Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Thursday, 10 March 2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Aquatic Facilities

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1439827
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide supplementary information in relation to the resolutions contained in the two reports presented at the Extraordinary Sustainable Napier Committee meeting held on 17 February 2022.

Committee’s Recommendation

That Council:

Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme

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 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.

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

Aquatic redevelopment: Options for consultation

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

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

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

i. Note the impact of increasing construction costs.

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

1.2 Background Summary

Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme – below are responses to questions from the Committee that were asked at the meeting.

· If the recommended work goes ahead across the next two years some of the planned future works on the Aquatic Centre in the Long Term Plan (LTP) could be brought forward. It is likely that budgeted future renewal funding is no longer required, however this is dependent on whether further issues are uncovered at the facility once the project begins.

· The Jackson’s Engineering report, which was part of the mechanical review, identified the Building Management System, which controls all the information around the Aquatic Centre, is at end of life and is no longer supported. The system has been identified as likely to fail in the next five years, and if that happened it would mean a significant closure of the complex whilst an alternative was sourced and installed. The heat pump for the Ivan Wilson complex was also identified as likely to fail within the next five years, and this would cause a closure of that pool for a significant period whilst a replacement was sourced and installed.

· This report is a high level overview of what is required to keep the Aquatic Centre functioning. Since writing the report other options for operating the facility have come to light. One of these is a run-to-failure model. Council has a legislative obligation to meet the levels of service outlined in its LTP and must have a sustainable plan to achieve that. If the run-to-failure model was preferred, community consultation would be required, otherwise as parts of the facility failed and needed to be closed, the Council would not be meeting the levels of service required.

· Within the health and safety/legislative compliance area, suitable hoists are required for access to the pools. There is a hoist for one of the spa pools, but this has had long-standing operational issues and needs replacing; there is also a mobile hoist which can be moved to different areas in the facility and provides accessibility. A Barrier Free Assessment has been carried out on the facility and recommends more hoists, in addition to other means to provide greater dignity for people getting in and out of the pool than what is currently provided. The improvements being discussed today include budget to implement such elements.

· Of the critical plant needing to be replaced the heat pump can be designed to be installed externally so when a future development is built it could be transferred. Not much else would be salvageable.

· The wall remediation would address the badly deteriorated timber framing under the cladding.

· In regards to the mould identified in the walls, the sampling is a point in time. Further sampling is problematic as it can release spores into the atmosphere. Ongoing on-site monitoring would be required however to make sure there is no dangerous mould present.

· The walls which are the worst affected by mould are not structural walls and are co-supported by the cladding. There are no immediate risks flagged or these would have been remediated straight away. There are structural wall brackets around the facility which have a recommendation for further investigation. If there was a seismic event it is anticipated the non-structural walls could move more than intended.

· Most of the walls in question are internal walls around offices and changing rooms. Some internal elements of the exterior walls are less-so affected. Modifications to the concrete in the courtyard outside of the complex has created new risks to the external walls of water ingress.

· To remove the building and operate the pools complex as an outdoor facility is a possibility, but the heat exchanges would need a redesign. It would change the amenity value of the complex, and could have an impact on swimming lessons in winter. Council’s Funding Policy will need to be reviewed to meet additional operational costs in heating the complex if it were to be an outdoor heated facility. Significant building structures would still be required in the form of change facilities, staff rooms and offices, and plant rooms and storage and shade structures over pool tanks, particularly the spas which are used for rehabilitation.

· Officers will need to do some further work on prioritising the different elements of the project, this will be dependent on market availability of materials and contractors, and also the decision on the future direction of the Aquatic Centre.

· The term of the Loan proposed for this project would be over ten years. This would be a 1.4% rates increase to complete the work required.

· Currently Council is projected to have paid off all loans over the next ten years, this borrowing may have an impact on that outcome, but there is time to work towards a balanced budget.

· Under the LGA if Council receives new information about an asset it can notify this, and the resulting consequence, in its next Annual Plan. If the information Council receives was known prior to the Annual Plan being set, and this could affect delivery of service, it would need to put the proposed change to the community for consultation.

· A run-to-failure model would mean the facility could close at short notice without a backup plan, which users could find unsettling.

· If the facility closed this would affect 30-35 Council positions. Council is obligated to take all practicable steps to retain the staff affected.

· The improvements required for Allan’s pool are largely cosmetic. The funding requested for this pool, and for accessibility to it via Flanders Avenue, should ensure it remains functional for approximately ten years, as long as the plant and tank do not require major work. As a stand-alone pool, Allan’s pool could continue to return positive outcomes for Council and the community, however a business case would be needed to confirm that.

· Demand on Napier aquatic facilities has not been met for a number of years. Currently there are approximately 500 to 600 learn to swim users at the facility, which without Covid-setting disruptions can be as high as 900, along with additional aqua aerobic users, competitive swim training users and recreational users.

To note: Councillors Browne, Simpson, and Wright voted against the motion regarding the Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme.

2. Aquatic redevelopment: Options for consultation

Below are responses to questions from the Committee that were asked at the meeting.

· The purpose of this report is to provide further information to inform a provisional decision on a way forward. This additional information is a geotechnical and contamination analysis of the Onekawa site, an assessment of the two potential sites, and comparative cost estimates for construction of essentially the same facility at the two potential sites. It is acknowledged this is a high interest item and that construction costs continue to rise, so officers will be proceeding with urgency.

· The cost of additional investigations, since the development of a new aquatic facility project was halted, has been $223,000.

· The Geoff Canham Consulting (GCC) analysis of a preferred aquatic site sought to weight the analysis equally; it is up to the Council to decide if that was the correct way to do the analysis and community feedback can inform that decision.

· Financial questions in regards to the two sites can be worked through in more detail at the 10 March 2022 Ordinary Council meeting, along with who is best to answer any questions Elected Members may have.

· The Mitre 10 Sports Park Aquatic Facility is due to be completed mid-2022. This facility with the 2m deep 50m lane pool and learn to swim pool caters for high performance training and competition, club swimming and other water sports and swimming lessons. It does not have the features to cater for recreational swimmers.

· The options for community consultation can be structured to incorporate more than one option at the Onekawa site.

· Three metres is not very deep for a landfill. Onekawa was not a landfill under the current landfill code and practices, it is better classified as an unregulated tip site.

· The Hornby pool and library in Christchurch project is on an old landfill. That project is more advanced, with an architectural masterplan and a large project team. Some key assumptions have had to be made for Onekawa’s risk register, particularly around the level the pool lies. Hornby does not have the shallow ground water issue which Onekawa has, also Onekawa’s soil profile has very low strength materials, which means there is very little strength in the soil. In Hornby, steel piles were driven through into gravel, and this mitigates geotechnical risk. Onekawa does not have a solid gravel layer and therefore would require significant ground work to achieve the same ends so piling has not be considered at this point. Also the cost of steel is subject to significant price fluctuations.

Additional information

Since the completion of the two reports for the Extraordinary Sustainable Napier Committee meeting on 17 February, further information relevant to the cost estimates for the options has been completed.

A provisional estimate is included in the costings for the Onekawa options for Maadi Road and Flanders Avenue roading upgrades should the development be situated at Onekawa.

An assessment performed by the Napier City Council roading team identified three realistic options to provide a solution to the traffic management requirements should Option 1 or 3 be pursued at Onekawa Park. The new facility with significantly enhanced capacity and ability to meet community needs is predicted to conservatively generate 300,000 visits per year, and therefore require roading amendments to cater for the additional traffic.

These three options are:

a. Creating roundabouts at the junctions of Flanders/Maadi and Flanders/Riverbend

b. Using the existing entry/exit on Maadi Rd opposite the shops, requiring a redesign of the driveways within the park, the installation of a roundabout, and a redesign of the roading layout by Maadi Road shops to be accommodated

c. Creating a new road link directly between Flanders and Taradale Road.

Of the three options, option C is the most favoured from a road engineering perspective.

The provisional amount of $1.5m was examined as a budget against the works required for a, b and c. The budget was regarded as too low for each of the options and the recommendation was made that a budget of $3-3.5m would be more appropriate.

This amendment to the cost estimate has the net impact of adding an additional $2 million to both of the options at Onekawa.

Similarly, in response to a question from Council during a Council workshop conducted on 24 February 2022, the true costs to completion for the three options was requested given that investment for development of the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option had commenced prior to the project being paused.

Work completed for the Prebensen/Tamatea Drive option is:

· The pre-loading of the site

· Design of the concept, engineering and landscaping

· Stormwater detention design and construction

· Technical reports completed as part of the resource consent process (light, noise, traffic, visual assessment, acoustics).

These costs are included in the Rider Levett Bucknall base estimate, and therefore to provide ‘true costs to completion’ will need to be subtracted from the total project cost.

Assuming that the same design is to be used for the options at Onekawa, then the design costs for the concept and the engineering can similarly be subtracted from the final total.

The incurred costs for the technical assessments can also be applied partly to reduce the costs of the reports for the Onekawa site, though as this is a different site additional costs will be incurred. A reduction of 40% for the costs of technical reports for the Onekawa options has been assumed through the completion of the reports for Prebensen.

These two pieces of additional information development have an impact on the comparative cost estimates included in the original paper. These impacts are:

	Prebensen/ Tamatea Drive	Onekawa Option 1	Onekawa Option 3
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (including provisions items (excluding GST)	71,557,204	108,005,287	108,207,324
Additional roading amendments		2,000,000	2,000,000

Sunk costs
Design	-358,208	-350,408	-350,408
Resource consent	-45,500	-18,200	-18,200
Site preparation (pre-loading and stormwater)	-799,476
	-1,203,184	-368,608	-368,608
AMENDED TOTALS	$70,354,020	$109,636,679	$109,838,716

1.3 Attachments

1 Copy of Napier Aquatic Centre Capital Review Programme presented at the Extraordinary Sustainable Napier Committee meeting 17 February 2022 – Attachments to report not included (Doc Id 1439833)

2 Copy of Aquatic Development - Options for Consultation presented at the Extraordinary Sustainable Napier Committee meeting 17 February 2022 – Attachments to the report not included (Doc Id 1439834)

3 Site Assessment Report (Doc Id 1440135)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda Item 5

5. Annual Plan 2022/23 Development: Supporting information and consultation approach

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1430242
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

1.1. Purpose of Report

This report seeks formal approval of key information underpinning the development of Annual Plan 2022/23, and confirms direction given to date on matters for public consultation. A high-level consultation document is included for endorsement.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Direct Officers to prepare an Annual Plan consultation document to be reported back for Council adoption on 31 March 2022.

b. Approve the underlying information and the financial information as the basis for the development of the Annual Plan consultation document 2022/23.

c. Agree the proposed rates increase for 2022/23 will be a 9.8% average increase for ratepayers, noting this is 0.6% less than the cap approved in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (10.4%).

d. Adopt the high-level consultation plan.

e. Agree the following matters will be included in the consultation document:

i. Napier Aquatic Centre capital investment

ii. Coastal Hazards asset transfer

iii. Proposed rates increases

iv. Reserves funding any revenue shortfall from tourism activities

v. Housing

f. Agree the proposal to increase the Napier Aquatic Centre capital budget in 2022/23 be included in the Annual Plan consultation document.

i. Note the rates impact of a $4M investment in 2022/23 would be 0.3% in 2023/24.

ii. Note that the current Napier Aquatic Centre may require further investment in 2023/24, but that would be bought back to Council for consideration.

g. Agree the Coastal Hazards Transfer be included in the consultation document. There is no impact on budget for 2022/23.

i. Note targeted engagement with Whakarire Ave residents will be undertaken separately and before 31 March 2022. A letter will be sent to residents informing them of the proposal.

h. Note that the projected revenue shortfall in 2022/23 for Council’s tourism activities is $1.5M.

i. Agree that any revenue shortfall in 2022/23 for Council’s tourism activities will be funded from Council’s parking reserve, and urban growth reserve, noting the community will be updated about this approach in the consultation document.

j. Agree that the separate consultation that will be underway on the housing portfolio will be referenced in the Annual Plan consultation document.

k. Agree to the proposed capital plan for 2022/23, noting that it represents and ambitious work programme in a challenging Covid-19 climate.

l. Note that Officers are recommending some reprioritisation of capital spend over the remainder of the Long Term Plan period, which is set out in an attachment titled ‘2022/23 capital programme changes’.

m. Adopt the Fees and Charges Schedule for 2022/23

n. Note that there is a statutory requirement for Annual Plan 2022/23 to be adopted no later than 30 June 2022.

o. Direct Officers to begin preparing a draft Annual Plan, noting that the policy decisions reflected in the plan can be adapted up until formal adoption.

1.2. Background Summary

What is an Annual Plan?

This report seeks decisions from the Council on the key matters and budget considerations for development of the 2022/23 Annual Plan consultation document, and to enable Officers to begin preparing the plan itself.

Councils must prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year, per section 95 of the Local Government Act 2022 (the LGA).

The purpose of the Annual Plan is to:

· Contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the Annual Plan relates;

· Identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) in respect of the upcoming year;

· Provide integrated decision-making and coordination of the resources of the local authority; and

· Contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

In the two interim years between reviewing our LTP, we produce an Annual Plan. An Annual Plan gives us the opportunity to refresh information and budgets for the coming year given greater certainty, and to highlight key variances from the LTP forecast for that year. Essentially, the Annual Plan is still the statutory link between the LTP and the annual setting of rates. The 2022/23 financial year represents year two of our LTP.

When do we consult on an Annual Plan?

There is a legislative obligation for Council to consult with its community on an Annual Plan if there are significant and material changes from what was set out in the relevant year of the LTP, per section 95 of the LGA. An assessment of the significance or public interest in a matter drives discussions with Elected Members on the need for consultation. This is assessed as the Annual Plan is developed.

The planning process to date:

The process to develop Council’s annual budget for 2022/23 has involved a series of workshops with Elected Members to discuss the Council’s annual budget. These seminars occurred on:

· 23 November 2021

· 14 December 2021

· 21 December 2021

· 27 January 2022

· 17 February 2022

Councillors were provided with cost pressures and cost-saving efficiencies that could be made, and agreed to stay within the financial caps as outlined in Council’s Financial Strategy as set out in the LTP.

1.3. Budget context

The cap for the 2022/23 rates increase approved in the LTP was 10.4% (including LGCI). Council is required by legislation to set these caps, or ‘quantified limits on rates’, which, while not legally binding, represent one of the benchmarks tested to determine fiscal prudence. Our ability to comply with these limits has been tested more than ever this year given unprecedented external challenges, however Council has managed to produce a draft budget reflecting a rates increase below the 10.4% cap.

The Covid-19 environment is continuing to significantly impact Council and the wider community. A greater proportion of households and businesses are facing financial hardship, and with the Omicron variant currently spiking across the country, households across Napier are impacted by ill-health, isolation requirements, increased costs, loss of income, heightened stress and an increasing need to support friends and whānau.

For Council, LTP 2021-31 set out an $827M ten-year capital programme, compared to $541.7M ten-year programme set out in 2018. This investment is required to address and modernise aging infrastructure, deliver Council’s priorities around water, and ensure Napier is resilient in the face of challenges like climate change. However in 2022, Covid-19 is still resulting in supply chain shortages, labour market constraints and uncertainty. The cost of construction is rising rapidly as it is more difficult to secure materials and the expertise to deliver complex multi-million dollar projects. Inflation is at an all-time high. This comes at a time that Council is facing a reduction in non-rates revenue given the number of business and tourism activities in its portfolio and prolonged closure of international borders.

The Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) has been specifically prepared for the sector and is informed by forecasts derived from formal modelling done by Treasury and reported in the Budget Economic Fiscal Update (BEFU). LGCI provides an inflation index for the capital plan budgets for year 2 of the LTP, as has been factored into budgets at 3.6%. Operational expenditure in the draft budgets has been based on known costs and LGCI only applied where appropriate. There will be pressures on costs, both operating and capital expenditure, with inflation now running at 5.9% as at December 2021.

A review of fees and charges was undertaken to ensure that cost recovery remains appropriate to ensure that the ratepayer is not unfairly burdened. The proposed changes to the schedule of fees and charges is attached to this report for adoption.

Water continues to be Council’s number one priority, with around $26.6M capital spend dedicated to investment in Council’s stormwater, water supply and wastewater networks for the 2022/23 financial year.

1.4. Consultation approach

As discussed above, the Annual Plan is Council’s opportunity to refresh budgets for the year ahead given the information we now have at hand. Council is proposing a limited number of variances from what was forecast in the LTP, and in the spirit of the consultation obligations set out in the LGA, wishes to socialise and test some of these proposals with the community before making final decisions.

Council officers are recommending the preparation of a consultation document for this purpose, and this report seeks confirmation of matters to be included in that document (summarised one-by-one in the next section of this report). Once formal direction is received, officers will prepare the consultation document and bring it back to Council for formal adoption on 31 March 2022.

1.5. Consultation items

1.5.1. Rates increase

The direction that Council has given on the plan to date would see an average rates increase per property in Napier of 9.8% in 2022/23, which falls between the 7.3% proposed rates increase for existing ratepayers and the cap of 10.4% set out in LTP 2021 for 2022/23.

Development of the Annual Plan to date has involved a detailed review of baseline expenditure and financial forecasts. Budget reductions have been actioned where possible as part of ongoing efficiency programmes. This review has offset other cost pressures across the organisation.

The drivers behind the 9.8% average rates increase are as follows:

· Inflation (3.6% LGCI factored into budgets)

· Operational contingency to allow for uncertainty in labour market and higher costs, particularly for construction (1.5%)

· Legacy costs from smoothing the rates impact of the introduction of wheelie bins (0.9%)

· Increasing budgets required for Three Waters operations (0.9%)

· Increasing cost of insurance premiums (0.9%)

· New costs associated with Council priority projects:

o The establishment of a new city ambassador programme, Awhina Tangata/ Napier Assist (0.6%)

o Digitising property files (0.5%)

o Contributing to the new regional economic development entity, approved by Council in December 2021 (0.4%), and

o Art Deco Trust grant (0.1%).

This average rates increase will be introduced in the consultation document so there are no surprises for the community. Officers will also develop an online, interactive ‘rates
calculator’ for ratepayers to see the projected rates for their property over the 22/23 financial year.

1.5.2. Napier Aquatic Centre

One of the proposed changes to the capital programme for 2022/23 is to increase the capital budget for the Napier Aquatic Centre to keep it safe and open to the public while Council considers the future of aquatics provision.

While progress was made towards a new aquatic facility in 2019, Council then sought further information on the design and location of the new facility. The redevelopment project was paused while further information was sought, the design and build tender cancelled, and the construction funding removed from the LTP 2021-31. The Aquatic Centre has an aging and poor condition asset, with many parts at end of life, which is required to operate for at least another 5 years until a new facility could be operational.

Issues with the current facility include:

· Decreasing community satisfaction with the facility, including that it is too small, run-down, overcrowded, and generally needs upgrading

· Design limitation restricting use, including a lack of deep water, non-compliance with the FINA requirements for competitive swimming, poor sight lines for lifeguards, old and inefficient systems, poor accessibility, and challenges in meeting new demands, such as hydrotherapy, and

· Deteriorating facility which is meaning outages are more frequent, visitation rates are lower than national benchmarks, and staff are restricted in the new programmes and services they can offer.

To respond to these issues with the condition of the existing facility, Council reviewed the current condition to understand the work and investment required to extend its useful life.

Pending Council’s final resolutions on a separate report considered earlier in today’s meeting, Council is now proposing to invest an additional $4M in the facility in 2022/23, which was not included in LTP budgets. This proposal was endorsed in an extraordinary meeting of the Sustainable Napier Committee on 17 February 2022, subject to a further work plan detailing expenditure being produced. That $4M investment could increase to a total $8.6M (based on a current understanding of the facility’s condition) by the end of 2023/24, depending on the pace at which work can be completed, any unforeseen issues, or any additional work required which is uncovered during the remedy process. This also allows for a decision on a future pool to be made as part of a prudent approach to spending money on the existing facility. On the basis of the information to date, it is suggested $4M is included in the 2022/23 budget. If more capital funding is required, above and beyond the $4M, further approvals will be sought.

Officers are seeking Council’s formal direction to include this proposal, and the context around it, in the Annual Plan 2022/23 consultation document, which will be presented to Council for adoption.

1.5.3. Coastal Hazards assets transfer

In 2020, the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Joint Committee engaged Raynor Asher QC to prepare a non-binding report to review and provide recommendations about which Hawke’s Bay local authority should lead and fund the implementation of coastal management projects.

The Report recommended that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) take charge of all aspects of the prevention and mitigation of coastal hazards in the area from Clifton to Tangoio. A Memorandum of Transfer (MoT) has now been endorsed by Napier City Council (21 December 2022) and Hastings District Council. This MoT, when executed by the Chief Executive, provides an agreement in principle between the three councils to facilitate the transition of functions and transfer of assets.

HBRC are required to undertake an LTP amendment (using a special consultative procedure) in order to accept the transfer of the assets. HBRC are conducting separate public consultation on this proposal outside of the Annual Plan process, and plan on actually taking control of the assets after June 2024 (adoption of the next LTP).

The transfer would involve:

· Operating budget associated with Westshore renourishment to prevent beach erosion ($275,000 per annum), and nearshore restoration ($275,000 every three years)

· The Hardinge Road revetment (existing asset valued at $498,053)

· Capital costs associated with mitigating Hardinge Road erosion ($325,290 every second year)

· The yet-to-be-constructed Whakarire Avenue revetment (for which $2.2M capital funding has been set aside, but costs may escalate to $3.4M).

As these assets are not specifically identified as ‘strategic assets’ in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, an LTP amendment is not required to enable the transfer of these assets to HBRC. The transfer of the assets, associated debt and operating costs are considered as a matter of moderate interest to a portion of the community and of general interest to the wider community. For this reason, officers are seeking formal direction to use the Annual Plan consultation document as a mechanism for informing the community about this proposal. Officers recognise the particular interest residents of Whakarire Avenue may have in this transfer proposal, given Council’s previous resolution that the maintenance cost for the Whakarire revetment be met by a targeted 2.5% rate on these properties. These residents will be specifically notified of the proposal in a letter in March 2022.

1.5.4. Reserves funding anticipated tourism revenue shortfall

Council’s financial position for the first six months of the 2021/22 financial year was able to be reviewed in December 2021, and Council’s Business and Tourism activities are experiencing downturns in revenue.

Council’s Business and Tourism activities comprise the following:

· Kennedy Park Resort

· The National Aquarium of New Zealand

· Napier Conferences & Events

· Napier Municipal Theatre

· Napier i-SITE Visitor Centre

· Par2 Mini Golf, and

· McLean Park

Revenue under performance is mainly due to Covid-19; particularly the extended period of lockdown for Auckland, and the general hesitancy to travel over a summer period filled with uncertainty.

With the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, financial modelling currently suggests Council could be facing approximately $1.5M shortfall in anticipated revenue from these activities in 2022/23. Given the uncertainty of the year ahead, this is a best-estimate which may be inconsistent with actual performance.

Council’s Annual Plan 2020/21 included the assumption that any shortfalls in revenue would be covered by approximately $6.7M from two pre-existing reserve funds; essentially Council’s savings. The shortfall never eventuated in 2020/21, with revenues bouncing back quicker than expected following the first Covid-19 lockdown. As Council did not use these reserves budgets in 2020/21, officers are recommending the same approach be factored into 2022/23 budgets, and seek formal direction to update the community about this proposal. Note that this represents a different approach to that indicated in the LTP, where Council planned to fund any shortfall through loans.

1.5.5. Housing

Council is facing sustainability issues with the delivery model for its portfolio of 377 affordable homes. The model has been subject to several reviews, including by Morrison Low (2018) and PWC (2020), which identified options for addressing sustainability issues, namely:

1. Transfer/divestment of the portfolio

2. Part sale/part retention, with the proceeds of the sale invested back into the portfolio, or

3. Retention of the full portfolio, with deficits funded through rates, increased rents, or a mix of the two.

Council has resolved to engage with the community about these three options to understand community preference. Consultation is will take place between 16 March and 20 April 2022.

Following the March/April consultation period, Council will be required to settle on a preferred option. Two of the three options above (transfer (1), and part sale/part retention (2)) can only be actioned if provided for in Council’s LTP. If one of those two options is preferred, further consultation using the special consultative procedure will be required to pursue an LTP amendment, or (depending on timing), to reflect it in the next LTP on the standard three-yearly cycle (2024). Regardless of preferred option, there will be no financial impact on Annual Plan 2022/23

Because of the scale, context and potential impacts of this decision, it is appropriate for consultation to be managed separately. Officers recommend the Annual Plan consultation document contain a high-level summary of the issues, and include a cross-reference to the separate housing consultation, highlighting that the housing consultation will close approximately two weeks before the end of the Annual Plan submissions period.

1.6. Underlying information

A suite of underlying information is included as attachments to this report. These documents are presented to you now for approval so they can form the basis for developing the consultation document and the Annual Plan itself. Please find attached:

· Financial information, comprising:

o A prospective statement of comprehensive revenue and expenses

o A prospective statement of financial position

o A prospective statement of changes in net assets/equity

o A prospective statement of cash flows

o Key changes from the 22/23 year set out in the LTP

o Capital expenditure by activity group

o A statement of accounting policies

o A prospective statement of financial performance

o Reserve funds

o 2022/23 capital plan

o Borrowing programme

o Funding impact statement

· Council’s schedule of fees and charges, showing proposed changes for 2022/23

· A summary of changes >$500k to the capital plan for 22/23

· The proposed capital plan for the remaining years of the LTP.

1.7. Fees and charges

Officers have reviewed Council’s schedule of fees and charges, and have recommended a series of changes to provide additional revenue and ensure Council’s costs for providing services are covered, all while maintaining compliance with our Revenue and Financing Policy. Most fees and charges have gone up by the appropriate cost inflator to maintain cost recovery and Revenue and Finance Policy requirements.

The amended schedule of fees and charges is included as an attachment to this report for adoption.

1.8. Significance and Engagement

An assessment of the significance of the changes from the Long Term Plan 2021-31 was undertaken as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2022/23. This included both operational and capital expenditure changes.

Officers are seeking Council’s direction to prepare an Annual Plan consultation document, as recommended in this report, including asking the community for their feedback on the proposed transfer of coastal hazards assets to Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

The consultation document will also include information about rates, capital investment in the Napier Aquatic Centre, Council’s Covid-19 response, the separate consultation about housing, and Council’s work programme for the year ahead more generally.

Submitters will have the opportunity to provide “any other feedback” about the plan.

Consultation on an Annual Plan does not have to use the special consultative procedure as set out in the LGA, but officers are nonetheless recommending a consultation period of at least a month to give anyone interested ample time to participate. The consultation and submission period for the Annual Plan is planned for from Thursday 7 April 2022 to noon on Friday 13 May 2022.

A high level consultation plan is attached to this report for your information and endorsement.

1.9. Implications

Financial

Financial caps

When considering the changes to the proposed 22/23 budgets from the LTP, Council officers reviewed its compliance against the Council’s Financial Strategy and its Financial Prudence benchmarks.

As part of the Long Term Plan 2021/31 Council approved a quantified limit on rates of 10.4% (6.5%, plus 3.6% LCGI, plus 0.3% factored in for growth). The proposed Annual Plan rates increase is within this level at 9.8%.

Another key benchmark for Council is the ‘rates limit benchmark’, which is a measure of the rates income limits. The proposed budget does not meet this benchmark due to the impact of Covid-19 on revenue in the tourism facilities and a change in the expected timing of Parklands residential section sales. The Long Term Plan forecast that Council would not meet its balanced budget benchmark until year 10 of the plan.

External debt

Council may require external borrowings as part of the 22/23 Annual Plan ($80.7M) depending on the timing of projects. The Long Term Plan 2021-31 forecast external borrowing ($103.7M) to occur in 22/23. A large capital plan ($90.4M) has contributed to the requirement for external borrowing in 22/23.

Decisions now impacting future year’s rates increases

Ongoing additions to operational budgets and the interest cost of loans funding capital projects impact on the projected rates rises for future years. Council has already directed to further smooth the costs of the 2020 refuse system improvements (adding 0.7% to rates for 2023/24), and is facing a decision about the level of capital investment in the existing Napier Aquatic Centre, both of which have direct impacts on rates increases for 2023/24. These two decisions alone bring us close to the identified rates cap for 2023/24, and may impact Council’s ability to fund new initiatives when it comes time to develop the Annual Plan for 2023/24.

Social & Policy

The proposals contained in this report have been assessed as compliant with relevant Council policies.

Officers are exploring whether changes to the Chief Executive’s delegation would be appropriate, with the objectives of enabling the management of escalating costs of delivering an ambitious capital programme. Any recommendations will come to Council for consideration in a report.

Risk

The following risks were noted as part of the development of the Annual Plan:

· The capital programme proposed for the remaining years of the LTP may only be partially delivered given the unprecedented scale of works proposed. The total capital plan for 2022/23 is currently sitting at $90.5M. Previous years capital spend has been provided for context and comparison.

· Delivery is being impacted by 9, as Council’s focus pivots to safeguard health and wellbeing of the Napier community, and as Council grapples with staff absences and the implications of border closures on supply chains and recruitment of specialist expertise

· The proposed budgets for Council’s work programme may be insufficient given high levels of inflation, and rapidly escalating cost of construction. Officers are currently working through options for mitigating these risks, specifically through changes to the Chief Executive’s Delegation Policy. Formal recommendations for changes to this policy will be taken to Council’s Audit and Risk Committee, and brought to Council for formal approval.

· There are some matters on the horizon which are currently not accommodated within budgets. These include:

o Budget to facilitate the Three Waters transition

o City-wide climate change adaptation/mitigation

o Budget to conduct an LTP amendment if required for housing and/or the Aquatic Centre

o Future of the i-SITE Visitor Centre to be considered in conjunction with the section 17A review already conducted, and

o Salary pressures due to market increases.

· The plan may be soon outdated if assumptions about the reform programme being driven by central government (including Three Waters, the local government review, and the replacement of the Resource Management Act) do not reflect the reality

· Council may need to pursue a LTP amendment in 2023 to action Council’s decisions about its housing portfolio, the Napier Aquatic Centre redevelopment, and/or any other issues that may arise in the short term which trigger section 97 of the LGA.

· Council may uncover unknown issues with Council infrastructure (including aging componentry or earthquake vulnerability) which has not been factored into budgets.

· Council may need to find unbudgeted money to implement the climate change strategy Council directed to be developed as part of LTP 2021-31.

1.10. Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the information outlined in this report as the basis for the development of an Annual Plan consultation document and Annual Plan 2022/23, noting that the consultation document will come back to Council for formal adoption on 31 March 2022.

b. Not approve the information outlined in this report as the basis for the development of an Annual Plan consultation document and Annual Plan 2022/23.

c. Approve in part the information outlined in this report as the basis for the development of an Annual Plan consultation document and Annual Plan 2022/23, and direct officers where to depart from the recommended approach, noting that the consultation document will come back to Council for formal adoption on 31 March 2022.

1.11. Development of Preferred Option

Option A – Approve the information outlined in this report as the basis for the development of an Annual Plan consultation document and Annual Plan 2022/23. The proposed budgets and consultation approach reflected in this report has been through a robust review with Elected Members. This report contains the best information available to date.

5.1 Attachments

1 2022/23 Draft Annual Plan Financial Statements (Doc Id 1439984 )

2 2022/23 Capital programme changes (Doc Id 1438850)

3 Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2022/23 (Doc Id 1439912)

4 High Level Consultation Plan (Doc Id 1440077)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda Item 8

8. 3 Waters Reform - Transiton Unit

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1438783
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

8.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to approve delegation to the Chief Executive to constructively work with the National Transition Unit for Three Waters.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. That Council in continuing its advocacy approach which opposes the reform, delegate to the Chief Executive to undertake necessary steps to ensure Council is reform ready and able to constructively contribute to the work of the National Transition Unit.

8.2 Background Summary

In July 2020, the Government launched the Three Waters Reform Programme to reform local government three waters service delivery arrangements. Napier City Council participated fully in the reform programme and provided feedback on the reform proposals.

On 27 October 2021, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta confirmed the Government will create four publicly owned water entities and that participation would be mandatory for councils.

The Government has since established a National Transition Unit (NTU), for executing the Government’s decisions on Three Waters reform through a consistent and coordinated nationwide approach to transition.

From 1 July 2024, four new water services entities will deliver drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services to people across New Zealand.

From November 2021 to 1 July 2024, the transition from the current system to the new one will take place. The NTU will ensure the transition is efficient, effective and minimises disruption to communities and consumers.

The NTU will deliver a consistent and coordinated nationwide approach to the transition from the 67 councils who are currently responsible for water services to the new system. The NTU will work alongside councils, iwi/Māori, industry and the wider water sector to make the transition successful. The NTU has set up four Local Establishment Entities (LEEs), which will support the local transition in their area. On 1 July 2024, these four entities will become the four water services entities.

Details on the work being undertaken by the transition unit have been included in Attachments 1 and 2.

The Chief Executive will be required to complete the requested information to the National Transition Unit as it relates to Napier City Council.

Napier City Councils position

There is a group of councils around the country who have formed group opposed to the Government’s decision on the mandatory model of Three Waters reform. These councils support the new regulator and standards, but do not support the fixed view on the solution, being the mandatory four entity delivery model. Napier City Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding that set out the proposed objectives, and have been working with the review board on better understanding the requirements of Hawkes Bay.

These councils believe each Three Waters asset owner has the right to determine with their community how best to meet those standards and that there are a number of alternative and viable delivery models that would be supported by councils and ratepayers across New Zealand. There is a view that ‘one size does not fit all’.

Most councils agree that quality drinking water and better environmental outcomes are essential but some have a genuine difference of opinion with the current government on the structural solution.

The group in opposition to the proposal wish to be inclusive and transparent, so it is important to recognise the responsibility of Council to participate in the transition requirements of the Three Waters Transition Unit through the Department of Internal Affairs.

8.3 Issues

The information requests being asked of Councils may be subject to the provisions of LGOIMA as set out by legal advice to one of Councils.

8.4 Significance and Engagement

This report is provided for information purposes only and has been assessed as not significant.

8.5 Implications

Financial

There is a cost of council officer time to complete the information requests.

Social & Policy

No issues have been identified in this report.

Risk

That not participating in the requirements of the National Transition Unit that Napier City Council is not ready to transition for the mandatory requirement as set out by the Minister of Local Government. This could cause issues for Napier as a city in terms of work programme prioritisation in the future entity and/or more work programming issues for officers if requests are compressed into a smaller timeframe.

8.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

b. That Council do not support constructively contributing to the work of the National Transition Unit

8.7 Development of Preferred Option

There is considerable public interest in the Three Waters Reform and the decision to mandate the proposed model has not been well received by many parts of the community.

Councils who have signed and partnered through the MOU believe each Three Waters asset owner has the right to determine with their community how best to meet those standards and that there are a number of alternative and viable delivery models that would be supported by councils and ratepayers across New Zealand. There is a view that ‘one size does not fit all’.

Most councils agree that quality drinking water and better environmental outcomes are essential, but some have a genuine difference of opinion with the current Government on the structural solution. For these reasons, those councils that disagree with the Government and would like the ability to come together collectively to oppose the Government on behalf of their communities.

The attached Memorandum of Understanding sets out the proposed objectives, how the group operates and the financial commitment to participate. The attachment is Council’s open invitation to join the group in opposing the Government’s decision on the Three Waters reform model. There is acknowledgement that councils are in a range of positions in respect to their Three Waters infrastructure.

However, the group in opposition to the proposal wish to be inclusive and transparent and want to continue in good faith, and as such officers recommend:

a) That Council in continuing its advocacy approach which opposes the reform, delegate to the Chief Executive to undertake necessary steps to ensure Council is reform ready and able to constructively contribute to the work of the National Transition Unit.

8.8 Attachments

1 National Transition Unit - Implementing the Transition (Doc Id 1439004)

2 National Transition Unit - November 2021 (Doc Id 1439003)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda

REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STANDING COMMITTEES

Note: The Māori Committee Recommendations in relation to the Standing Committees items are recorded with each specific item.

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.

At the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) recommendation

Dep. Mayor Brosnan / Mayor Wise

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

Kua Mana

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

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.

At the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) meeting

The Officer spoke to the report, highlighting:

· 80% of Council housing is for Kaumatua or people with a disability. The rest is social housing which is more whanau based.

· Council does not have a preferred option currently, they are keen to hear from the Community about their preference. However Council does not have an appetite to sell the housing on the open market.

It was also noted that when Council begins the community consultation on the 16^th of March there will be an expectation that interested parties, such as community housing providers, may want to make a submission. So if there is an interest from Mana Ahuriri Trust or other iwi authorities, that is a good time to look at the possibilities available.

Council will be intentionally engaging with mana whenua, as it recognises this is a significant issue for local iwi.

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) recommendation

RTK Hawaikirangi / M Boag

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

Kua Mana

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

3. Community Grants and Funding Overview

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1374940
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Belinda McLeod, Community Funding Advisor Matt Adamson, Senior Advisor Policy

3.1 Purpose of Report

To provide an update on the activities of the Community Grants and Funding Programme.

At the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi (Māori Committee) recommendation

RTK Hawaikirangi / M Boag

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

Kua Mana

Committee's Recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Chrystal

The Napier People and Places Committee:

a. Receive the report titled “Community Grants and Funding Overview”.

Carried

Reports from Prosperous Napier Committee held 3 February 2022

1. Taradale Bridge Club Sponsorship Signage Request

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1425774
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jason Tickner, Team Leader Parks Reserves and Sportsgrounds

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision on the Taradale Bridge Club’s proposal (Doc Id 1426570) for sponsorship/naming rights in perpetuity, on the outside of their proposed clubhouse building at Park Island in accordance with Clause 25 of the Draft lease agreement.

At the Meeting

The Team Leader Parks, Reserves and Sportsground, Mr Tickner spoke to the report and advised that a Decision of Council was required due to funding arrangements for the building project, which had seen building and material costs increase substantially since the proposal had been brought to Council. Should the proposal not be approved the Bridge Club have advised that the project would not go ahead.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· That further communication with the Taradale Bridge Club and the sponsor regarding revised suggestions to the proposed building signage (figure 1) in the report had been held and reviewed with the name of the Club becoming the predominant wording on the signage and the sponsor’s name being placed in smaller lettering beneath it.

· The Bridge Club wished to make their branding and name the predominant feature of the signage and the sponsorship secondary.

· It was noted that Council’s current lease included restrictions/controls around external signage and advertising on the building and any signage would be required to be approved by Council.

· There was no restriction on internal signage in the Club Rooms.

· The lease is finite with a right of renewal and therefore the sponsorship agreement for the funding for naming rights in perpetuity would be a matter between the Club and Rodney Green Foundation funding sponsor to discuss.

· The Club would need to be clear with Rodney Green Foundation that if the lease changes, their rights to have signage on the building would be removed.

· The Decision to be made at the meeting was to approve or decline the signage proposal which would require an amendment to Clause 25 of the Lease Agreement to allow signage to be displayed or erected.

· If approved, the Taradale Bridge Club would then need to undertake the necessary the Resource Consent process and this could provide Council an opportunity to view the proposed signage.

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Chrystal

The Prosperous Napier Committee resolve to either:

a. Approve the Taradale Bridge Club’s proposal for external sponsorship/naming rights and associated signage from the Rodney Green Foundation on their proposed clubhouse building at Park Island.

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently due to funding arrangements for the building project.

Carried

Council Resolution

Mayor Wise / Councillor McGrath

That Council:

a) Approve the Taradale Bridge Club’s proposal for external sponsorship/naming rights and associated signage from the Rodney Green Foundation on their proposed clubhouse building at Park Island.

Carried

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda

3. Report on Three Waters Reform Programme

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1424057
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rebecca Huckle, Three Waters Reform Programme Manager

3.1 Purpose of Report

To inform the Council on the progress of the Three Waters Reform Programme within Napier for the period October to December 2021.

At the Meeting

The Three Waters Reform Programme Manager, Ms Huckle advised that this was a standard report that had previously been presented at the Sustainable Napier Committee however, going forward it would become a regular item on the Prosperous Napier Committee agenda.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· Future reports would include a legend key (Brown - started; Green - happy and Blue – performance going forward) for the table that indicated current progress on the programme of work.

· Iwi engagement on Three Waters and Cultural Values Assessments Programme of work was a Napier funded and instigated piece of work engaging with local iwi to discuss the importance of water to them.

· Trying to engage Council staff awareness in the importance of water around Napier and to Iwi to enable better decision making for the future.

· Separate reports are being obtained from all partners as part of the Plan and these would be collated later.

· In regard to funding received from the Department of Internal Affairs as long as the money has been committed and they can see contracts are in place and projects are nearing completion the money will not need to be returned.

· Funding from the Department of Internal Affairs was based on projected spend going forward and they needed to know where the money was to be spent.

· The highest risk would be with the regional projects, however officers were relatively confident with the progress being made with Council’s specific projects.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Simpson / Price

The Prosperous Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the report on the Three Waters Reform Programme

Carried

Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 10 February 2022

1. Petition - Pedestrian Crossing Island, Latham Street

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1418278
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Sahar Pour, Transportation Engineer

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council in regard to a petition received on
13 December 2021 from Juliet Greig on behalf of residents concerned about road safety in Latham Street. The petition (Doc ID 1426565) will be tabled at the meeting.

The Petitioners’ Prayer reads as follows:

“We, the residents below, support the proposal for Napier City Council to install a pedestrian crossing island on Latham Street, Napier South to help children and families cross the road on the way to and from Nelson Park School (Petition organised by Juliet Greig, Napier South, December 2021).”

There are 52 signatories to the Petition.

At the Meeting

The Officer spoke to the report noting that due to timing the roading team have not been able to develop options for a crossing on Latham Street or cost them properly at this stage. Depending on Council’s decision the team will then work with the Ward Councillors and petitioners to move to the next stage. It will take four to six weeks to get costings of preferred design options.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· The preferred option would probably be installed on the McLean Park side of the intersection of Latham Street and Morris Street. There are fewer house frontages there. Also part of the investigation would be to look at putting a splitter island in a side street as they help to slow down traffic.

· The crossing that was installed on Gloucester Street Taradale, near Atawhai Resthome, a few years ago was a more complicated crossing as there was a bus stop near the location to take into account.

· The protected cycle lanes for the length of Latham Street was deprioritised due to the cost of the project. If the team were directed to look at this project this year available funding would need to be considered. Reprioritisation of the capital spend is being worked on currently now big projects from 2021 have been completed.

· Once the four to six week period to carry out investigation, design and costing is compete, then the project would have to be added to the construction programme, but it is not possible to give a timeframe on when that construction could begin at this point in time.

· This project would qualify for Waka Kotahi funding, but only for investment support, which would be 51% of the total project cost. It would be classified as walking and cycling improvements and road safety improvements.

· Any roading project the Council undertakes follows accessibility guidance for limited mobility pedestrians. These are part of the design standards.

· Council has not carried out vehicle or cycle counts in this area. There is anecdotal evidence of the busyness of Latham Street. Counts can change quickly, especially around Intermediate Schools as the population totally changes every two years. With Nelson Park Primary School the road users will be in place for longer as the population is there for longer.

Committee's Recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Boag

The Sustainable Napier Committee:

a. Receive the report titled “Petition for a Pedestrian Crossing Island, Latham Street, Napier South”.

b. Receive the tabled petition of 52 signatories from residents.

c. Support in principle the petition which seeks additional traffic calming and pedestrian crossing subject to detailed investigation including consultation

d. Instruct Officers to communicate findings and outcomes to the Lead Petitioner and Ward Councillors.

Carried

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda

Reports from Future Napier Committee held 10 February 2022

1. Resource Consent Activity Update

Type of Report:	Enter Significance of Report
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1423713
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 Meeting

The Team Leader Planning and Compliance, Mr Johnson spoke to the report, providing a brief overview and noted that since the November update, the submission of applications to the Resource Consenting team were steady with a 10% increase in submitted applications compared to the same period 12 months earlier (70 applications compared to 63).

In response to questions from Councillors it was clarified that:

· In respect to the sale of goods from the Koha Shed, the application submitted by the applicant indicated there maybe a market they wished to operate in the future and wished the opportunity to submit this as part of the application to ensure Council was aware of it.

· Whether or not the applicant goes ahead with a market at the Koha Shed would be a separate matter and would need to come back to Council to ensure such an operation would not require a resource consent.

· Final responses from the applicant yet to be received. Until all information was received the final assessment could not be completed.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Price

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Note the resource consent activity update for period 21 October 2021 to
18 January 2022

Carried

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.

At the Meeting

The Council Officer spoke to the report. In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified that:

· The Jackson’s Engineering report, which was part of the mechanical review, identified the Building Management System, which controls all the information around the Aquatic Centre, is at end of life and is no longer supported. The system has been identified as likely to fail in just over five years, and if that happened it would be a significant closure of the complex whilst an alternative was sourced and installed. The Heat pump for the Ivan Wilson complex was also identified as likely to fail within the next five years, and this would cause a closer of that pool for a significant period whilst a replacement was sourced and installed.

· This report is a high level overview of what is required to keep the Aquatic Centre functioning. Since writing the report other options for operating the facility have come to light. One of these is a run-to-failure model. Council has a legislative obligation to meet the levels of service outlined in its LTP and must have a sustainable plan to achieve that. If the run-to-failure model was preferred Community Consultation would be required, otherwise as parts of the facility failed and needed to be closed the Council would not be meeting the levels of service required.

· Within the Health & Safety/legislative compliance area suitable hoists are required for access to the pools. There is a hoist for one of the spa pools, but this has had long-standing operational issues and needs replacing; there is also a mobile hoist which can be moved to different areas in the facility and provides accessibility. A Barrier Free assessment was done and recommended more hoists, and other ways to provide more dignity for people getting in and out of the pool than what is currently provided. The improvements being discussed today include budget to implement such elements.

· The internal wall design for the Ivan Wilson complex is based on a best practice concept design which is a different specification than what is currently there. It lifts the timber up and sits it on a concrete nib. This design will give longevity and assurance that the walls will not fail, as the timber will not be in contact with water, through cleaning and continued use. This will use the majority of the 3,417,742 needed for the internal wall remediation. There are other options which will cost less, but will not have the same longevity of use.

· The wall remediation would address the badly deteriorated timber framing under the cladding. As this deteriorates further the walls would move, but there would be no outward signs of degradation. Council does not have a timeframe of when this situation would become critical under Health & Safety, or other, legislation.

· The term of the Loan proposed for this project would be over ten years. This would be a 1.4% rates increase to complete the work required.

· Currently Council is projected to have paid off all loans over the next ten years, this borrowing may have an impact on that outcome, but there is time to work towards a balanced budget.

· A run-to-failure model would mean the facility could close at short notice without a backup plan, which users could find unsettling.

· If the facility closed this would affect 30-35 Council positions. Council is obligated to take all practicable steps to retain the staff affected.

· Demand on Napier aquatic facilities has not been met for a number of years. Currently there are approximately 500 to 600 learn to swim users at the facility, which without Covid setting disruptions can be as high as 900, along with additional aqua aerobic users, competitive swim training users and recreational users.

ACTION: Officers to seek advice on whether the more detailed information presented in this report is new information in terms of the 2021/22 Annual Plan. Also to clarify Council’s obligations to the community if a run-to-failure model or closure of the facility is the preferred option.

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

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.

At the Meeting

Council Officers spoke to the report and showed a PowerPoint presentation (Doc ID: 1436205). It was noted by the Chief Executive that this report was not able to be presented at the Sustainable Napier Committee meeting held on the 10^th of February due to the late arrival of important consultant reports.

In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified:

· The purpose of this report is to provide further information to inform a provisional decision on a way forward. This additional information is a geotech analysis of the Onekawa site, a possible site analysis, and a cost analysis. It is acknowledged this is a high interest item and that construction costs continue to rise, so officers will be proceeding with urgency.

· The cost of additional investigations, since the development of a new aquatic facility project was halted, has been $223,000.

· Financial questions in regards to the two sites can be worked through in more detail at the 10 March 2022 Ordinary Council meeting, along with who is best to answer the questions Elected Members may have, whether that is council officers, consultants or the community.

· The Mitre 10 Sports Park 50 metre pool is due to be completed mid-2022, but this aims to cater for high performance sports and swim sports. It will not be a venue for recreational swimmers.

· The options for community consultation will not be decided on at this meeting; it will need to go through its own approvals process, and there are ways to structure consultation questions to incorporate more than one option at the Onekawa site.

· Three metres is not very deep for a landfill. Onekawa was not a landfill under the current landfill code and practices, it was more of an unregulated tip site.

· The Hornby pool and library in Christchurch project is on an old landfill. That project is more advanced, with an architectural masterplan and a large project team. Some key assumptions have had to be made for Onekawa’s risk register, particularly around the level the pool lies. Hornby does not have the shallow ground water issue which Onekawa has, also Onekawa’s soil profile has very low strength materials, which means there is very little strength in the soil. In Hornby steel piles were driven through into gravel, and this mitigates geotechnical risk. Onekawa does not have a solid gravel layer and therefore would require significant ground work to achieve the same ends so piling has not be considered at this point. Also the cost of steel is subject to significant price fluctuations.

ACTION – Elected Members to collate questions and send through to council officers to address.

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 10 March 2022 - Open Agenda

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 21 December 2021
Time:	10.00am – 11.33am (Adopt Annual Report/Bylaws)
Venue	Large Exhibition Hall Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook site

Present	Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Browne [via Zoom], Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine [via Zoom], Taylor and Wright [via Zoom]
In Attendance	Chief Executive (Steph Rotarangi) Director City Services (Lance Titter) Director City Strategy (Richard Munneke) Director Community Services (Antoinette Campbell) Director Corporate Services (Adele Henderson) Acting Director Infrastructure Services, (Debra Stewart) Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo) Chief Financial Officer (Caroline Thomson) Manager Regulatory Solutions (Rachael Horton) Manager Community Strategies (Natasha Mackie) Communications Manager (Jess Soutar-Barron) Team Leader Parks Reserves and Sportsgrounds (Jason Tickner) Senior Advisor Policy (Matt Adamson) [via Zoom] Māori Partnership Manager - Te Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori (Hilary Prentice) [via Zoom] Accounting Manager (Talia Foster) Corporate Accountant (Heather Sharp) Finance Accountant (Jaimie McIvor) External Auditor (Karen Young; Audit New Zealand) [via Zoom]
Public Forum:	Bradley Graham
Administration	Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Anna Eady)

Karakia

The elected members opened the meeting with a karakia.

Apologies
Council resolution	Dep. Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Taylor That the apology for absence from Councillor Boag be accepted. Carried

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Bradley Graham - Skid Pads for Recreational Drivers spoke to the meeting in regard to drifting which is the world’s fastest growing motor sport and local people of all ages are interested in this sport. Not only doing burnouts and drifting in their cars, but are doing it on the public roads. This is because the prices to travel to the closest track are too high, registration fees, accommodation expenses etc. are too costly for the younger generation of boy racers to afford.

The problem of boy racers on local streets is not getting any better and the current policing models are not solving any issues. Convictions that go with loss of traction of a very minor nature are making criminals of a large group of Hawke’s Bay youth, limiting their ability to travel overseas and get employment. Boy racers are people who just love cars.

Mr Graham advised that he had met with Anna Lorck (Labour MP), Greg Murphy (super car driver) and the Hastings District Council to discuss the practicalities of developing a skid pad for cars in Hawke’s Bay. They were supportive of the idea as was Inspector Matt Broderick (Road Policing and Fleet Manager) and believed it would assist in getting boy racers off the public road.

His vision was to change the boy racer culture and have an area they could go legally to “spin the tyres”, have fees in place for locals so they can frequent the pad regularly on certain dates, organising and holding a few events for the year for locals and out-of-towners. The vision is for a grass roots pad for the every day person to be able to participate.

Mr Graham was not seeking funding but support from Council and the Police to obtain land they could lease and believed if he had this support people would be more likely to lease the land. The skid pad would be 20m x 20m and there would need to be some parking for vehicles and this could be a paddock. He had tried for the past twelve months to lease some land, however the boy racer name had made it difficult and he wished to change the culture to make if family friendly.

Council agreed that Councillor McGrath would assist and work with Mr Graham.

Announcements by the Mayor

The Mayor wished everyone a safe and festive season and acknowledged that it had been a busy and challenging year and thanked elected members and staff for their hard work and the community who had assisted through various consultation processes.

Announcements by the management

“Thinkfest” - The Community Strategies Manager, Ms Mackie updated the meeting on the recent “Thinkfest” event held on 20 November 2021 (International Children Day). This event supported the development of the Youth and Wellbeing Strategy and the Napier City Pilot Trust was acknowledged for their participation and assistance in progressing the Strategy.

Ms Mackie displayed a two minute video of the “Thinkfest” which included responses to the questions “What makes a good life?” and “What is important for a good life in Ahuriri ?” and some of the comments that evolved included children feeling safe, loved, respected connected and to belong was their vision for a good life.

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund – The Director City Strategy, Mr Munneke advised that the second round of application (Request for Proposal) to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund for Maraenui Stormwater improvements was submitted on Friday, 17 December 2021. If successful, Council could expect to be notified in March 2022.

Christmas/New Year - The Chief Executive advised that Council facilities would officially close at midday on Friday, 24 December 2021 and would re-open on Wednesday, 5 January 2021. Council would be contactable 24/7 during the holiday period through the website napier.govt.nz.contactus.

Confirmation of minutes – There were no minutes to confirm.

Agenda Items

With the agreement of the meeting Agenda Items were taken out of order.

2. Budgets to be carried forward to 2021/22

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1362701
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer Rudolf Britz, Strategic Finance Advisor

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval to carry forward budgets into 2021/22 or future years depending on the timing of the programme.

At the meeting

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson spoke to the report advising that the total to carry forward from 2020/21 had increased compared to previous years due to Council completing $43.4m of the $100m budgeted in the revised 2020/21 Annual Plan capital programme ($59.5m excluding carry forwards from 2019/20). Delivery of the Capital Plan has been impacted by Covid-19 and the November flooding event.

It was noted that the 3 Waters Reform Programme required the money to be spent by June 2022 and projects were on track for this completion date. A sum of $918,000 had yet to be tagged and as part of the condition of funding any unspent funds would be returned if not spent. The Finance Team have a dedicated person monitoring and tracking projects underway and were working with the 3 Waters Programme Reform Team.

Regular reporting on the projects would continue through the Sustainable Napier Committee.

Council resolution

Councillors Taylor / Price

That Council:

a. Approve capital carry forward budgeted expenditure of $44,101,849 from 2020/21 into 2021/22 (or future years depending on the timing of the programme).

b. Approve total operational expenditure carry forward budgeted expenditure of $2,581,304 from 2020/21 into 2021/22.

c. Approve capital expenditure carry forward budgets for the three waters reform programme of $7,059,988 from 2020/21 into 2021/22.

d. Approve operational expenditure carry forward budgets for the three waters reform programme of $2,602,831 from 2020/21 into 2021/22.

e. Note that the total capital, operational expenditure and revenue carry forward of the three waters reform program nets to zero.

Carried

3. Napier City Council Bylaws Review

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1399632
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to consider and respond to submissions from the community in relation to Napier City Council’s (the Council) proposal to re-make ten current Napier City bylaws that were revoked pursuant to s160A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) on 17 December 2021 (the proposal).

At the meeting

The Manager Regulatory Solutions, Ms Horton spoke to the report which related to the remaking of ten Council Bylaws. Public consultation to renew ten bylaws, which were revoked on 17 December 2021, had now been completed. Public submissions opened on 22 November and closed on 10 December with a total of 14 submissions received from members of the public and public and private organisations.

All submissions received had been considered and it was proposed to make minor amendments to the Animal Control Bylaw and the Parks and Reserves Bylaw. The Cemetery Bylaw and the Fire Control Bylaw reviews would be brought forward. Ms Horton recommended adopting the remaining six bylaws.

In responses to questions the following points were noted:

· Although some points had been raised in submissions in regard to the Trading in Public Places Bylaw no changes were recommended. It was noted that the Trading in Public Places Bylaw was there to control the commercial activities particularly mobile shops and retailers to ensure retailers have commercial value in places. It was working well and there had been some changes to events recently to allow more mobile food businesses to cater for events.

· Bylaws could not identify just one type of mobile shop ie an ice cream truck as this would require a change in policy and it is considered that the current bylaw is working well to protect retail shops from mobile trading in close proximity and ensuring all mobile vendors have a fair opportunity to trade..

· The fixed period of time an operator could stop of two hours created a fair platform for all mobile vendors.

· Cats are currently not regulated by the Animal Control Bylaw and submissions received in regard to regulating cat ownership could be considered in the future as this would require a significant policy change requiring robust consultation.

· At this stage it appears that only Wellington City Council has a desexing programme that includes cat ownership.

Council resolution

Dep. Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Taylor

That Council:

· Approve the adoption of the following Proposed Bylaws coming in to effect from the date of this resolution, incorporating the minor changes described above, as well as a number of minor formatting and grammatical amendments, to the previous editions considered by Council at its Emergency Meeting on 16 November 2021, and following consideration of public feedback:

§ Introductory Bylaw 2021

§ Animal Control Bylaw 2021

§ Cemeteries Bylaw 2021

§ Fire Control Bylaw 2021

§ Parking Control Bylaw 2021

§ Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2021

§ Public Places Bylaw 2021

§ Public Places Liquor Control Bylaw 2021

§ Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2021

§ Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2021

· Determine that the Proposed Bylaws are:

o The most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in terms of sections 155(2)(b) and 155(3) of the LGA; and

o Not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

· Authorise Officers to notify submitters and the public that the Proposed Bylaws have been adopted and will become operative from 21 December 2021.

Carried

4. Memorandum of Transition for Coastal Hazards Service Delivery

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1410085
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

4.1 Purpose of Report

This paper presents a proposed Coastal Hazards Memorandum of Transition (“MoT”)

for consideration.

At the meeting

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson advised that the Memorandum of Transition would provide a mechanism for Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to confirm the agreed arrangements for implementing the Coastal Hazard Strategy and the associated transfer of assets recommended by the Funding Review.

This document will enable the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to amend its Long Term Plan without objection from territorial authorities under section 16 of the Local Government Act 2002.

It is proposed that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council would take charge of adapting the coastal hazard risks and implement the Coastal Hazard Strategy.

The Hastings District Council and Napier City Council will transfer their relevant assets to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council from 1 July 2024 to align with the Regional Council’s 2024-2034 Long Term Plan. Hastings District Council have endorsed the Memorandum of Transition and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will consider it at their meeting in February 2022.

The Advisory Committee would include representatives from Maungaharuru-Tangitū, Mana Ahuriri and the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust.

Council resolution

Dep. Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Price

That Council:

a. Receive the report titled “Memorandum of Transition for Coastal Hazards Service Delivery” dated 21 December 2021.

b. Endorses the Memorandum of Transition.

c. Instructs the Chief Executive to execute the Memorandum of Transition on behalf of Napier City Council following satisfaction of consultation requirements under Clause 7 of the Hawke’s Bay Region’s Triennial Agreement for the Triennium October 2019 – 2022.

d. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive to approve changes to the Memorandum of Transition should they be required by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hastings District Council in consultation with the Napier City Council members of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

Carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.48am

and reconvened at 11.17am.

1. Adoption of Annual Report 2020/21 and Summary Annual Report 2020/21

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1401929
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer

1.1 Purpose of Report

To present the Napier City Council Annual Report 2020/21 and Summary Annual Report 2020/21 for adoption by Council.

At the meeting

The Audit opinion for 2020/21 was tabled at the meeting (Doc Id 1417376) and included an emphasis of matter and a qualification relating to three non-financial performance measures. Circulated at the meeting were final changes to the Annual Report (Doc Id 1417845).

The Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thomson advised he purpose of the report was to present the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report for 2020/21. Under the Local Government Act the Annual Report is required to be adopted prior to 30 October each year. However, last year the government passed a Covid legislation bill to extend the deadline for adoption to 31 December 2020 and they have passed the same legislation again this year to extend the adoption dates out to 31 December 2021.

Ms Thomson reported an overall operating surplus of $27.7m and a balanced budget position for the year ended 30 June 2021. The total revenue of $164m was above budget by $42m. This was mainly due to the significant uplift in investment property gains of $21.6m, 3 waters reform funding received from Department of Internal Affairs of $7.2m and Tourism activities performing better than anticipated.

Total expenditure of $136m was above budget by $14m due to higher depreciation from uplift in asset values the previous year, November flooding costs and costs associated with Parkland development.

Ms Thomson advised that Audit were satisfied that the financial statements fairly reflect Council’s activities for the year and its financial position. The emphasis of matter paragraph referred to the potential impact of the 3 waters reform for Council.

The qualified audit opinion related to three performance measures whereby audit were unable to determine that the reporting on these measures was materially correct. The performance measures impacted related to the fault response times for recorded for water supply, wastewater and stormwater. As part of Audit’s testing they identified a number of discrepancies relating to response times and recording of complaints and have assessed the number of errors are above their threshold for materiality.

The disclosures in the Annual Report and summary report include Council’s proposed remedial actions.

Audit New Zealand Director Karen Young joined the meeting via Zoom and was available to provide more detail on the issues raised in the audit opinion.

In response to questions the following points were noted:

· In regards to the performance measure and complaints it was noted that this was a new measure implemented last year and a number of Councils around New Zealand had difficulty with compliance.

· Discussion was being held with the Department of Internal Affairs to determine if the performance measure could be modified.

· If the performance measure is not modified Council would be unlikely to be achieve this measure in the future as it is very difficult to meet with the ways the complaints are categorised that created error.

· The main reason for non-conformance is the mis-categorisation of complaints that flow into different areas. Training and review of local systems would assist in improvements.

· Council has changed the complaints process this year to improve matrix, ability to respond and for better compliance going forward.

ACTION The Chief Executive will provide an update report on the Complaints System and operation.

Council resolution

Mayor Wise / Dep. Mayor Brosnan

That Council:

a. Receives the report titled “Adoption of Annual Report 2020/21 and Summary Annual Report 2020/21” dated 21 December 2021.

b. Note the 2020/21 Annual Report has been considered by the Audit and Risk Committee.

c. Note the Auditor’s report includes an emphasis of matter paragraph drawing attention to Government announcement to introduce legislation to establish four publicly owned water entities from 1 July 2024.

d. Note the qualified Audit opinion on the activity group statements relating to incomplete information about response times and the number of complaints for some services.

e. Note that the Audit opinion will be provided at the Council meeting of 21 December 2021, with the Audit Director for Audit NZ available to talk to the opinion.

f. Adopt the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report for Napier City Council for 2020/21 subject to any grammatical and minor changes and any changes due to the requirements of the audit process.

Carried

Attachments

1 Audit New Zealand's opinion tabled at the meeting (Doc Id 1417376)

2 Circulated Final Changes to the Annual Report at Council meeting (Doc Id 1417845)

The meeting closed with a karakia at 11.33am

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

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

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

Meeting Date:	Thursday 10 March 2022
Time:	9.00am
Venue:	Zoom (Audio Visual Link)
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook site

Council Members	Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright
Officer Responsible	Chief Executive
Administrator	Governance Team
	Next Council Meeting Thursday 31 March 2022

· Council (Housing Review Hearings)	New date	Commencing 18 May 2022 – 9.00am
· Council (Tradewaste Bylaw Hearings)	New date	Commencing 22 June 2022 - 9.00am
· Council (Dog Control Bylaw Hearings)	New date	Commencing 12 July 2022 – 9.00am

General subject of each matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.	Ground(s) under section 48(1) to the passing of this resolution.
Agenda Items
1. Rephasing of Funding for Land Purchase	7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
2. Council Projects Fund - Applications	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
3. Chief Executive Key Performance Indicators - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person 7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Reports from Sustainable Napier Committee held 10 February 2022
1. Whakarire Revetment Project Update	7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Location/Road Name	Current Speed Limit (km/h)	Proposed Speed Limit (km/h)
Willowbank Avenue	100	80
Eskdale School (Variable Limits)	80	40
Port Ahuriri School (extension of variable school zone)	50	30
Reignier Catholic School (variable school zone)	50	30

Type of Report:	Contractual
Legal Reference:	Reserves Act 1977
Document ID:	1424320
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property