Ordinary Meeting of Council
Open Minutes
|
Meeting Date: |
Commencing Monday, 27 May 2024; and Reconvened on: Tuesday, 28 May 2024; and Wednesday, 29 May 2024 |
|
Time: |
10.0am - 6.16pm 9.00am - 4.30pm 9.00am – 5.30pm |
|
Venue |
Small Exhibition Hall (27 and 29 May 2024) Breakout
Room 2 (30 May 2024 |
|
|
Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page |
|
Present |
Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor |
|
In Attendance |
Chief Executive (Louise Miller) Deputy Chief Executive/ Executive Director Corporate Services (Jessica Ellerm) Executive Director City Services (Lance Titter) Executive Director City Strategies (Rachael Bailey) Executive Director Infrastructure Services (Russell Bond) Executive Director Community Services (Thunes Cloete) Manager Communications and Marketing (Julia Stevens) Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo) Chief Financial Officer (Caroline Thomson) Manager Strategy and Transformation (Stephanie Murphy) Senior Advisor Corporate Planning (Danica Rio) Sign Language Interpreters: (Sarah Billing and Cathie Siebert) |
|
Submitters speaking: |
Liz Church; Mervyn Kite; Jo Huata; Ron & Ngaire Swenson; Ryan Hambleton, Sue Smith and Tina Haslett (Sport Hawke’s Bay); Paul Eady; Dan Scott; John Sutherland; Glenn Marshall; Andrew Pearce and Joe McAllese (Kaiangaroa Residents Association); Phil Ryan; Sir Graeme Avery (Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust); Anna Pierard (Prima Volta Charitable Trust); Richard Catley (Pirimai Residents’ Association); Gordon Hart and Phillip Ellenberg; Ian McPherson; John Porter; Pene Johnstone; Andrew Watts; Georgie Robertson; Mark Brown-Thomas; Andrew Torrens and Jacklyn Hankin; Karl Goodchild; John McGifford and Darran Mason / Andy Walker (Central Football / Westshore Resident and Development Assn Inc); Sue Macdonald and Sarah Appley (Ahuriri Estuary Protection Society); Fred Koenders; Dennis Hall; Dawn Bedingfield (Napier Housing Coalition); Michael Hayes and Mark Cleary (Napier Pilot City Trust) |
|
Administration |
Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Jemma McDade) |
Ordinary Meeting of Council – Open Minutes
Table of Contents
Order of Business Page No.
Announcements by the management
1. Submissions on the Three-Year Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document
Order of Business
The meeting opened with the Council karakia.
Nil
The following Councillors declared conflicts of interest in the following submissions and should not be considered as voting on these matters:
Councillor Taylor:
· Sports Hawke’s Bay (#358)
· Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust (#551)
Councillor Boag:
· Greypower (#820)
Councillors Chrystal and Tareha
· Ahuriri Rockpools Development Trust (#543)
Nil
The Mayor opened the proceedings and welcomed attendees, noting that the meeting was being both recorded and livestreamed.
Announcements by the management
Nil
Nil
Standing Order 4.2 – Meeting duration
A meeting cannot continue more than six hours from when it starts (including any adjournments) or after 10.30pm, unless the meeting resolves to continue. If there is not such resolution any business on the agenda that has not been dealt with must be adjourned, transferred to the next meeting or transferred to an extraordinary meeting.
No meeting can sit for more than two hours continuously without a break of at least ten minutes unless the meeting resolves to extend the time before a break”.
|
Council resolution |
The Council: Pursuant to Standing Order 4.2 an extension of time until 7.30pm on 27 May 2024 be granted. |
1. Submissions on the Three-Year Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document
|
Type of Report: |
Legal and Operational |
|
Legal Reference: |
Local Government Act 2002 |
|
Document ID: |
1759918 |
|
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Danica Rio, Senior Advisor Corporate Planning Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer Jessica Ellerm, Deputy Chief Executive / Executive Director Corporate Services |
1.1 Purpose of Report
This report summarises submissions received on the Three-Year Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document and seeks final decisions for incorporation into Napier City Council’s Three-Year Plan, due to be adopted at the Council meeting on 27 June 2024.
All submissions are provided in full as attachments to this report (multiple volumes due to the number of submissions and accompanying attachments), along with comments from officers where relevant for consideration by Elected Members.
|
PRESENTATION OF ORAL SUBMISSIONS The following submitters spoke to their submissions.
|
|
Liz Church (#211) spoke to her submission supporting the retention of Council retirement housing and rather than retrofit, which is expensive, have new housing built to universal design standards for the older population. Improve and refurbish, have universal design in planning and pre-planning. Focus on retirement housing as cannot do both well. |
|
Mervyn Kite (#327) spoke to his submission in regard to the Rural Residential Zone development which includes Poraiti, Tironui Drive area, Kaimata Heights, Esk Hills area and northern Hill Road. In Kaimata Heights and Esk Hills a stormwater rate has been applied. However this has not been applied to Poraiti, northern Hill Road, Eskdale Lane and Esk View Road, despite many of these properties being smaller than the "threshold". |
|
Jo Huata (#322) spoke to her submission which did not support building a new Civic Centre and Library or redesign of Emerson Street only a year since Cyclone Gabrielle. Sad to know looking to spend $58m when there are houses needing to be built. She also did not support the increase in gym fees for Ocean Spa. |
|
Ron and Ngaire Swenson (#460) – spoke to their submission in opposition of the proposed 140% rate increase to their 1.7 hectare property. Rates to increase from $2750 to $8994. The charge for stormwater is a new charge. They are on a private road maintained by residents, with their own septic tank.
The submitters were advised a significant portion of 140% increase relates to the change in the land value. Council does not set land value and cannot prevent changes to land value. The Quotable Value process is independent of council.
|
|
Ryan Hambleton CE (Sue Smith – General Manager, Tina Haslett Places and Spaces Lead #358) spoke on behalf of the Sport Hawke’s Bay submission requesting financial support of two priority regional planning projects – the Regional Spaces and Places Plan and the Regional Aquatics Plan. |
|
Paul Eady #494 spoke to his submission highlighting the following: · Opposed both housing options and suggested a Housing Trust model with trustees appointed by Council. · The best spending should be done through good district planning, community strategies and engagement, and development of vertical infrastructure and networks. · CCTO’s should include all Council owned buildings and facilities to ensure maximum return and investment. · Fees and charges should be based on user pay with minimum top up from general rates. · Tourism facilities become CCTOs. · Co-locate the library with Council offices in the Library Tower. · Opposed to spending money on a new library, street upgrade or new Council offices. · In the current economic environment, all capital expenditure should be limited to getting core infrastructure and services to minimum agreed level of service and generating good data from which to develop the 2027 LTP, which should be one that uses reality as the basis for its aspirations.
|
|
The meeting adjourned for Morning Tea at 11.00am and reconvened at 11.15am |
|
Dan Scott (#168) via zoom link spoke to his submission in opposition to selling off Council housing, he would rather Council continue to invest in council housing for those on low incomes and with special housing needs. Mr Scott supported: · building resilience and suggested that measures to reduce emissions be added. · The CCTO option, but only if there is a guarantee that the investment will be ethical and meeting social obligations (e.g. not investing in initiatives that would increase emissions, fund conflict, etc.). · Increasing fees and charges beyond CPI as long as it is done equitably.
|
|
John Sutherland (#214) spoke to his submission in regard to the 50% increase in Ocean Spa fees, with a fee reduction for seniors, as there are in many other Council facilities. Mr Sutherland suggested a 25% reduction for seniors for full use or a 50% reduction for seniors with reduced hours i.e. 10.00am to 3.00pm Monday to Friday during the quiet times. Offer casual 25% reduction for swim. |
|
Glenn Marshall (#459) spoke to his submission and highlighted the following: · The preferred housing option is discriminatory based on age. · Sell all social housing - should not be Council’s responsibility. · Aquarium should be closed down as it is a loss making luxury item. · Office premises – intergenerational loans instead of prioritising and keeping debt under control · Opposed the proposed rate increase. |
|
Andrew Pearce and Joe McAleese (#716) spoke on behalf of the Kaiangaroa Residents Association to a very comprehensive submission, also displaying a PowerPoint presentation (Doc Id 1763442) in regard to proposed rate increases to properties in Kaingarora Place and proposed remedies. |
|
Phil Ryan (#560) spoke to his submission opposing the sale of Council housing, the proposed rate increase and the resilience rate. He supported the sale of non-performing assets and felt that the land on Marine Parade should be made available for small scale commercial development. |
|
Sir Graeme Avery (#551) spoke on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust displaying a PowerPoint presentation (Doc Id 1763821) requesting funding of $1m and an annual grant of $150,000 towards the cost of developing and delivering well-being programmes to Napier citizens. |
|
Anna Pierard (#601) spoke on behalf of the Prima Volta Trust displaying a PowerPoint presentation (Doc Id 1763820) in support of the consultation topics. |
|
Mark Brown-Thomas (#823) spoke to his submission that there was a need to prioritise projects which could be deferred, delayed or discarded. Opposed the sale of Council housing. Strategic review came out last week and four strategic recommendations accepted by government. Change of direction for social investment in housing, looking at upgrading commercial housing providers, commercial / community housing authority. Councils and government will merge social housing and jointly have a commercial housing provider. |
|
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.30pm and reconvened at 2.00pm |
|
Richard Catley (#547) – spoke on behalf of the Pirimai Residents Association submission requesting funding and construction of an access bridge across the Te Awa drain or (Cross country drain) between Ulyatt Road and McNaughton place, to extend the scope of walking and cycling activities for the dozens of daily users. Bupa is to contribute $30,000 to a community project. |
|
Gordon Hart and Phillip Ellenberg (#643) spoke on behalf of the volunteers working at the Faraday Museum of Technology displaying a PowerPoint presentation (Doc Id 1769207). Their submission requested a preference that in finalising the 2024-27 Three-Year Plan, Council commits to ensuring that no short-term expediencies would be enacted that would affect the long-term preservation of culture or heritage assets, or adversely affect the financial and economic plans necessary to support these longer-term plans.
Other volunteers spoke in support of the Faraday Centre’s submission.
Mayor Wise thanked the volunteers for their work at the Faraday Centre and advised that the option of purchasing and upgrading the building will be considered and volunteers will be involved in the business plan. |
|
Ian McPherson (#619) spoke to his submission as a volunteer of the Faraday Museum of Technology and his concern that the operation was under review. Mr McPherson supported the submission of Gordon Hart and did not support the moving of the Museum to another location. |
|
John Porter (#733) spoke to his submission objecting to the proposed rate increase of 23.7% and the $9.76m for staff wages without deciding where it is going.
|
|
Pene Johnstone (#762) spoke to her submission in support of Retirement Only for the Housing Strategy and selling Nelson Place, Wellesley Place and Carlyle Place with the sale proceeds used for building more retirement housing. Ms Johnstone objected to the proposed rates increase and did not support the Resilience rate, Council Control Trading Organisations or the new library building. She supported an increase in some fees and charges. Library Tower be strengthened and redeveloped to house the new library, council chambers and staff. Napier ratepayers cannot afford the increase in rates.
|
|
Andrew Watts (#720) spoke to his submission objecting to the proposed rate increase for properties in the Rural / Lifestyle / Residential properties of Esk Hills or Kaimata Road. Mr Watts supported the submission of Andrew Pearce (#716). He requested a cap of 30% on rate increases be explored.
Mayor Wise advised: That the stormwater map will be discussed in deliberations on Wednesday, 30 May 2024.
That the QV valuations was an independent process which Council has no input into or ability to change the valuations and suggested that residents submit an objection to QV on their land valuation.
|
|
Georgie Robertson (#781) via zoom link spoke to her submission objecting to the proposed rate increase in the Rural and Rural Lifestyle/Residential areas including Esk Hills, Kaimata Heights and Kaimanawa Heights. Ms Robertson supported the submission of Andrew Pearce (#716).
|
|
Steve Liddle (#791) spoke to his submission addressing the consultation topics and acknowledging it was good to be consulted. Mr Liddle supported Council keeping social housing for emergency or retired people or for people on limited incomes. He suggested that Council not allow tourist dollars to override social concerns – even the “untidiness” of rough sleepers who have no options because of previous underplanning, outsourcing. Idea that private business does it better has been disproven. It was noted that Mr Liddle’s reference to other councils accessing rental subsidies was not something NCC was able to do. Christchurch had a separate Community Housing Trust that allows them to access to this fund. Although Council has advocated having access there has been no support from Central Government. |
|
The meeting adjourned for afternoon tea at 3.15pm and reconvened at 3.45pm
|
|
Andrew Torrens (#711) and Jaclyn Hankin (#714) spoke to their submissions highlighting: · Review of fees and charges to minimise general rate increases. · Library Tower be strengthened and developed at the lowest cost option. · Support the zoning for targeted stormwater rates be revisited. · Consider a maximum rate increase rather than the current inequitable increases. · Significant rate increases proposed over the next two years. · Did not support the $58m budgeted for Te Aka. · Proposed Three Year Plan is contrary to strategy and does not align with published policy statements. · Consider capping rate increases.
|
|
Karl Goodchild (#734) spoke to his submission highlighting the following points: · Objected to the proposed rate increase and that the library $58m project be put on hold. · Land where new library is proposed could be leased. · Opposed the 11.57% of the proposed 23.7% rate increase for labour costs. · Tourist facilities must make a profit.
|
|
Darren Mason and John McGifford (#633) spoke on behalf of Central Football submission that Council has currently approved budget in the 2021/22 year of $500,000 as a contribution to the Artificial Foot Turf as identified and adopted in the Park Island Masterplan. No funding is identified in Council’s Draft Three Year Plan for the Southern Sports Hub development including additional carparking and changing rooms. However, it was never intended that Central Football fund the additional carparking and changing rooms. Four years has passed and there is an expected 50% increase taking the total to $2.7m. A 50% increase from Council has been factored in and requested that Council’s funding contribution increase from $500,000 to $750,000. |
|
John McGifford Secretary/Treasurer and Andy Walker President (#797) spoke on behalf of the Westshore Residents and Development Association Incorporated also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763561). The submission sought support from Council to complete the following projects: · Traffic calming measures to be introduced along The Esplanade and Charles Street · Closing laneway exit which runs parallel with Ferguson Avenue and The Esplanade. · Commence a footpath renewal programme. · Demolish and replace the toilet block on The Esplanade. · Commence a targeted planting/landscaping programme on the beach reserve and The Esplanade. · Removal of debris lying around the suburb, particularly the beach area. · Commence work on a 9 year project plan for Westshore over the next three year cycles of Council’s Long Term Plan.
|
|
Sue Macdonald and Sarah Appley (#646) spoke on behalf of the Ahuriri Estuary Protection Society submission for the continual improvement of water quality for the Estuary. Disappointed that the funding for the Ahuriri Regional Park which is part of flooding resilience and water quality improvement intentions has been deferred. The Society supports the Regional Park concept.
|
|
Michael Hayes (#719) spoke to his submission highlighting the following: · Opposed the proposed rate increase and did not support the consultation topics. · Money not spent on infrastructure is huge. · Did not support the new library for next generation to pay for.
|
|
The meeting adjourned for dinner break at 5.00pm and reconvened at 5.35pm
|
|
Fred Koenders (#303) spoke to his comprehensive submission in regard to the Ocean Spa and submitted that Council continue to fund some tourist facilities with deficits of rates. The majority of people who use Ocean Spa were local and the fee increase too high. In his submission he outlined an alternative strategy on how to minimise the deficit. He did not consider a CCTO the way forward for Ocean Spa however, relocating a commercial operator could be.
|
|
Dennis Hall (#686) spoke to his submission highlighting the following: · Objected to the proposed rate increase in the Esk Hills subdivision · His current rates were $4088 and were rising to $7767 per annum an increase of 90% in one year. · Rates in 21/22 were $2025 · Opposing the redevelopment of Emerson Street and the new library building. · Fund a cap of 25% increase for all rate payers through general rate or UAGC. · Valuation of properties ratio of land to capital value was too high.
|
|
Dawn Beddingford (#535) spoke on behalf of the Napier Housing Coalition submission highlighting: · Opposing the sale of either pensioner or social housing. Rents and profits have helped to fund other projects rather than maintenance work on the properties. · Opposed to the proposed rate increase. · Defer the library project. · Many vulnerable people in the social housing are struggling with new rents. · Employ the right people to manage the housing properly.
|
|
Mark Cleary (#718) spoke on behalf of the Napier Pilot City Trust submission on Homeless and Houseless people in Napier and requested that Council take a more proactive role in helping this vulnerable group with a dedicated outreach centre which is needed to provide food, shelter and support.
|
|
The meeting adjourned at 6.15pm and would reconvene on Tuesday, 28 May 2024 at 9.00am
|
Minutes of a Reconvened Council Meeting (Day 2) Held In the
Small Exhibition Hall, War Memorial Centre, Marine Parade, Napier held on Tuesday, 28 May 2024 at 9.00am
|
Present |
Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor |
|
In Attendance |
Chief Executive (Louise Miller) Deputy Chief Executive/ Executive Director Corporate Services (Jessica Ellerm) Executive Director City Services (Lance Titter) Executive Director City Strategies (Rachael Bailey) Executive Director Infrastructure Services (Russell Bond) Executive Director Community Services (Thunes Cloete) Manager Communications and Marketing (Julia Stevens) Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo) Chief Financial Officer (Caroline Thomson) Manager Strategy and Transformation (Stephanie Murphy) Senior Advisor Corporate Planning (Danica Rio)
Sign Language Interpreters (Sarah Billing and Cathie Siebert) |
|
Submitters Speaking: |
Ani Tylee; Peter Goss; Chris Francis; Chris Hay (Locales and Heritage Services); Lynne Anderson (Save the Dotterells Hawke’s Bay / Napier Branch of Forest and Bird); Kathryn Stonehouse and Tina Haslett (Hawke’s Bay Netball); Guy Panckhurst; Craig Waterhouse and Janene Dixon-Smith (Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre Trust); Stephen Daysh and Graham Duncan (Ahuriri Rock Pools Development Trust); Pip Thompson (Napier City Business Incorporated); Emily Otto (Taradale Residents Association); Bruce Carnegie (Grey Power Napier); Peter Grant (Positive Ageing Strategy Action Group); Trevor Adsett; Piripi Smith and Te Kaha Hiwaikirangi (Ātea a Rangi Educational Trust); Simon Baker (Te Whata Ora) [via zoom;] Vanessa Moon; Susan Jacobs and Tania Wright (Creative Arts Napier); Sally Davenport; Susan Myles [via zoom]; John Cockrem; Paul Jarvis; Nick Aitken; Jonathan Wallace (Soho Group and Wallace Development); Phil Ross (Whatever It Takes Trust Incorporated); David Dyde; Ben Kingsford and Jorja Miles (Napier Youth Council); Bruce Peterson; Selwyn Hawthorne; Lucy Miller and Mark Bayliss (Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay) |
|
Administration |
Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Jemma McDade) |
The Mayor welcomed everyone to the second day of the hearings for the Three Year Plan Submissions.
1. Submissions on the THREE YEAR Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document (cont)
Minutes of a Reconvened Council Meeting Held In the
Breakout Room 2, War Memorial Centre, Marine Parade, Napier held on Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 9.00am
|
Present |
Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor |
|
In Attendance |
Chief Executive (Louise Miller) Deputy Chief Executive/ Executive Director Corporate Services (Jessica Ellerm) Executive Director City Services (Lance Titter) Executive Director City Strategies (Rachael Bailey) Executive Director Infrastructure Services (Russell Bond) Executive Director Community Services (Thunes Cloete) Manager Communications and Marketing (Julia Stevens) Pou Whakarae (Mōrehu Te Tomo) Chief Financial Officer (Caroline Thomson) Manager Strategy and Transformation (Stephanie Murphy) Senior Advisor Corporate Planning (Danica Rio) Financial Controller (Talia Foster) Financial Analyst (Dirk Steyn) Manager Community Strategies (Anne Bradbury) Corporate Finance Manager (Garry Hrustinsky) Manager Property (Bryan Faulknor) Business Improvement Manager (Alister Edie) Team Leader Transportation (Robin Malley) Team Leader Open Spaces (Tania Diack) Team Leader City Design and Urban Renewal (Georgina King) Strategic Programmes Manager (Darran Gillies) Manager Business and Tourism (Steve Gregory) Manager Arts, Culture and Heritage (Elizabeth Caldwell)
Sign Language Interpreters: (Sarah Billing and Cathie Siebert) |
|
Also in Attendance: |
Dr Troy Virgil and Nataylia Rik – Consultants, SIL Research Mike Wakefield (Simpson and Grierson) [via zoom link] |
|
Administration |
Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Jemma McDade) |
1. Submissions on the THREE YEAR Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document (cont)
The Mayor welcomed everyone back to Day 3 and deliberations on the Three Year Plan and advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.
The Mayor reminded the meeting of the following Standing Orders and that as the meeting would be longer than six hours under the Standing Order of 4.2 an extension of time would be requested.
· 21.2 Time limits on speakers – The following time limits apply to members speaking at meetings:
a) Movers of motions when speaking to the motion – not more than 5 minutes;
b) Movers of motions when exercising their right of reply – not more than 5 minutes; and
c) Other members – not more than 5 minutes.
Time limits can be extended if a motion to that effect is moved, seconded and supported by a majority of members present.
· 21.6 Limits on number of speakers –If three speakers have spoken consecutively in support of, or in opposition to, a motion, the Chairperson may call for a speaker to the contrary. If there is no speaker to the contrary, the Chairperson must put the motion after the mover’s right of reply.
Members speaking must, if requested by the chairperson, announce whether they are speaking in support of, or opposition to, a motion.
|
COUNCIL RESOLUTION |
That Council: Pursuant to Standing Order 4.2 an extension of time until 5.00pm on 29 May 2024 be granted.
Carried
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION The Deputy Chief Executive / Executive Director Corporate Services, Ms Ellerm advised that the agenda for the meeting would be: · Introduction of paper prepared by Council staff summarising submissions received on the Three Year Plan. · Dr Virgil Troy and Nataylia Rik, SIL Research presentation analysis of submissions. · Overview of the consultation · Analysis of the paper and comments provided by officers · Officers will present subject by subject and respond to any questions · Deliberation on Three Year Plan
|
||
|
Dr Virgil Troy and Nataylia Rik, SIL Research had prepared the analysis of submissions and displayed a brief powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1765186) outlining the methodology used for analysing the submissions.
|
||
|
The Senior Advisor Corporate Planning, Ms Rio displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1765185) providing a brief overview of the report. The key consultation topics were: 1. The future of Council housing 2. Building up our community resilience 3. A new approach to managing Council’s investments 4. Reviewing Fees and Charges 5. A change to how some Tourist Facilities are funded 6. Napier City Council office accommodation Other topics raised by submitters in addition to the consultation topics included: · Concern about rates increase and Council spending · Labour costs and preservation of cultural assets such as Faraday Centre and Aquarium Other recommended changes included: · Funding of the Coastal Hazards Strategy · Minor operational amendments recommended changes to the financial information underlying the 3 year plan. · Roll back of the stormwater map |
||
|
DELIBERATION OF THE THREE YEAR PLAN 2024-2027 CONSULTATION ITEMS The meeting commenced consideration of the consultation items in the Three Year Plan in conjunction with the management comments and decisions would be made as Council progressed through the items. The order would be: · Consultation Topics · Council led changes through submissions, not part of the consultation topics · Officer led changes for deliberation · Funding requests
Prior to commencing discussion on the consultation topics the Mayor addressed Recommendation 1. |
||
|
Council resolution |
That Council: 1. Receive, thank and acknowledge all community members that made submissions on the Three-Year Plan 2024-27 Consultation Document. |
|
|
The Future of Council Housing It was noted that Chris Ryan Wakefield representative from Simpson and Grierson joined the meeting online assist with deliberations for this topic.
The Manager Community Strategies, Ms Bradbury advised that officers had listened to the submissions presented on 27 and 28 May 2024 and had read all the submissions noting that some submitters did not want to sell any Council assets however, there was general support for the preferred option shift Council’s focus to delivering retirement housing only and divest some Council-owned housing (mixed delivery approach). Based on the submissions Council officers did not wish to change their recommendation.
|
||
|
Officer’s Recommendation 2a) The future of Council housing: shift Council’s focus to delivering retirement housing only and divest some Council-owned housing (mixed delivery approach), as per Council’s preferred option. i. Direct officers to develop an implementation plan for shifting Council’s focus towards delivering retirement housing only, under a mixed delivery approach, and ii. Direct officers to execute the divestment of NCC’s three social housing villages (Nelson Place, Wellesley Place, and Carlyle Place), and iii. Direct officers to engage with affected tenants, community members and interest parties as appropriate. |
||
|
Officer’s comments Over the last few years costs to provide council housing for our community have increased and the current way we provide housing is not financially sustainable. This is due to increases in maintenance, insurance, rent subsidies, renovating units and debt servicing. As noted in the Three Year Plan Consultation Document, Council wants to be able to provide housing that is affordable for our tenants and our ratepayers. Council is committed to ensuring that all current tenants have a house and are looking to maintain or increase our retirement housing. Further engagement with tenants and the community will be undertaken once plans are more formally developed. Community feedback for question one reflects Council’s desire to focus on retirement housing only to help us continue to meet the needs of the community, while also ensuring we are financially well positioned for the future. Community feedback on question two shows a strong support for Council’s preferred option of taking a mixed delivery approach. |
||
|
Points highlighted: · Divesting the three social housing properties, taking into account the five priorities of Council. No one will lose their home when divest but Council has not been any more prescriptive in the Three Year Plan about how divestment will occur. · Through the mixed delivery approach Council could look at transferring some of the units to a community housing provider. Mixed delivery also looked at redeveloping some of the villages. · There is more opportunity under the mixed delivery approach. The independent approach means that the service will be provided by other housing providers on Council’s behalf. Mixed delivery provides slightly more flexibility on who the other partner is. Through the independent approach there could be redevelopment of some of the villages. · The decision today is what to include in the Three Year Plan and how go out for a procurement approach to deliver. · Currently the officer’s recommendation is a mixed delivery model, submissions presented on an independent delivery and do not want to preclude Council from further investigations.
Mr Ryan advised that if Council included in the resolution that when Council goes to market and looks at delivering housing priorities under mixed or independent delivery model approach to explore those options, it was important to note that this increases the chance of having to consult again, once there is a particular proposal. If there is going to be transfer of a strategic asset, which includes Council’s housing stock that proposal needs to be provided for in the Long Term Plan. The greater likelihood of any particular proposal Council settles on later will not be provided for. · If the resolution was clear that the potential divestment was only for the three social housing villages as the only strategic assets through any proposal that would remove the requirement to re-consult.
Councillor Simpson withdrew from meeting 9.47am rejoining at 9.51am
· Mr Ryan advised the risk would, depend on the commercial arrangement that was put in place for the remainder of the villages. That may cost the transfer of control to which Section 97 also applies. The more that is included in the resolution the better.
· Need to be as prescriptive and clear as possible around the control and transfer of any strategic asset as there is always the possibility of having to consult with the community, dependant on market negotiations.
· Mr Ryan added that it was important that the resolution does not go beyond the scope of what was consulted on. In the consultation document the public were not consulted on the criteria with which independent or mixed delivery model might be delivered. Ensure resolution provides for the ability for the community to have further input as necessary.
· Council previously agreed to the mixed model to enable flexibility in going out to the market. · Mixed delivery vs independent delivery it is not around selling the asset, it is allowing an independent party to provide the services to the tenants. · Include key principles of housing as part of resolution · Next steps following the decision will be looked at by the Strategy and Transformation Team and will be set up as a project. · Tenants are the number one priority. They are waiting to hear the decision and will be kept informed. · Develop procurement approach to go out to market and how the preferred provider would be identified and reported back to Council. · Councils are not eligible for government funding for housing. · Meeting agreed to divest the three villages. · Develop criteria and have a workshop.
|
||
|
COUNCIL RESOLUTION |
That Council: 2. Adopt the following recommendations based on feedback received during the consultation process for the Three Year Plan, and the analysis provided in the body of the report.
2a) The Future of Council Housing: shift Council’s focus to delivering retirement housing only and divest some Council-owned housing (mixed delivery approach), as per Council’s preferred option. i. Adopt the following 5 strategic priorities for the future of Councils Housing Portfolio · All current tenants will have a home. · It is financially sustainable for council and the tenants. · Over time, move away from providing social housing. · Portfolio maintains, and increases over time, the retirement housing unit numbers. · Enable Investment in the condition of the housing portfolio including ensuring all are warm and dry.
ii. Agree, to the divestment of NCC’s three social housing villages (Nelson Place, Wellesley Place, and Carlyle Place). Noting that these are Council strategic assets. iii. Note the funds from the sale of any social housing villages is ringfenced for investment into the retirement housing portfolio. iv. Deliver Council’s strategic housing priorities, under a mixed or independent delivery model approach. v. Note a mixed or independent delivery model may include transferring control of the retirement housing assets to an external body. vi. Direct officers to develop a procurement and divestment approach including a timeline, to be approved by Council, that includes a call for proposals, and preferred provider. vii. Direct officers to develop, for approval by council, key criteria for delivery of the model based on the 5 strategic priorities for the future of Councils Housing Portfolio. viii. Direct officers to engage with tenants, community members and interested parties to communicate councils’ decisions as appropriate. ix. Note Council maintains delegation on the criteria and final decisions on divestment and contracting a delivery model.
|
|
|
Building up our community resilience
The Financial Controller, Ms Foster introduced the community resilience topic advising it is currently 2.45% and that there was not general support in the submissions, but was quite close.
|
||
|
Officer Recommendation 2b) Building up our community resilience: continue with a rate to build resilience, as per Council’s preferred option. i. Direct officers to include the Resilience Rate as a Uniform Annual General Charge of $85.90 per rating unit, on all rating units in Napier.
|
||
|
Officer Comments Community feedback acknowledges the importance of proactively preparing for future disasters by investing in the resilience of the city. Officers can confirm that Resilience Rate funds will be ring fenced in a reserve, with the opening balance, income, expenditure, and closing balance reported in our Annual Report every year. The rate would be used for activities related to emergency preparedness such as civil defence planning, working with other organisations to get the community prepared for emergencies, improving our stormwater network so businesses can continue to operate and residents are safe from flooding, etc. |
||
|
Points highlighted: · Further development of the Coastal Hazard Strategy aligns to building resilience and agreed to the additional $110,000 contribution for the Strategy being used from this fund. · Concerns raised regarding the establishment of a resilience fund without set principles and criteria. · Clarify the appropriate use for the fund so it is not used for operational matters. · Suggest reducing the amount collecting in Year 1 of the Three Year Plan to provide time for the development of criteria. · Identified by Greypower and PSAG that emergency preparedness for the elderly and those with disability has not been funded. This is estimated between $15,000-$20,000 for audio and sign language. Relay to officers in overarching emergency management planning so it is included in their considerations. · Transparent and open communication about the resilience fund should be evident through the COMS Team. · Significantly extending what is currently undertaken in terms of emergency management operations identified through the review by Council post Cyclone Gabrielle. |
||
|
Council resolution |
That Council: 2b) Building up our Community Resilience: continue with a rate to build resilience, as per Council’s preferred option. i. Resolve not to include the full proposed Resilience Rate.
ii. Resolve to include .45% rates impact in year 1, (2% saving from proposed rates) as a Uniform Annual General Charge.
iii. Phase in the resilience rate, of 1% in year 2, and 1.5% year 3.
iv. Ringfence the resilience rate to fund the emergency management operations, and the coastal hazards strategy joint committee contributions in year 1.
v. Note the annual plan for years 2 and 3 to detail the ringfencing funding criteria for the resilience rate in years 2 and 3.
vi. Establish principles and criteria for the use of the Resilience Fund. |
|
|
The meeting adjourned for morning tea at 10.43am and reconvened at 11.00am |
||
|
A New Approach to Managing Council’s Investment The Corporate Finance Manager, Mr Hrustinsky advised that creation of a Council Controlled Trading Organisation would need consideration to be given to the development of the framework, Statement of Intent, policy, capability within the Team and CCTO and any skill gaps noted. The development of a CCTO entity would be a specialist unit with a focus on trying to make money for Council to reduce the burden on the ratepayer. He emphasised that any assets managed or transferred to a CCTO are owned by Council and are answerable to Council. Guidelines on how it operates will include socially responsible investing and would be set by Council.
|
||
|
Officer Recommendation 2c) A new approach to managing Council’s investments: create a Council Controlled Trading Organisation to establish a commercially focused investment portfolio, as per Council’s preferred option. i. Direct officers to begin the process of creating a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) by commencing work on the Statement of Expectations.
|
||
|
Officer Comment Overall, community feedback generally favours Council’s preferred option. The intention of the Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) is to improve overall returns and grow Council investment assets well above where they are now. The net effect is to put Council and the community in a better position. A simple way to look at it is if Council currently earns one dollar, the CCTO may cost 50 cents, but provides Council the opportunity to make two dollars – there is a cost, but the net benefit is greater. It is important to note that the gain is not immediate, but it will provide intergenerational benefits, with increasing community benefits as the years go on. Management and investment decisions on the investment portfolio would be done by dedicated experts, according to the wishes of Council. Council would set these expectations through a formal document called a Letter of Expectations. The CCTO would be accountable to the community and to Council on the investment portfolio’s performance through a statement of corporate intent that is approved by Council. Details such as reporting terms would be included as part of this. |
||
|
Points Highlighted · Council has seen a draft statement of investment policies and objectives for a managed portfolio and within that document was information on the requirements for ethical and socially responsible investing. · Values of Council need to reflect the values of the community in which it operates and these would be part of the consideration for setting up any CCTO. · The process would be to establish the legal entity for the CCTO, then recruit for the Board appointments and the Board would recruit for their staff ie Chief Executive and any other staff for the CCTO. · Selection and construct of the Board appointments would be Council decision. Council could decide to appoint a subcommittee or the whole Council could decide whether the Board is made up from all independent directors or a combination of Councillors and independent directors. · CCTO will manage financial investment and focus on its portfolio. It will regularly report to Council. · An example of a successful CCTO was Keyside Holdings. There were also numerous examples of CCTOs that have failed that provide key learnings. · Investment framework be included in resolution. · Guidance of having Council representation and social ethical responsibility. |
||
|
Council resolution |
2c) A new approach to managing Council’s investments: create a Council Controlled Trading Organisation to establish a commercially focused investment portfolio, as per Council’s preferred option. That Council: i. Direct officers to begin the process of creating a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) by commencing work on the Statement of Expectations for adoption by Council.
ii. Note the criteria in the development of the investment framework to include: · Governance structure; and · Social and ethical responsibilities Councillor Boag and McGrath voted AGAINST the Motion |
|
|
Reviewing our Fees and Charges
The Business Improvement Manager, Mr Edie advised that the proposed increase in fees and charges was to support the ratepayer by maximising cost recovery for Council services and not subsidising something they are not using. The targets that have been set for the private versus public aspect of different activities are governed by the Revenue and Finance Policy.
|
||
|
Officer Recommendation 2d) Reviewing our fees and charges: increase some fees and charges beyond the CPI increase of 5.6%, as per Council’s preferred option. i. Adopt the attached schedule of proposed Fees & Charges 2024/25, noting: ii. It is the same schedule that was consulted on as part of Three-Year Plan consultation, but iii. The Animal Control fees and charges schedule has been excluded as they have been increased through a separate process in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996 (adopted at 18 April 2024 Council meeting, with updated fees and charges for Animal Control effective 1 July 2024). |
||
|
Officer Comment The analysis shows that many respondents commented on their concern around rates increases and the high cost of living. The analysis also notes that submitters believed that increasing some fees and charges by more than the CPI increase of 5.6% would exacerbate existing financial pressures on households. The financial information provided below shows that Council’s preferred option of increasing some fees and charges by more than CPI results in $8.7million more fees and charges revenue in 2025 compared to the 2024 annual plan. It also shows that if we were to only increase fees and charges by 5.6% CPI, this would only increase fees and charges revenue by $4.5m in 2025.
Only increasing fees & charges by 5.6% effectively costs the rate payer $4.2million or $140 extra per household, which is equivalent to a 4.7% rates increase in addition to the 23.7% increase proposed as part of Three-Year Plan consultation. Council and Retirement Housing fees and charges revenue would increase materially in both scenarios reflecting the setting of new rent agreements, and Animal Control fees and charges have increased through a separate process in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996 (adopted 18 April 2024 Council meeting). As shown by the above information, Council’s preferred option reduces the overall rates burden on households when compared to the community’s preferred option. As noted by those submitters in support of Council’s preferred option, user pays should be the guiding principle for setting fees and charges. Increasing some fees and charges by more than CPI is in line with this principle and helps ensure the cost burden of services sits with the user, rather than being distributed across households that may not use a particular service. Due to this, officers are still recommending Council adopt their preferred option, even though it was not heavily supported by the community.
|
||
|
The Business Improvement Manager, Mr Edie spoke to the review and charges. The officer recommendation was to proceed with the preferred option.
|
||
|
Points highlighted · Mr Edie confirmed that where it was proposed to increase the fees and charges beyond the CPI was where it had been demonstrated that costs incurred were exceeding the CPI. · Council does not charge any fees and charges to generate profit. · Local Government cost index is probably more relevant than CPI and highlights the reason why not focussing on that as Council costs have increased above that. Going forward Council could look at Local Government index has a better measure than CPI. · From submissions people do prefer user pays. It was noted that Ocean Spa fees would be raised as a separate issue later in the meeting to direct officers to do further work, then potentially adopt different fees later. |
||
|
Council resolution |
2d) Reviewing our fees and charges: increase some fees and charges beyond the CPI increase of 5.6%, as per Council’s preferred option.
That Council:
i. Adopt the schedule of proposed Fees and Charges 2024/25 (Doc Id 1762296), noting:
1) It is the same schedule that was consulted on as part of Three-Year Plan consultation;
2) The Animal Control fees and charges schedule has been excluded as they have been increased through a separate process in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996 (adopted at 18 April 2024 Council meeting, with updated fees and charges for Animal Control effective 1 July 2024). |
|
|
A Change to how we Fund Some Tourist Facilities
The Manager Business and Tourism, Mr Gregory advised that in 2023 all the tourism facilities were engaged in a business review and their commercial viability assessed. The Napier Conferences and Events, Ocean Spa and Kennedy Park Resort were identified as three facilities that had the greatest opportunities to generate a net profit.
|
||
|
Officer Recommendation 2e) A change to how we fund some tourist facilities: loan-fund the deficits (losses) of the three-facilities that will become financially self-sufficient commercial businesses, as per Council’s preferred option. i. Direct officers to loan-fund the deficits (losses) of the Napier Conferences & Events, Ocean Spa, and Kennedy Park Resort for a maximum term of three years while they move towards being financially self-sufficient.
|
||
|
Officer Comment Council’s preferred option was largely supported by the community. Some responses signalled community doubt around Ocean Spa as a tourism facility and suggestions were made that it should be a community facility. Since our Community Aquatic Strategy is largely being delivered and achieved through the Napier Aquatics Centre in Onekawa, Ocean Spa can be used to pursue commercial benefits for the community. When Ocean Spa, along with the other two facilities do achieve breakeven and generate net profits, this will have positive impacts on the community as these profits could be used to fund other community projects and help to reduce overall rates funding Council requires.
|
||
|
Points highlighted · Officers will report back regularly to Council if other options are identified prior to the next Long Term Plan. · Internal reports on how well these facilities are doing in this current financial year and operating as a commercial business. · Monthly meetings to scrutinising expenditure and report to the Executive Leadership Team and Elected Members. · Since Council has taken over Ocean Spa there has been a steady growth and consistent performance. |
||
|
Council resolution |
2e) A change to how we fund some tourist facilities: loan-fund the deficits (losses) of the three-facilities that will become financially self-sufficient commercial businesses, as per Council’s preferred option. Councillor Price/ Councillor McGrath That Council: i. Direct officers to loan-fund the deficits (losses) of the Napier Conferences and Events, Ocean Spa, and Kennedy Park Resort for a maximum term of three years while they move towards being financially self-sufficient. |
|
|
Napier City Council Office Accommodation
The Strategic Programmes Manager, Mr Gillies advised that this is year 7 of a very long term project. This is the next step in delivering back the accommodation and library to the original precinct. The land is an opportunity to develop and return offices to one accommodation block.
|
||
|
Officer Recommendation 2f) Napier City Council office accommodation: Council strengthens and redevelops the Library Tower for its staff, as per Council’s preferred option.
i. Direct officers to commence work to strengthen and redevelop the Library Tower for its staff, noting that officers intend to use the same project team that is working on Te Aka to gain efficiencies between these two projects. |
||
|
Officer Comment Council’s preferred option of strengthening and redeveloping the Library Tower for staff is a budget-conscious approach that minimises the financial burden on ratepayers. Under this option, the same team of architects and consultants that are currently working on Te Aka (the new library project) would be used. We believe this is the best option because developing the two projects under one construction contract would save time and money. Having most Council staff work in the same building would improve operational efficiency, and maintaining ownership of the building provides certainty in the long term. The meeting agreed with the officer’s comments
|
||
|
Points highlighted · A number of submissions suggested to sell to a developer · There were additional complexities with the land if Council were to sell the property to a developer. One of the things to consider was whether Council wanted to be renter or a landlord of its own accommodation. · A subdivision of the land would be required for a leaseback option and usage of the land would require some planning procedures. Even though if it is still a strategic asset because it is of significance, any change of use of that land would require it to be publicly notified. · $45m is the cost of the project included in the supplementary paper year plan and includes all the professional fees, construction costs and fit out of the building. · Rebuilding would cost approximately $53m. · The rating impact in Year 1 is 0.8% ($23.21pa) and Year 2 is 3.9% ($93.81pa). |
||
|
Council resolution |
2f) Napier City Council office accommodation: Council strengthens and redevelops the Library Tower for its staff, as per Council’s preferred option. That Council:
i. Direct officers to commence work to strengthen and redevelop the Library Tower for its staff, noting that officers intend to use the same project team that is working on Te Aka to gain efficiencies between these two projects. ACTION: Direct officers to provide further clarification to the public on the Te Aka and Office Accommodation projects. Councillor Boag and McGrath voted AGAINST the Motion |
|
|
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.05pm and reconvened at 12.45pm |
||
|
OFFICER-LED CHANGES FOR DELIBERATIONS
Mayor Wise advised that Recommendation 3 and 4 would be addressed as one item.
|
||
|
The Corporate Finance Manager, Mr Hrustinsky displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc ID 1765885) providing a brief overview of themes observed during the submission i.e. property revaluations, stormwater, UAGC, changes to rating of Rural Residential differential. Mr Hrustinsky advised that the current stormwater map does not reflect the development that has occurred in the last few years in coverage of the Esk Hills and surrounding areas. Officers are recommending the stormwater catchment area map used to determine the targeted rate for stormwater is rolled back to the original map area (see attachment 14). This would not change the total targeted rates collected for stormwater but would re-distribute the rates collected by Council back across the properties within the original map area. This results in an increase for an average residential property of $54 per annum compared to the Three Year Plan consultation document due to the cost being spread across a lesser number of properties. In the Three Year Plan consultation document the stormwater targeted rate for an average residential property was $222. This would now increase to $276 per annum. |
||
|
Officer Recommendation 3) Consider and accept recommendations for officer-lead amendments to the financial information underlying the Three-Year Plan 2024-27. Officer Recommendation 4) Consider and accept the recommendation for the rollback of the Stormwater map from the updated area map (Doc Id 1762291, Attachment 15) to the original area map (Doc Id 1762292, Attachment 14). |
||
|
Points Highlighted · Letter sent to residents from QV regarding the extension of time was confusing and had the incorrect extension date. · Where applicants for review of valuations was declined, QV did speak to the applicants directly, prior to the letter being issued. · The current rating policy on the website is dated 2017 and has not been updated to reflect the changes in the Financial Impact Statement. Within the Policy it says if the funding impact statement has been updated refer to the current Funding Impact Statement . · Stormwater map roll back will remove the new properties and enable officers to undertake a more detailed analysis to determine stormwater catchment areas. · Through submissions a number of ratepayers have been concerned around the significant increase to their rates, which has been predominantly driven by the increase in their property value. · All suggestions brought forward through submissions sit outside the Three Year Plan and sit within the Revenue and Financing Policy. The recommendation should include in the a review of that policy. · Acknowledge there will still be significant increases to some parts of the community. · Prior to adoption of the Three Year Plan officers undertake further analysis to determine if there are potentially some levers or slight changes to policy to relieve the burden for year 1 of the Three Year Plan. |
||
|
Council resolution |
That Council: 3) Accept recommendations for officer-lead amendments to the financial information underlying the Three-Year Plan 2024-27.
4) Accept the recommendation for the rollback of the Stormwater map from the updated area map (Doc Id 1762291 - Attachment 15) to the original area map (Doc Id 1762292 - Attachment 14).
a) Direct officers to undertake a Revenue and Financing Review Rates policy review in the 2025/26 financial year with focus on the rating differentials in the Rural Residential units.
b) Direct officers to undertake further analysis and modelling for the significantly impacted properties to see if there are any levers or policy changes that could be initiated to alleviate the financial impact in Year 1 Councillor Browne voted AGAINST the Motion |
|
|
COUNCIL LED CHANGES FOR DELIBERATION Consider and make the following resolutions on other items, based on submissions and feedback received during the consultation process · Staff Costs/Efficiency · Homelessness · Ocean Spa · Beach Bylaw / Fire communication · Emerson Street · Faraday Centre/ Aquarium/ Facilities · Waka Hub · Strategic Planning · Capital Plan Programme The meeting discussed each of the above topics. |
||
|
Council resolution |
Staff Costs / Efficiency
That Council: 1) Note it is signalling a clear shift in focus in this Three Year Plan, better commercial return from assets for rate payers, funding core infrastructure, and being enabling as per our strategic objectives, acknowledge that were not able to deliver all outcomes for all priorities whilst maintaining affordability.
2) Direct the Chief Executive to review the efficiency of the organisation, to deliver the 3 year plan.
3) Direct the Chief Executive to find 1.75% rates reduction across the business labour costs in Year 1.
4) Cap current Year 1 staff levels for the remainder of the 3 year plan with a direction to reduce further where possible by utilising vacancy loading and sinking lid policies.
5) Direct the Chief Executive to proactively seek out shared services opportunities.
6) Finalise and implement the operational reviews which have been undertaken during the last twelve months to realise additional efficiencies.
7) Initiate procurement across capital programme to drive efficiencies
Councillor Taylor voted AGAINST the Motion
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Homelessness That Council: a) Acknowledge the homelessness issue is multifaceted, and that Council (as a ratepayer funded body’s) role is to enable, co-ordinate and advocate to the mandated central government agencies.
b) Direct officers to continue working with the whanau pounamu, strategic partners and government providers to enable solutions for whanau pounamu, and report back to Council six monthly on progression on homelessness.
c) Note the support of the Regional Recovery Agency as the lead agency leading a regional response to housing and associate homelessness issues. Carried
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Ocean Spa That Council: a) Recognise the majority of Ocean Spa customers are local. b) Review the fees and charges for the 2024/25 year, to investigate rates for supergold card holders, residents discounts, off peak time access and compartmentalised facility access i.e. gym/pool only, combined. c) Direct officers to review the Ocean Spa pricing structure, product design and number of staffing resources, to work towards councils’ direction of a commercially viable business in year 3.
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Beach Bylaw / Fire communication That Council: a) Direct officers to review the Forest and Bird “driving out our coastal wildlife” report, along with successful other Council bylaw examples, and make recommendations to the Future Napier Committee on existing bylaws/changes to better protect coastal species into the future.
b) Direct officers to review the online communications for fires in Council reserves, including beaches, with the aim to simplify and provide clear advice.
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Emerson Street Councillor Browne/Councillor Crowne That Council: Note the 0.05% rates impact of the proposed project in Year 1 and commit to the project proceeding as outlined in the 3 year plan. a) Support the wastewater and stormwater infrastructure replacement works for Emerson Street. b) Support “above ground” works to Emerson Street that enable the accessibility, safety, security, resilience, CBD attraction and economic stimulation. c) Direct staff to identify and apply for external funding for aspects of the project, as appropriate. Councillor Boag voted AGAINST the Motion |
|
|
The meeting adjourned for afternoon tea at 2.47pm and reconvened at 3.05pm |
||
|
Council resolution |
Faraday Centre/ Aquarium/ Facilities That Council: a) Acknowledges the passion and contribution of the volunteer and wider communities that support Council facilities. b) Acknowledge the re-imagining process is challenging for those connected with the effected facilities. c) Re-confirm council’s decision to review and undertake a business case to explore options for the future of the facilities, which will be developed in the 2024/25 year. d) Commits that the volunteers and the wider community are to be actively engaged with prior to any decision of council.
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Waka hub Councillor Boag/Councillor Tareha That Council: a) Note formal support for the concept, preferred location and delivery of the waka hub by the Ātea a Rangi Educational Trust. b) Provide funding of $2.2m from Council’s “better off funding”, for the design/concept of the waka hub at the preferred site. c) Direct Council officers to have a conversation with Ātea a Rangi Educational Trust regarding asset ownership, lease agreement and their ability to raise external funds to contribute to the project. d) Note the $3.3m funding currently in the 3 year plan remains, subject to the outcome of lease ownership conversation and funding is conditional on a model that these assets on the reserve are owned by Napier City Council and market lease is charged. e) Support the Trust’s funding efforts to external sources for the balance of funds required for the delivery of the waka hub. Carried |
|
|
Council resolution |
Strategic Planning Councillor Browne/Councillor Simpson That Council: a) Reconfirm the Council’s strategic priorities as adopted 31 August 2023. b) Direct the Chief Executive to produce enhanced performance reporting to the standing committees, providing Key Performance Indicator monitoring against their assigned strategic priority, first draft by end of Quarter 3 (30 September 2024). c) Signal Council’s intention in 2024 to develop a Levels of Service matrix for our significant assets and key activities to guide the development of the 2025 Annual Plan. d) Refer to the Audit and Risk Committee to develop recommendations on the development of a key risk assessment report for Napier. Carried
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Capital Plan Programme That Council: a) Amend the capital plan programme as follows: i) Approve that $300,000 be brought forward for the Disability Strategy implementation from Year 2 to Year 1 of the capital plan – including continued upgrades and additions to mobility car parking, address universal design in the CBD, pedestrian improvements and footpath renewals, focussed on accessibility
|
|
|
Councillor McGrath raised the issue of removing the Library Project from the Plan. Point of order raised by Deputy Mayor Brosnan advised that this was a project of significance and a Notice of Motion must be lodged in accordance with Council’s Standing Orders. Point of Order Upheld – Mayor Wise referred to the Point of Order advising no Notice of Motion had been received for the removal of the Library Project from the Long Term Plan, so discussion could not continue. |
||
|
FUNDING REQUESTS THROUGH THE 3 YEAR PLAN |
||
|
Council resolution |
That Council: a) Approve funding of an additional one off grant of $5000 from the Council Projects Fund to the Napier Youth Council for the creation of a Youth Led Events Fund alongside the Youth Grants. b) Request a report be prepared by the Napier Youth Council on the implementation of the events funding programme c) Suggest that the Napier Youth Council seek external funding opportunities
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Deputy Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Boag Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust (#551) That Council: a) Decline the funding request for $1m capex for the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust. b) Decline the funding request of $150,000 per annum for programme delivery and development. a) Carried Councillor Taylor having previously declared a conflict did not participate in decision making |
|
|
Council resolution |
Chris Tremain #759
That Council a) Support the submission of Chris Tremain (#750) for four Pohutakawa trees and yoga decks project to be managed within existing budgets.
b) Direct Parks and Reserves Team work with the submitter (Chris Tremain) to deliver the project and that recommends that the submitter (Chris Tremain) seek external funding to support the project.
c) Advise submitter (Chris Tremain) to liaise with the Westshore Residents Association
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Sport Hawke’s Bay (#358) That Council: a) Support the two regional priority planning projects (Regional Spaces and Places Plan and the Regional Aquatics Plan) with funding of $35,000 from within existing budgets.
Carried Councillor Taylor having previously declared a conflict did not participate in decision making |
|
|
Council resolution |
Pirimai Residents’ Assn Access Bridge (#547) That Council: a) Approve a funding contribution of $30,000 from the Council’s Project Fund for the construction of an access bridge across the Te Awa drain or (Cross country drain) between Ulyatt Road and McNaughton Place subject to the Pirimai Residents’ Association fundraising the balance to complete the project.
b) Note that the Pirimai Residents Association work with the Council Parks and Reserves Team and Infrastructure Team on the project. Carried |
|
|
Central Football (#633) The Manager Property, Mr Faulknor advised Central Football were requesting the funding, but also a decision on the location on the site. The proposed site on the Shrimpton site is totally different to what is included in the Park Island Masterplan, which was the site behind the Napier City Rovers Bluewater Stadium field.
Unison overhead powerlines would require undergrounding for the original site to be used. Recent indication from Unison is that the cost of undergrounding would be approximately $5m. $1.25m has been spread over two years on the basis the undergrounding would cost $2.5m, with 50% contribution from NCC and Unison, which would require approval from the directors. The $5m would underground the length of the park. |
||
|
Council resolution |
Central Football (#633) That Council:
a) Decline the funding request from Central Football for an additional $250,000 for the artificial football turf. Direct officers to prepare a report for a future Sustainable Napier Committee meeting for a decision on the location for the artificial football turf at Park Island
|
|
|
Councillor Simpson withdrew from the meeting at 4.48pm
|
||
|
Council resolution |
Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (#285) That Council: a) Decline the funding request to increase the operational expenses from $100,000 to $300,000 for the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre. ACTION: Direct officers to discuss with the lessee the insurance requirements. Carried |
|
|
HB Netball Remedial Work & Court Upgrade (#782) Council’s legal advice is that the Netball Hawke’s Bay owns and is responsible for the Pavilion Building irrespective of the parties that have been involved in the lease as Hawke’s Bay Netball have occupied the building all that time. The 10 netball courts are owned by Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Netball book those through Council’s Sportsgrounds Booking system and pay an annual fee. There is no title to the building only the underlying land.
|
||
|
Councillor Simpson rejoined the meeting at 4.52pm.
|
||
|
Council built the building and the extension. The remedial work has been identified through site investigations by the Club and the structural connection between the two buildings is a construction issue from when it was first built. Hawke’s Bay Netball have advised without the remedial work being undertaken they would be unable to secure insurance for the building.
|
||
|
Council resolution |
HB Netball Remedial Work & Court Upgrade (#782) That Council: a) Approve a one off grant of $15,000 to Hawke’s Bay Netball from the Council’s Project Fund.
Carried |
|
|
Council resolution |
Creative Arts Napier (#841) That Council: a) Approve a one off grant of $15,000 for Creative Arts Napier from the Council projects fund for one year.
b) Direct offers to complete the Service Level Agreement review of all the Service Level Agreements by the end of 2024 calendar year. Carried |
|
|
It was noted that a total of $65,000 had already been committed from the Council projects fund from a total of $200,000.
|
||
|
Locales Cultural Mapping (#795)
Due to the current financial hardship Council should not be supporting at this time. Direct them to talk to other partners i.e. Mana Whenua.
|
||
|
Council resolution |
Locales Cultural Mapping (#795)
That Council: a) Note support for the Napier Hill Story Telling project concept.
b) Decline a funding contribution, including any staff resource to Locales Cultural Mapping (#795) for the Napier Hill Story Telling project.
Carried
|
|
|
Council resolution |
Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay (#764) That Council: a) Recommend to Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay that a funding application be made to the Keep Napier Beautiful Fund through the Napier City Council website.
b) Support and acknowledge the work undertaken by Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay in Napier. |
|
|
TOPICS RAISED BY SUBMITTERS THAT WERE NOT FORMAL CONSULTATION ITEMS |
||
|
Council resolution |
That Council: Re-wilding public parks Support the concept, request staff identify an appropriate trial area (not roadside/ roadway) and implement a re-wilding trial.
Cat Management Acknowledge this is an issue, and that national legislation is needed to enable any meaningful action by Council.
Dog Agility Parks / Fencing Decline expanding the fencing at the Riverside Dog Agility Park and Park Island due to constraints in budgets. Westshore Residents’ Association Support the Westshore Residents’ Association Enhancement Plan and direct staff to continue working with the Westshore Residents Association to achieve the objectives in the plan
Prima Volta Charitable Trust - Festival Opera Support the kaupapa and ongoing relationship, encourage an application to the Council Projects Fund and/or Creative Communities Funds as projects and opportunities arise.
Ahuriri Rockpools Development a) Council continues to support the project, endorse the Ahuriri Rockpools Development Trust continuing feasibility work and endorse the projects community led status.
b) Note the project will be raised for consideration as part of the Regional Aquatic Strategy Development.
Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay Direct officers to investigate the suitability of Essex Street Recreational Reserve and Tait Drive (adjacent to the Greenmeadows East Retirement Village) for an Abbeyfield housing development. |
|
|
Council resolution |
That Council: 1) Direct officers to prepare the final Three-Year Plan 2024-2027 in anticipation of adoption at the 27 June 2024 Council meeting.
2) Note that the final content of the Three-Year Plan 2024-27 is subject to minor corrections. |
|
|
|
1 Ryan Hambleton, Sport Hawke's Bay #358 (Doc Id 1763617) 2 Andrew Pearce, Kainga Ora Residents Association #716 (Doc Id 1763442) 3 Sir Graeme Avery, HB Community Fitness Centre Trust #551 (Doc Id 1763821) 4 Anna Pierard, Prima Volta Charitable Trust #601 (Doc Id 1763820) 5 Gordon Hart, Faraday Centre Volunteers #643 (Doc Id 1762907) 6 John McGifford, Westshore Residents' Association #797 (Doc Id 1763561) 7 Chris Hay, Locales #795 (Doc Id 1763621) 8 Lynne Anderson #626 and #627 (Doc Id 2763823) 9 Tina Haslett, HB Netball (Doc Id 1763619) 10 Guy Panckhurst #667 (Doc Id 1764588) 11 Trevor Adsett #661 (Doc Id 1763616) 12 Craig Waterhouse, Regional Indoor Sports and Events Trust (Doc Id 1763557) 13 Ahuriri Rockpool Development Trust #543 (Doc Id 1763559) 14 Piripi Smith, Ātea a Rangi Education Trust #737 (Doc Id 1763417) 15 Susan Jacobs, Creative Arts Napier #841 (Doc Id 1764168) 16 John Cockrem #72 (Doc Id 1763558) 17 Jonathan Wallace, Soho Group #603 (Doc Id 1763620) 18 Jonathan Wallace, Wallace Development #753 (Doc Id 1763822 19 Vanessa Moon #796 - oral presentation (Doc Id 1765156) 20 Sue Myles #652 (Doc Id 1763560) 21 Mark Bayliss and Lucy Miller, Abbeyfield Hawke's Bay #720 (Doc Id 1763618) 22 SIL research metholology (Doc Id 1765186) 23 3 year plan deliberation presentation (Dco Id 1765185) 24 Rating Deliberations presentation (Doc Id 1765885) |
|
The Chief Executive noted the following:
A letter will be issued to Council tenants of the direction decided by Council today.
A press release will be made on Council decisions made.
A notice to the staff will be issued on the Council decisions made.
There were no minor matters to discuss.
The meeting closed with a karakia at 5.30pm
|
Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
Chairperson .............................................................................................................................
Date of approval ...................................................................................................................... |