time and magnifying the existing differential in project timelines to completion.

Social & Policy

· The contribution of an aquatic centre to the social wellbeing of its community. The facility is an integral contributor to the wellbeing of a large number of Napier’s community, with an average of 180,000 visits per year. A new aquatic centre with the capacity and features to meet the needs of Napier’s community will contribute considerably more to the social wellbeing.

Risk

· The risk that with the impact of cost escalation, any ongoing delay with a decision to proceed with a new aquatic centre may result in the eventual costs of construction being unaffordable, meaning an aquatic centre that meets our current and future needs will not be constructed.

· Financial and project risk from known site conditions at the Onekawa site

· Reputational risk in the eventuality that ‘surprises’ from further investigations or excavation of the contaminated causes increases to project cost and time

· Planning and resource consent risks for the Onekawa options, with a higher degree of associated feasibility, cost and timeframe implications.

· Community consultation identifies an Onekawa option as its preference. This will extend the timeframe for completion of the new facility by at least two years, and incur additional costs through construction cost escalation and the additional investment required to extend the life of the existing facility.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Direct council officers to prepare further information for community consultation

b. Do not direct officers to prepare further information for community consultation, noting the impact of cost escalation, the condition of the existing centre and the aquatic needs of the community.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The diagram below shows the options for Council and the steps involved in progressing the aquatic redevelopment.

Key decisions for Council are:

· Do we identify a preferred option or take two or all three options to the public?

· Do we want to fast-track the development to deliver the community benefits earlier and avoid some of the costs of extending the life of the existing centre?

The most important aspect to highlight from a planning perspective is that a decision to redevelop the pool cannot be actioned unless it is reflected in the LTP; per section 97 of the Local Government Act 2002. Given that budget for a new aquatic centre was removed from the LTP and no options or timeframes were specified, then to proceed with the development the decision needs to be provided for in Council’s LTP, either through an amendment, or through inclusion in the next standard LTP review in 2024. As the below diagram illustrates, depending on Council’s preferred timeframes (expedited timeframes recommended), then two potential ‘pathways’ emerge; an out-of-cycle LTP amendment, or including in the next LTP in 2024.

Depending on different factors such as the timeframes for consultation, the availability of Audit NZ, this year’s election and the impact of the ‘stand down period’, the out-of-cycle amendment will provide at least a 12 months advantage over waiting for the next LTP in 2024.

It is advisable to not have an LTP amendment process span an election and two different councils. Therefore, an LTP amendment (if that is Council’s preferred vehicle) will either need to be completed prior to September 2022, or wait until the new Council is formed and complete an amendment around June 2023. This 12 month saving would translate into a total saving of project costs from between $3.6 million and $5.3 million, depending on the site option decided.

The timing of any amendment is a matter for Council to direct on, noting that an expedited amendment might require re-prioritisation of resources across the business, and the timing being contingent on the availability of Audit NZ.

Diagram: Long-term Aquatics Redevelopment Options

2.8 Attachments

1 Attachments: Various

2 Attachment - Aquatic Network

3 GCC - Aquatic Site Assessment Report

4 Napier Aquatic Centre: Detailed Concept Design (Under Separate Cover)

5 Stradegy: Onekawa Aquatic Centre - Options Analysis – Planning, Sept 2021

6 Stradegy: Appendix 1 - Onekawa Park Reserve Management Plan

7 Stradegy: Appendix 2 - Preliminary District Plan Compliance Analysis

8 Onekawa Geotechnical & Land Contamination Considerations (Under Separate Cover)

9 Attachment: Dean & Quane-Elemental Costs Estimates for Aquatic Centre Development options

Māori Committee - 03 September 2021 - Open Minutes

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 ..................................................................................................................

Meeting Date:	Friday 25 February 2022
Time:	9.00am
Venue:	Via Zoom (Audiovisual link) and livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page

Committee Members	Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust – Chad Tareha (Chair) Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Robbie Paul Maraenui & Districts Māori Committee – Waitiria Greekz 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 Friday 8 April 2022

Pettigrew Green Arena in Taradale (On NCC Reserve)	Sir Russell Pettigrew and Rodney Green have joint naming rights due to their substantial donations towards the construction of this great facility
Rodney Green Centennial Event Centre (On NCC Reserve)	The Centre was constructed in memory of Napier’s first 100 years and the donation ensured the building’s future viability.
Rodney Green Stand at McLean Park (On NCC Reserve)
Sports Park Hastings	The Rodney Green Foundation is giving a substantial donation to the construction of the Central Districts Outdoor Cricket Wicket, the Central Districts Indoor Cricket Wicket and Boxing precinct.
Sports Park Hastings	The Rodney Green Foundation as donated $2 million towards various ongoing projects within the park.
Taradale Primary School Swimming Pool	The Rodney Green Foundation has contributed a substantial donation to this refurbishment.

Address	Proposal	Current Status	Update
200 Waitangi Road, Awatoto	Earthworks and Disturbance of Soil in HAIL area (NESCS)	Under Assessment	Further information provided below
2 Darwin Crescent, Maraenui	Koha Shed and Recreational Activities	Under Assessment	Further information provided below
115 Carlyle Street, Napier	Expansion of the Existing Car Sales Operation	Further information requested	Previously reported to Future Napier Committee. No further update
9 Church Road, Taradale	One Lot into Five Lot Subdivision and Multi Unit Development	Decision Notified	Approved
100 Eriksen Road, Te Awa	Proposed One Lot into 16 Lot Subdivision and NES	Decision Notified	Approved
5 Waitangi Road, Awatoto	Multi Unit Development (Industrial)	Decision Notified	Approved
113 Fryer Road, Napier	One Lot into Two Lot Subdivision	S357 Objection to Decision	Objection under assessment
16 and 38 Willowbank Avenue, Meeanee	Proposed lifestyle village	Appeal process	Previously reported to Future Napier Committee. No further update
Kāinga Ora - Construction and Innovation
19 Dinwiddie Avenue, Maraenui	Three Lot into Five Lot Subdivision and Multi Unit Development	Further information requested	Further information provided below
4 Lamb Terrace, Onekawa	One Lot into Two Lot Subdivision and Multi Unit Development	Under Assessment	Further information provided below

Location	Cut (m³)	Fill (sourced onsite m³)	Balance (m³)
Bioretention Basin	768	0	768
Clarifier Storage Basin	1445	0	1445
Settling Pond	504	1969	1465
Wetland	1715	586	1129
Total	4432	2555	1877

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)