Meeting Date:

Thursday 27 June 2024

Time:

9.30am (Adopt LTP)

Venue:

Large Exhibition Hall
War Memorial Centre
Marine Parade
Napier

Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page

Council Members

Chair:        Mayor Wise

Members:  Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive

Administrator

Governance Team

Next Council Meeting

Thursday 15 August 2024

Chairperson 

Her Worship Mayor Kirsten Wise 

Deputy Chairperson 

Deputy Mayor Annette Brosnan

Membership 

All elected members 

Quorum 

7 

Meeting frequency 

At least 6 weekly and as required 

Executive 

Chief Executive 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Adopt the inclusion of loan funding for the commercial business and tourism activities.

b.     Adopt the draft Revenue and Financing Policy as shown in attachment 2 (Doc Id 1768971).

Issues

Considerations

Recommendation

Council should not be subsidising businesses to make large profits using ratepayer money

Council intention is to require the subdivider or developer to meet the proportionate cost of upgrading infrastructure, or for the provision of new infrastructure, where the development/subdivision will necessitate such upgrading or new services rather than being subsidised by the ratepayer.

No change required as support for policy. 

Concern about rate increases

Council undertakes a wide range of works and services to benefit the city including safety initiatives, avoidance of the effects from natural disasters, provision of infrastructure to support people and communities etc.  The full list of capital and operational projects are itemised in the Three Year Plan.

The FC policy is a mechanism to enable the city to grow and develop while recovering costs associated with the provision of infrastructure to support the development.  It is designed to enable cost recovery from the beneficiaries of new urban growth and therefore reduce the impacts on rates for existing residents. 

No change requested to policy

There should be changes made to make investors or government departments that intensify urban sections to upgrade services.

Residential development places additional demand on infrastructure capacity and if not managed appropriately can contribute towards the further degradation of the environment. Council has a programme of work to upgrade infrastructure provision in residential areas throughout the city, However, due to cost and practical constraints it is not possible to improve network capacity and servicing in all areas and new development will be expected to reduce peak demand on what is already a constrained network. The assessment criteria for multi-unit residential developments require consideration of whether the development can be sufficiently serviced by water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, including through the use of low impact stormwater design, where appropriate. Meeting this criteria will require early engagement with Council’s development engineers to understand the current network capacity to service a development site.  This assessment and decision making criteria falls within the District plan rather than within the FC policy itself.   Submissions on the District plan will test and refine Councils thinking on this approach and should there be any substantive changes potential alignment with the FC policy may be necessary at the time of the next review.

No change to policy recommended

Agrees with the exemption applied to main suburban commercial areas to encourage higher density infill subdivision development. However, the map in figure 4 is too vague, and does not clearly delineate the exact boundaries of the applicable areas. It needs to be very clear as to what properties are affected.

The map in Fig 4 is intentionally generic as no site-specific assessment has yet been done on the infrastructure capacity and/or constraints on every site within and around the local commercial centres of the city.  The map indicates areas where financial contributions exemptions will be favourably considered as they are deemed generally appropriate and will be applied if feasible and practicable. Early consultation with Councils engineers will be required to understand the exact nature and limitations of every site, sequencing issues that may exhaust capacity over time and what bespoke solutions may be required in advance of Council providing integrated network solutions. 

Add a statement to the policy requiring consultation with Council staff to determine capacity and specific solutions along with how that will be assessed via resource consent, including potential conditions of consent regarding timing of development.  The resource consent will determine whether development can proceed immediately (in which case the exemption will apply) or whether development may be delayed through trigger actions imposed as conditions of consent or in the absence of practicable options refused due to infrastructure constraints and therefore no discount can apply until integrated solutions are provided.

The indexing of financial contributions are based on an infrastructure report produced in 2000 and simply rolling over the initial figure may result in skewed data. Have the financial assumptions been tested in recent years? Is this methodology still valid? This needs to be rigorously tested.

The financial assumptions have been tested in recent years by an independent company specialising in infrastructure costings where Council considered options associated with adopting a FC's policy versus a development contributions policy.  The analysis at this time determined the figures remained relevant and proportionate with Council determined to retain a financial contributions policy administered through the District Plan that reflected its existing urban growth strategy.  Council is currently exploring a future development strategy for urban growth and once this strategy has been finalised and adopted new infrastructure reports and associated financial contributions will be developed.

No change recommended

How can the FC for a rural block of $26 000 be justified?

The rural site figure is derived from the original infrastructure report from 2000 that supports Councils current urban growth strategy and new urban development areas provided for in the District Plan.  While the report is relatively dated the original figures have been indexed in line with the producers price index every year and therefore remain proportionate to the impact of a new sites development potential (a new dwelling is generally a permitted activity on each site) on existing Councils infrastructure and services that benefit the whole of society rather than individual services provided to the site itself (e.g. the roading network, libraries, reserves, sports facilities etc).

No change recommended

Some rural subdivisions involve reorganising assets for landowners, and do not involve additional dwellings, and yet still attract a rural FC. In cases like these the FC should be deferred until the time of building consent, when the actual demand on Council services (library/reserves/roads etc.) is made. The policy should consider the case of a subdivision that creates no immediate demand on Council services and exempt from FC at the time of subdivision.

The choice to reorganise assets is completely a landowners decision and not Councils.  The reorganisation of assets via subdivision is seen as a logical point for Council to review the potential of the land holdings development potential and its potential impacts on Council services such as rates, financial contributions, community facilities, etc. Subdivision requires resource consent which in turn enables conditions of consent to be imposed. Completion of the subdivision consent ensures that all conditions of consent are completed prior to the new title being issued and is a pragmatic time for Council to collect financial contributions and begin planning for new and increased development and the infrastructure to support it ahead of development occurring.  Waiting until building consents are issued before collecting FCs would mean that Council would always be in deficit in the provision of network infrastructure.  An obvious example is in a greenfield urban development area where Council has to provide the off-site network infrastructure way ahead of building consents being issued. A consistent time to levy FC's (i.e. at time of subdivision) is an equitable approach which does not disadvantage existing ratepayers.

It should be noted that 1.7.4 of the FC policy already states that "Where a development does not connect to Council’s water supply, wastewater, and/or stormwater network, the development shall be exempt from these components of the financial contributions."

No change recommended

3b Financial contributions do not apply where the subdivision is solely for the purpose of creating a title for an existing and lawfully established business unit.

If land is being used for a new business, how will this be managed?

Existing land is considered to have already paid a financial contribution and new FC's only apply to each additional lot created by subdivision or second and each subsequent unit (building) of development.  In general, rural land is considered to already be used for rural purposes and does not need to pay FC's for change of uses for similar rural uses although new commercial and industrial uses do.

However, Councils FC policy enables a resource consent for what would otherwise be a permitted activity where there is an identifiable impact on council infrastructure in response to new demand for new development (e.g. unsealed yards in Table 2, Non-residential FC's for water supply, stormwater and roads irrespective of whether a building is proposed or not). New intensive uses compared to low intensity uses may also be subject to this requirement where identifiable impacts on infrastructure can be ascertained.

No change recommended

1.7 'ampeped' - is this meant to be mapped?

Typo identified

Amend policy to state mapped

Opposes financial exemptions and intensification in and around Onekawa commercial area

This is a policy option open to Council and it is currently part of Councils strategy to encourage intensification around defined local centres which provide a range of benefits as opposed to urban sprawl.

No change recommended

3.2 Oppose - the Urban Infill Charge should be the same or more per lot unit as housing will still need access to all utilities and have the same, if not more pressures from proposed intensification.

This is a policy option open to Council and it is currently part of Councils strategy to encourage intensification around defined local centres which provide a range of benefits as opposed to urban sprawl. The costs associated with intensification are generally considered to be less than greenfield growth along with additional overall benefits (greater use of public transport, less reliance on vehicles, more economic provision of infrastructure etc). Lower urban infill charges recognises these benefits along with reduced impacts and costs on Council infrastructure and helps encourage sustainable forms of urban development.

No change recommended

Figure 1: District Plan Map of development areas Industrial and large format retail zones on Appendix 31 map on both sides of Taradale Road suggests this has been confirmed for Taradale Road.

Oppose this type of building on side of Taradale Road closest to residential development e.g. Trinity Crescent.

Industrial zone is on the north side of Taradale Road only and matches the long established zoning pattern in the District Plan. The map simply identifies the different FC areas, while the District Plan rightly establishes the appropriate zoning pattern.

No change recommended

Figure 2: Financial Contributions Zone Appendix 16 Local Centre Exemption suggests this has been confirmed for Onekawa. Oppose medium density housing in Onekawa and specifically Alamein Crescent and surrounds. Oppose financial exemptions for Onekawa.

This is a policy option open to Council and it is currently part of Councils strategy to encourage intensification around defined local centres which provide a range of benefits as opposed to urban sprawl.

The figure identifies where Council has decided exemptions should apply as part of the FC policy.  The map could be clarified by changing the title of Figure 2/Appendix 16 to Financial Contribution Exemption Areas as this is what they are and show. 

Recommend changing the title of Figure 2/Appendix 16 to Financial Contribution Exemption Areas as this is what they are and show

The policy references several items and plans from the Proposed District Plan (PDP)

As per the principles mentioned in the Significance and Engagement Policy, people should also be encouraged to provide feedback and feel like they will be heard. If Council asks for feedback but policies Council are currently consulting on have plans in them pre-empting an outcome - Council are at a risk of being seen to be not being open and transparent.

Council is required to follow the prescribed process and timeframes for review of all its strategic documents and policies.  The strategic documents and policies should align with one another and provide a consistent policy position.  In this instance the LTP and its associated FC policy needs to be reviewed prior to finalisation of the District Plan review.  Should submissions on the District Plan change zoning patterns or strategic Council policy directions around urban growth and FC's future amendments to the FC policy may be required.  However, the District Plan and FC policy currently align and recognise Councils preferred approach to urban growth.

No change recommended

Supports inclusion of separate rates for residential care and retirement villages but states there is no clarity how sector specific rates compare to other residential developments.  Rather than having a housing or development unit equivalent (HUE or DUE) Napier’s FC policy uses non local off site, local off site and on site costs for each development area

Napier’s financial contributions are based on the actual costs of providing the network infrastructure necessary to support each development area rather than working out an average cost across all development areas and charging on a development unit equivalent.

The justification for the costs are transparently presented in the Essential Services infrastructure development report, albeit noting that the policy is relatively dated and therefore relies on annual indexing to account for inflationary effects over time. 

No change recommended

Summerset considers that Napier should shift towards the use of development contributions under the Local Government Act 2002 rather than continue to rely on financial contributions and has provided a table detailing what they believe is a proportionate unit of demand for infrastructure services for retirement units based on a Tauranga example that Napier should consider.

The financial assumptions underpinning Napier’s financial contributions policy have been tested in recent years by an independent company specialising in infrastructure costings where Council considered options associated with adopting a FC's policy versus a development contributions policy.  The analysis at this time determined the figures remained relevant and proportionate with Council determined to retain a financial contributions policy administered through the District Plan that reflected its existing urban growth strategy.  Council is currently exploring a future development strategy for urban growth and once this strategy has been finalised and adopted new infrastructure reports and associated financial contributions or development contributions will be developed to charge fair and reasonable costs to offset the costs of providing network and community infrastructure.  The actual details of the FC policy or a DC policy will be worked through at this time.

No change recommended.

Summerset believes that Council should reconsider the timing of payment for large staged developments so that contributions are payable on issue of code compliance certificates for building consent when the actual demand on Council services (library/reserves/roads etc.) is made.

Subdivision requires resource consent which in turn enables conditions of consent to be imposed. Completion of the subdivision consent ensures that all conditions of consent are completed prior to the new title being issued and is a pragmatic time for Council to collect financial contributions and begin planning for new and increased development and the infrastructure to support it ahead of development occurring.  Waiting until building consents are issued before collecting FCs would mean that Council would always be in deficit in the provision of network infrastructure.  An obvious example is in a greenfield urban development area where Council has to provide the off-site network infrastructure way ahead of building consents being issued. A consistent time to levy FC's (i.e. at time of subdivision) is an equitable approach which does not disadvantage existing ratepayers.

No change is recommended.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Resolve that the Napier City Council set the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the city for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2024 and ending on 30 June 2025, and that all such rates shall be inclusive of Goods and Services Tax (GST).

(A)   GENERAL RATE

A general rate set under Section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 made on every rating unit, assessed on a differential basis on the rateable land value to apply to the Differential Groups as follows:

(B)   UNIFORM ANNUAL GENERAL CHARGE

A Uniform Annual General Charge of $551.50 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rateable land set under Section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

(C)   WATER RATES

1.     Fire Protection Rate

A targeted rate for fire protection, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on a differential basis and on the rateable capital value on every rating unit connected to, or able to be connected, and within 100 metres of either the City Water Supply System, or the Bay View Water Supply System.  This rate will apply to the Differential Groups and Categories as follows:

2.     Water Rate

A targeted rate for Water Supply, set on a differential basis under Section 16 & 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a fixed amount on a uniform basis, applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to or able to be connected to and within 100 metres of the City water supply system. This such rate will apply as follows:

3.     Water by Meter Rate

A targeted rate for water supply, set under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on a differential basis per cubic metre of water consumed after the first 300m³ per annum, to all metered rating units as follows:

4.     Stormwater Rate

This rate recovers the net cost of the stormwater activity. A targeted rate for stormwater is set on a differential basis under Sections 16 & 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on a differential basis on the rateable capital value on every rating unit within the defined service area.

Rural properties are exempted.

The differential categories for Stormwater Rates are:

5.     Sewerage Rate

This rate recovers the net cost of the waste water activity. A targeted rate for sewerage treatment and disposal, is set on a differential basis under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a fixed amount on a uniform basis.

The rate is applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected or able to be connected and within 30 metres of the City Sewerage system. This rate will apply as follows:

6.     Bay View Connection Rate

The Bay View Sewerage Scheme involves reticulation and pipeline connection to the City Sewerage System. Prior to 1 November 2005, property owners could elect to connect either under a lump sum payment option, or by way of a targeted rate payable over 20 years.

A targeted rate for Bay View Sewerage Connection, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a fixed amount on a uniform basis, applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to the Bay View Sewerage Scheme, where the lump sum payment option was not elected.

The rate applies from 1 July following the date of connection for a period of 20 years, or until such time as a lump sum payment for the cost of connection is made.

The category of rateable land for setting the targeted rate is defined as the provision of a service to those properties that are connected to the sewerage system, but have not paid the lump sum connection fee.

The rate to apply for 2024/25 is $941.35

(D)   REFUSE & RECYCLING

1.     Refuse Collection and Disposal Rate

A targeted rate for refuse collection and disposal, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a fixed amount on a uniform basis, applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit, for which a weekly rubbish collection service is available, with the rate being 2 or 3 times the base rate for those units where 2 or 3 collections per week respectively is available. This rate will apply as follows:

Rating units which Council officers determine are unable to practically receive the Council service and have an approved alternative service will be charged the Refuse Collection and Disposal Rate, but will be remitted the full balance for the rating year.

2.     Kerbside Recycling Rate

A targeted rate for Kerbside Recycling, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as a fixed amount on a uniform basis, applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for which the Kerbside recycling collection service is available.  This rate will apply as follows:

Rating Units which Council officers determine are unable to practically receive the Council service and have an approved alternative service will be charged the Kerbside Recycling Rate, but will be remitted the full balance for the rating year.

(E)   VEHICLE LEVY

1.     Inner City Vehicle Levy

A targeted rate that provides funding for additional off street car parking in the Central Business District set under Sections 16 &17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on a differential basis on the rateable land value, to apply to rating units in the Central Business District. The rate to apply to the Differential Groups is as follows:

2.     Taradale Vehicle Levy

A targeted rate, previously known as the Taradale Off Street Parking Rate, provides funding for additional off street car parking in the Taradale Shopping and commercial area and to maintain existing off street parking areas in Taradale, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a rate in the dollar on Land Value on rating units in the Taradale Commercial and Shopping Area as follows:

3)     Suburban Vehicle Levy

A targeted rate, previously known as the Suburban Off Street Parking Rate, provides funding for additional off street car parking in Suburban Shopping and commercial areas and to maintain existing off street parking areas in suburban shopping and commercial areas, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 as a rate in the dollar on Land Value on all rating units in Suburban Shopping and Commercial Areas as follows:

(F)   PROMOTION RATES

1.     NCBI CBD Promotion Levy

A targeted rate to fund at least 70% of the cost of the promotional activities run by the Napier City Business Inc, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and applied uniformly on the rateable land value of all rating units in the area defined as the Central Business District, such rate to apply to applicable properties within the Differential Groups and Differential Codes as follows:

2.     Taradale Promotion Rate

A targeted rate to fund the cost of the Taradale Marketing Association’s promotional activities, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and applied uniformly on the rateable land value of all rating units in the Taradale Suburban Commercial area, such rate to apply to the Differential Groups and Differential Codes as follows:

(G)   OTHER RATES AND CHARGES

1.     Swimming Pool Safety Rate

A targeted rate to fund the cost of pool inspections and related costs, set under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as a fixed amount on every rating unit where a swimming pool or small heated pool (within the meaning of the Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016) is located, of $72 per rating unit.

2.     Rangatira Revetment Rate

Revetment construction commenced in 2023 to provide protection from ongoing coastal erosion. The Rangatira Revetment targeted rate is a fixed amount of $348.86, set on a uniform basis under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. It is applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit on the north side of Whakarire Avenue. This rate recovers the private funding component of the cost over a period of 25 years.

3.     Resilience Rate

This rate partially funds activities related to emergency preparedness including, but not limited to, infrastructure projects, civil defence planning, emergency equipment, and other disaster-related planning. These costs would otherwise not be budgeted for, or included, in the Long Term Plan. The targeted rate is a fixed amount of $14.60 set on a uniform basis, applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit. This rate has been introduced according to the procedure set out in Section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

4.    Due Dates for Payment and Penalty Dates (For Rates other than Water by Meter Rates)

That rates other than water by meter charges are due and payable in four equal instalments. A 10% penalty will be added to any portion of rates (except for Water by Meter) assessed for the 2024/25 rating year that remains unpaid after the relevant instalment date. The respective penalty dates are shown in the following table as provided for in section 57 and 58(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) act 2002

Any portion of rates assessed in previous years (including previously applied penalties) which remains unpaid on 30 July 2024 will have a further 10% added, firstly on 31 July 2024, and if still unpaid, again on 31 January 2025.

5.     Water Rates

Targeted rates for metered water supply will be separately invoiced from other rates invoices. Metered water supply for commercial properties is invoiced quarterly and metered water for domestic (residential) water supply is invoiced annually. A 10% penalty will be added to any part of the water rates that remain unpaid by the due date as shown in the table below as provided for in section 57 and 58(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

Metered Water Supply rates are due for payment as follows:

A penalty of 10% will be added to any portion of water supplied by meter, assessed in the current year, which remains unpaid by the relevant instalment due date, on the respective penalty date above.

Any portion of water rates assessed in previous years (including previously applied penalties) which are unpaid by 30 July 2024 will have a further 10% added, firstly on 31 July 2024, and if still unpaid, again on 31 January 2025.

Any water payments made will be allocated to the oldest debt.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.     Receive the Representation Review – Initial Proposal report; and

b.     Consider how its representation arrangements can best provide for the fair and effective representation of identified communities of interest; and

c.     Adopt, in accordance with sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001, one initial proposal option for representation arrangements outlined in the report to apply for the 2025 and 2028 elections; and

d.     Direct that as required by section 19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001, public notice of the selected initial proposal be given within 14 days of this resolution, and that the proposal be distributed for public consultation.

Wards

Electoral population estimate

Number of councillors

Population per councillor

Within +/- 10%

Blue ward

    10,250

2

5,125

-148

-2.80

Dark Green ward

      9,550

2

4,775

-498

-9.44

Light Green ward

    17,100

3

5,700

427

8.10

Pink ward

    21,100

4

5,275

2

0.04

Sub total - general wards

58,000

11

5,273

Māori ward

9,480

2

4,740

N/A

Total

67,480

13

5,191

N/A

Wards

Electoral population estimate

Number of councillors

Population per councillor

Within +/- 10%

Pink ward

32,700 

5 

6,540 

96 

1.48 

Green ward

25,300 

4 

6,325 

-119 

-1.85 

Sub total - General wards 

58,000 

9 

6,444 

Māori ward 

9,480 

2 

4,740 

  N/A

Total 

67,480 

11 

6,137 

  N/A

Wards

Electoral population estimate

Number of councillors

Population per councillor

Within +/- 10%

Blue ward

19,050

3

6,350

-94

-1.47

Green ward

20,400

3

6,800

356

5.52

Pink ward

18,550

3

6,183

-261

-4.05

Sub total - General wards 

58,000 

9

6,444

Māori ward 

9,480 

2 

4,740 

  N/A

Total 

67,480 

11

6,136 

  N/A

At the meeting

The Financial Controller, Ms Foster took the report as read advising that good progress was being made on the agreed management actions. 

Prioritisation of the work programme was undertaken by the Manager based on risk, with high risk prioritised first, however some lower/quicker actions will be undertaken sooner as these are often quick wins which require less resource to deliver.

The four key internal audit matters that have outstanding actions (Building and Resource Consents; Sensitive Expenditure; Records Management and PAYE & WHT) were prioritised with the PAYE action rated with the highest priority and good progress on completing has occurred. Corporate compliance risks are considered high and need to be addressed quickly.

Follow up with contractors who have been given access to Council records and  information to ensure it has been returned.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a)   Receive the Internal Audit Recommendations Progress Report.

At the meeting

The Financial Controller, Ms Foster took the report as read confirming that all items identified in the report for this quarter complied with Council’s policy.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the 31 March 2024 quarterly report of Sensitive Expenditure for the Mayor and Chief Executive and review for compliance with the Sensitive Expenditure Policy.

At the meeting

The Procurement Manager, Ms O’Toole spoke to the report providing an overview of the internal audit undertaken and the eleven risks identified. A Procurement and Management Improvement Plan has been drafted and will be presented to ELT for approval on 18 June 2024 to ensure priorities, funding and resourcing are available. It is intended to report back to the Committee at the September meeting.

The Committee had a positive response to the report and the recommendation of the development of an improvement plan.

Mr Cervantes joined the meeting at 11.30am via zoom.  

Mr Cervantes highlighted the following:

·    The key risks identified in particular were: contract management strategy to be developed, framework document needs to be up-to-date in accordance with the audit and enforcement of financial delegations.

·    Management agree to have an overarching contract management strategy, as well as to get the policies and procedures up-to-date and enforced.

·    Management responses overall have met the satisfaction of the internal auditor.

·    The Risk Management Audit being undertaken to be reported back at the next meeting in September 2024.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the report from Crowe titled ‘Internal Audit – Contract Management’.

b.     Endorse actions of management to prepare and consider a Procurement and Management Improvement Plan.

At the meeting

The Financial Controller, Ms Foster spoke to the report advising that since the last meeting four policies had been approved (Gifts and Gratuities; Travel; Koha and 2024 Elected Members Expenses).

It was noted that a further five policies (Credit Card; Sensitive Expenditure; Payment Policy; Complaints and Pressure Sewer) would be presented to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) later in June 2024 and would be reported back to the Committee at the next meeting.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the report titled “Policy Review Process Update” dated 14 June 2024.

At the meeting

The Financial Controller, Ms Foster took the report as read advising that good progress was being made. 

Ms Young advised that she would be reviewing the Audit Plan list in the near future and would provide an update at the next meeting.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive this report titled “External Audit Actions Status Update” dated 14 June 2024.

At the meeting

The Senior Health and Safety Advisor, Mr Wallace spoke to the report providing a brief summary and overview of Health and Safety activity risks, progress of initiatives underway to improve health, safety, and wellbeing, as well as current key performance indicators covering the period March 2024 to May 2024.

In response to questions the following was clarified:

·    In regard to the incident with the contractor they did have a Site Specific Safety Plan for the job which had been reviewed by officers before commencement. The project was being project managed on behalf of Council by Beca and advice at a pre-site meeting had been they would only have licensed operators on site. However this was not the case.

·    Prior to the incident, Officers have been working with Council’s 3 Waters Team and Projects Team on how better control over contractors on high risk projects could be achieved. In the Mysafety Assurance system there are hints that they can provide to  contractors to ensure they understand what is expected of them.

·    WorkSafe is locally based with four officers in Napier.

·    Mr McDonald is developing a Strategic Wellbeing Strategy to identify critical risk in the Health and Safety area. Good progress is being made on the implementation of the Improvement Plan.

·    It is proposed that the overall Wellbeing Strategy will be completed this month and will be delivered to ELT by Mr Mcdonald by the end of June 2024. There is funding in Year 1 of the 3 Year Plan for its implementation. Completion of the plan is expected over the next six to twelve months.

·    A system is being implemented that will improve reporting and data collection that will reflect accurately what is happening in the organisation.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the Health and Safety Report for the period March 2024 to May 2024.

At the meeting

The Business Improvement Manager, Mr Edie spoke to the report providing a brief summary of the current risk management framework, some developments and workstreams underway. Tabled at the meeting and attached to the minutes (Doc Id 1769201) was a dashboard review of Council’s Strategic Risks for approval by the Committee.

The uplift programme has been drafted to improve the management of the risk framework and sought the Committee’s support on the categories.

The meeting acknowledged the efforts of the ELT and officers on the improvement in the risk reporting.

The following points were highlighted:

·    Most of the strategic risks align to the current risks, with a couple of new ones included being security and privacy information and the Council Reputational risk which will cover metrics such as the CouncilMark report and satisfaction surveys.

·    The Committee noted Strategic Risk 6 - Failing to meet Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments and obligations from a legislative perspective should sit with the Chief Executive and not the Pou Whakarae.

·    The leadership coming through is to be commended and this will encourage good progress to be made.

·    The strategic risks will be presented to all of Council as it is important they review and approve them.

·    The Uplift Programme needs to include the role of governors and where they fit in the risk framework. A discussion is required regarding risk appetite and what needs to be managed and affirmed by Council.

·    The Committee were happy with the Uplift Programme and risk categorisation, acknowledging there could be a tweak once the Crowe risk maturity report is received.

·    Training has been developed for the Audit and Risk Committee, ELT and managers to provide understanding of their responsibility and risk management, which is a key piece of the Uplift Programme.

·    It was agreed that Strategic Risk 5  “Funding and financial management” be changed to “Sustainable Financial Strategy”.

·    The Uplift Programme is primarily focused on below the governance level. 

·    The strategic risks need to be addressed with what has been adopted in the 3 Year Plan objectives, as they are the most critical items that need to be achieved with the strategic risks aligned.

·    A meeting with Council to discuss Council Reputation and risk appetite focusing on why the strategic risks are the ones governors and the Audit & Risk Committee should be addressing.

·    The Committee agreed to add a standing agenda item for future meetings, to understand how management is embedded and to support ELT in their deep dives.

Committee resolution

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a.     Receive the report titled “Risk Management Report” dated 16 June 2024.

b.     Approve Council’s updated list of strategic risks as below:

c.     Support the draft risk management uplift programme.

d.     Acknowledge and thank the Executive Leadership Team and officers for the work undertaken on risk management and the development of the uplift programme.

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.  Civic Awards 2024

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.

2.  Mission Hills Water Supply Cost Share Agreement

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.

3.  Action Points Register (Public Excluded) as at 17 June 2024

7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

7(2)(c)(i) Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied

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 Audit and Risk Committee held 14 June 2024

1.  Verbal Update Chief Executive

7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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.  Severence Pay Recommendations Update

7(2)(c)(i) Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied

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.

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)

Council resolution

The Council:

Pursuant to Standing Order 4.2 an extension of time until 7.30pm on 27 May 2024 be granted.

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

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)

Presentation of Oral Submissions (Cont.)

The following submitters spoke to their submissions.

Ani Tylee (#739) spoke to her submission to build resilience.  Fees and charges should be kept as low as possible.  She also sought support from Council to look at introducing rewilding in urban space in the city.  Rewilding has benefits of reduced costs including less mowing, less fuel and wages creating increased biodiversity.  Communication to the community to understand rewilding and not seen as neglect. 

Council resolution

That Council:

Pursuant to Standing Order 4.2 an extension of time to 5.00pm on 28 May 2024 be granted.

Peter Goss (#707) spoke to his submission opposing the proposed rate increase for Esk Hills in excess of 100%.  He requested that Council consider:

·        Revisiting the approach to setting the targeted rates to ensure the assessed rates comply with the Council’s Rates Policy, by fully recovering the annualised cost of capital expenditure.

·        Adjust the rating differential for residents who do not receive one or more of the targeted services to fully offset the amount currently recovered through the general rate.

Chris Francis (#816) accompanied by Mark Cleary spoke to his submission highlighting the following points:

·        Homeless in Napier seeking support in keeping the Outreach Centre open as a safe place for homeless to go to. 

·        Homeless felt they were being judged as outcasts of society and often are homeless through trauma or addiction.

·        Requested more toilets open 24/7, showers and food.  WHIT only provide food 3 days a week.

·        Reintegration of homeless into society and provide positive things to do during the day.

·        If homeless have a safe place to go the positive is it keeps them out of the eyes of the public and can assist them to get off drugs and alcohol.  

·        Council can lead this - Hastings have a shelter. 

Chris Hay (#795) spoke on behalf of the Locales and Heritage Services submission and also displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763621) of a proposed new tourism experience for Napier through a map based digital story telling.  Requested a financial contribution of 20%-30% towards establishing digital story telling project.

Lynne Anderson (#626) spoke on behalf of the Save the Dotterels Hawke’s Bay submission also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763823).  The submission sought consideration for inclusion of Cat Management within the review of the Animal Control Bylaw.

It was noted that without overarching legislation from Government, Council could not issue fines making compliance difficult.  It would need to be voluntary guidelines on Cat Management rather than a bylaw.

Lynne Anderson (#627) spoke on behalf of the Napier Branch of Forest and Bird submission regarding conservation advocacy and animal control.  She also urged Council to move towards requiring (and exemplifying through existing housing) things like water sensitive design, provision of solar panels, on-site water tanks to store rainwater, and planting of shrubs and flax instead of grass for lawns.  The submitter requested:

·        Continuation of Significant Natural Areas to designate some of Napier’s coastline

·        Include reference in the Fire Control Bylaw regarding restriction of fires on beaches.

·        A bylaw to ban vehicles on the beach

·        Look at communication for the public on the website as there is conflicting information regarding fires on beaches.

It was noted that beaches are covered by the Parks and Reserves and that having a specific Beach Bylaw could be a good idea.

Kathryn Stonehouse (Operations Manager) and Tina Haslett (Chair, Board) (#782) spoke on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay Netball submission also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763619) providing an overview of the facility.  The following points were highlighted:

·        Remedial work on the Sports Pavilion be undertaken as cannot insure the building until the work has been done.

·        Remedial work will cost $15,000

·        HB Netball signed the lease in 2015 however, Council never signed.

·        Undertake a seismic strengthening report prior to the work being done.

·        Request Council offer HB Netball a new lease for an interim period until a decision on the future of the Aquatic Centre is made.

Guy Panckhurst  (#667) spoke to his submission on the consultation topics, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1764588).  The following points were highlighted:

·        Web pages good but complicated, difficult to find how to make a submission.

·        Selling housing short term solution and suggested Council consider independent delivery and a Community Housing Trust.

·        CCTO greater focus on better return on investment and having independent board does not always work.

·        Fees and Charges to increase fees to cover actual Council costs incurred e.g. Resource Consent change to minimum charge with hourly rate charge above to recover actual cost.   

·        Supported loan funding tourist facilities.

·        Support redeveloping Library building and retaining ownership of building.

·        Financial Contributions Policy set figures back in 2004 and rolled over a reduced price index each year. 

·        Did not submit on the Financial Contributions Policy and did not know it was separate to the Three Year Plan.

Councillor McGrath withdrew from the meeting at 10.18am and rejoined the meeting at 10.23am

Craig Waterhouse and Janene Dixon-Smith (#285) spoke to the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre Trust’s submission, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763557).

The submitter requested the following:

·        An increase in the operational expenses currently provided from $100,000 to $300,000 per annum, plus GST.

·        Proposed new operational and renewal support figures be inflation adjusted annually.

·        Increase operational support by $150,000 per annum.

·        Insure the buildings

·        Buildings owned by the Trust on Council land. 

Stephen Daysh and Graham Duncan (#543) spoke on behalf of the Ahuriri Rock Pools Development Trust submission also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763559) on the future aquatic project set down for four years’ time with a vision that Napier is a tourism destination and mecca.  The following points were highlighted:

·        $70,000 has been spent on the pre-feasibility study. 

·        Liaising with New Brighton Hot Pools, Christchurch and full costs will be completed in the next stage.

·        Entire design concept worked around Spriggs Park.

·        There will be shade provision but not intended to cover the pool in.

The meeting adjourned for morning tea at 10.37am

 and reconvened at 10.55am.

Pip Thompson (#777) spoke on behalf of the Napier City Business Incorporated submission in support of the revitalisation of Emerson Street highlighting the following: 

·        Vehicle access remains in Emerson Street during trading hours

·        Improved retail area amenities

·        Establishing inner city identity

·        Prioritise pedestrians without sacrificing vehicle access

·        More inner city living opportunities

·        Integration of more planting and green to connect with the beach.

·        Additional seating and one way traffic flow

·        Improved lighting and night time appeal

·        Installation of retractable bollards

·        Collaborate approach with Council

Emily Otto (#804) spoke on behalf of the Taradale Residents Association submission in support of retention/reimagining the Aquarium and Faraday Centre in a cost effective way.  The submitter also requested Council install secure suitable fencing to the dog exercise park at Riverside Park and Napier Park Island.  The 2012 Masterplan at Park Island focussed on sport and residential housing.

. 

Bruce Carnegie (#820) spoke on behalf of the Grey Power Napier submission opposing the proposed rate increase and asked how members would be able to afford to pay their rates.  He suggested it would be helpful if Council could offer payment options to residents on how to pay their rates.

Grey Power Napier supported selling the social housing, resilience rate and the creation of CCTOs.  Consideration be given to offering superannuants and community service holders discounts on dog registrations and parking within the CBD. 

Peter Grant #447 spoke to his submission that Napier is a great place to live.  He submitted that the Plan needs to be modified and presented in a better way providing background and lead people into what the rate increase is going to be.  The rate increase should be at the end of the Plan not at the beginning.   Reprioritise expenditure and works. 

Peter Grant and Alexia Puna (#561) spoke on behalf of the Positive Ageing Strategy Action Group and their submission highlighting:

·        Opposing the proposed rate increase

·        Investigate a CCTO for community housing

·        PSAG be included in any consultation for a prospective CCTO

·        Napier recognised as an Age Friendly City

·        Napier City Council’s commitment to being an Age Friendly City be clearly articulated in Council documents and translated into action in Council’s Three-Year Plan for the city to achieve positive outcomes for all older people living in our City.

Trevor Adsett (#661) spoke to his submission, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763616) supporting selling all Council housing, building resilience, increasing some fees and charges and a change to how tourist facilities were funded.  However, he did not support any increase in labour costs and additional staff increase. He suggested the following:

Proposal 1

·        Freeze employing new/more staff

·        Review current roles and performance

·        Rate individuals’ outcomes vs KPI’s of their role

·        Pay increases for more responsibility and better outcomes?

·        Do we need 600+ employees for 67,000 population

Include labour costs to Ocean Spa, Kennedy Park and Napier Events Centre into the loans to support these facilities over next three years.

Proposal 2

·        Include the labour costs for Ocean Spa, Kennedy Park and Napier Events Centre into the loans to support these facilities over next 3 years

·        Est 100 FTE over 3 facilities @ $90k = $9m savings

Mr Adsett concluded increasing inflation affordability and live within our means.  A rates increase of 23.7% is not living within our means.

Piripi Smith and Te Kaha Hiwaikirangi (#737) spoke on behalf of the Ātea a Rangi Educational Trust submission, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763417) in support of the new waka hub development in Ahuriri.  The Trust agreed that they could fundraise for any shortfall.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.06pm

and reconvened at 1.00pm

Susan Jacobs and Tania Wright (#841) spoke on behalf of the Creative Arts Napier submission requesting that Council waives the annual rent of $16,740 it charges Creative Arts Napier as it is intended that NCC rolls over its service agreement funding of Creative Arts Napier for 2024-2025.  Ms Jacobs also displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1764168) of projects and programmes that they had been involved with. 

Simon Baker #776 via zoom link spoke on behalf of Health New Zealand’s (Te Whatu Ora) submission highlighting the following points:

·        Did not support Council selling social housing. 

·        Urged Council to prioritise the retention of initiatives that enhance Māori wellbeing and reduce inequities.  

·        Supported Napier becoming a more resilient city.

·        Previously supported and continues to support the investment in restoring the Ahuriri Regional Park to improve water quality and

It was noted that the healthy home standards will be meet for all Council housing by the end of June 2024.

Nick Aitken (#746) read his submission objecting to the proposed rate increase in the Esk Hills area and stormwater charges.  He submitted that Council return  to the differentials in place up to 2021.  He also submitted that Napier City Council develop and implement a programme to:

·        Repair the historic lighthouses between the Hawkes Bay Airport and Bay View.

·        Repair the WW2 era pillboxes along and to the south of Marine Parade and between Westshore and Bay View.

·        Set up social infrastructure based resilience projects centred on local communities and facilities (schools, community halls, marae) and protect community halls recognising their resilience value.

·        Give streetlights a repaint and the cobbles/pavement and footpaths some maintenance and cleaning.

Sally Davenport (#135) spoke to her submission highlighting the following points:

·        Opposed the sale of Council housing

·        Supported a new approach to managing Council investments

·        Review of fees and charges she suggested that non-regulatory fees could be increased as not essential.  

·        Live in a flood plain and climate change is happening. 

·        The office accommodation at $58m could be scaled back without the “nice to haves” component. 

·        Emerson Street redevelopment does it really need to happen?.  She reiterated that Council needed to “cut its cloth accordingly”.

Vanessa Moon (#796) read her oral submission (Doc Id 1765156) in support of the preferred housing option, creating a resilient city, inter-generational investment, change to tourism facility funding, but would prefer discounted entry prices.  In regard to office accommodation she preferred refurbishing rather than demolishing and rebuilding.

John Cockrem (#72) spoke to his submission, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763558) on the community and conservation value of the Aquarium and the importance of retaining this asset. The Aquarium would benefit from improvements and would be very worthwhile.

Paul Jarvis #824 spoke to his submission opposing the new library building and the revitalisation of Emerson Street.   He did not support relocating the Faraday Museum from its historic building, which was 130 years old.

Mayor Wise thanked and acknowledged the work Mr Jarvis did as a volunteer work at the Faraday Centre. 

She also advised that there will be a business case to look at various options on how the museum will go forward whether it is in the existing building or relocated and volunteers will be an integral part of the discussion.

David Dyde (#216) spoke to his submission opposing the proposed rate increase and suggested a cap be put on the rating

The meeting adjourned for afternoon tea at 2.35pm

and reconvened at 3.00pm

Jonathan Wallace (#603) spoke on behalf of the Soho Group, also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763620) on public and affordable housing as an alternative to Council housing.  Soho partners with Commercial Entities, Community Housing Providers, Iwi Groups, District Councils, and other key stakeholders across New Zealand to manage their tenant-lead Build to Rent properties for optimum tenant outcomes.

Jonathan Wallace (#753) spoke on behalf of the Wallace Development Company Limited (WDC), also displaying a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763822) of developments that have been completed.  The submitter highlighted the following:

·        WDC specialises in strengthening and refurbishment and could have a building ready to occupy by 2027.

·        Suggested best outcome for Council and ratepayer is sale and leaseback.

·        WDC could deliver a sale and leaseback arrangement resulting in lower short term and long term costs.

·        WDC could accept all development risk.

·        Lease terms could be structured to deliver long term certainty of rents.

·        WDC could work with council to design a building that meets Council’s needs.

·        Council would have right to purchase the premises back after a period of time.

Phil Ross (#558) spoke on behalf of the Whatever it Takes Trust Incorporated (WHIT) submission requesting consideration be given to the following:

·        Funding an in-depth study of the services available within Napier to the homeless.

·        Additional Community Services staff resource

·        Commitment from Council to remain involved with regional and national initiatives to support the homeless and provide pathways out of homelessness.

·        Support and enhance NCC’s frontline staff’s understanding of homelessness, providing advice on engagement with people experiencing homelessness

·        Provide a link into support services to people experiencing homelessness and/or people with multiple and complex needs

·        Council has bylaws and overarching Local Government legislation that sets out how public spaces can and should be used but this can discriminate against those who need to use these spaces in a way that is different to those who have a home to go to.

·        To recognise the homeless as members of the community,

·        Funding for a night shelter with essential amenities for safe living: a warm, dry bed; a safe space, privacy; lockers; hygiene facilities; access to nutritious food; safety measures.

Mayor Wise advised that Council was committed to working alongside all agencies who are working with these key partners for a solution.  Trying to find a location to set up a more fully serviced Outreach Centre.  Understand the need and how important it is to find solutions for the homeless people.

Selwyn Hawthorne (#814) spoke to his submission on the following:

·        He is vehemently opposed to the revitalisation of Emerson Street as there other projects of high priority

·        Obligation should be to retain social housing as there were expert Retirement Housing operators available to cater for older persons.

·        Opposed the proposed rate increase.

Ben Kingsford and Jorja Miles (#513) spoke on behalf of the Napier Youth Council submission on the following:

·        Supported selling the social housing villages and focussing on retirement housing.

·        A rate to build resilience is important in protecting the community against extreme weather events.

·        Establishing Council Controlled Trading Organisations could ensure rates increases in 24/25 are still reasonable and also benefit from long term investment.

·        Supported the increase in car parking fees.

·        Existing building for office accommodation should be refurbished taking into consideration being environmentally sustainable. Including solar, recycling material rooftop rainwater, LED light bulbs.

·        Support the Te Aka project.  Advocated for youth space in the library and will continue to do so.

·        Supportive of Ocean Spa being commercial model the recreational facilities are slowly dwindling.  Cater for young people with off peak entry and discount for students so have recreational activities for young people.

·        Requested an additional $7000 to create a Youth Led Events Fund alongside the Youth Grants.  A competitive fund open to only Napier youth to create events.

·        Support shortfalls with loans for now.  Once financially sustainable should repay the debt from profits they are making.

Lucy Miller and Mark Bayliss (#720) spoke on behalf of Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay submission, also displayed a powerpoint presentation (Doc Id 1763618) on the benefits of establishing an Abbeyfield House in Hawke’s Bay for older people.  The following points were highlighted:

·        Everyone that moves into an Abbeyfield Home is one less in social housing.

·        Lease land on peppercorn rent reduces the cost that is needed to be raised.  Have very good system for programme maintenance and does maintenance on the buildings as required.

·        Any existing pensioner housing site use would be retained and preserved, the Council interest would be protected via covenant or other instrument

·        Abbeyfield Home would be complementary to existing pensioner housing provisions

·        Medium density development, high quality housing delivered

·        Abbeyfield is the not-for-profit developer, building owner and manager – national expertise plus local knowledge

·        The Abbeyfield model is a unique and proven supplier of elder housing, registered Community Housing Provider meeting high performance standards

·        Abbeyfield can access central government funding – Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) / Operating Supplement from Housing and Urban Development or Affordable Housing Fund (depending on availability)

·        Land required 2000m² can make work houses work with 2 storey building anything from 1200m^2.

This concluded the hearing of submissions where submitters had chosen to speak to Council.

The meeting adjourned at 4.30pm and would reconvene to commence deliberations on Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 9.00am in Breakout Room 2, War Memorial Centre

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)

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Extension of Meeting Time

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.