Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Thursday, 26 June 2025

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 June 2025 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. 2025/26 Rates Resolution

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government (Rating) Act 2002
Document ID:	1859409
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Garry Hrustinsky, Corporate Finance Manager

2.1 Purpose of Report

To set rates for 2025/26 in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and with the Funding Impact Statement.

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 2025 and ending on 30 June 2026, 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:

Differentials	Group / Code	Differential Rate	General rate - cents in the dollar on Land Value
Residential / Other	1	100%	0.46031
Commercial & Industrial	2	260%	1.19681
Rural	3	85%	0.39126
Rural Residential	4	90%	0.41428

(B) UNIFORM ANNUAL GENERAL CHARGE

A Uniform Annual General Charge of $578.70 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 the Napier Water Supply System. This rate will apply to the Differential Groups and Categories as follows:

Fire Protection Rate Differential Description

(cents per dollar of Capital Value)

Connected to water Supply System

Central Business District and Fringe Area

0.02421

Suburban Shopping Centres, Hotels and Motels and Industrial rating units outside of the CBD

0.01210

Other rating units connected to the water supply system

0.00605

2. Water Rate

A targeted rate of $371.60 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 the Napier Water Supply System.

3. Water by Meter Charge

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 300m³per annum, to all metered rating units as follows:

	Water Meter Rate per cubic metre
Extra-ordinary Supplies ($/m³)	$0.77214

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 based 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:

Differentials	Cents per dollar of Capital Value
Residential / Other	0.02853
Commercial & Industrial	0.07417
Rural Residential	0.02853

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 of $440.80 is applied to each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to the City Sewerage system.

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 2025/26 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:

RATE

COLLECTION PER WEEK

COLLECTIONS PER WEEK

$260.90

$521.80

$782.70

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:

Charge per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit

$125.60

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:

Description	Cents in the dollar on Land Value
Properties where council provides additional parking due to the property receiving a 100% levy.	0.06011
Properties where council provides additional parking due to the property receiving a 50% levy.	0.03005

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:

Description	Cents in the dollar on Land Value
Taradale Vehicle Levy	0.06022

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:

Description	Cents in the dollar on Land Value
Suburban Vehicle Levy	0.06022

(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:

Description	Cents in the dollar on Land Value
Properties in the CBD Promotion Rate area	0.20268

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:

Description	Cents in the dollar on Land Value
Properties in the Taradale Promotion Rate area	0.16305

(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 $83 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 $348.61, 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 $17.50 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 2025/26 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

Instalment	Due date	Penalty Date
1	20 August 2025	20 August 2025
2	19 November 2025	19 November 2025
3	18 February 2026	18 February 2026
4	20 May 2026	20 May 2026

Any portion of rates assessed in previous years (including previously applied penalties) which remains unpaid on 30 July 2025 will have a further 10% added, firstly on 31 July 2025, and if still unpaid, again on 31 January 2026.

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:

Instalment	3 monthly invoicing Due Date	Penalty date
1	20 July 2025	26 July 2025
2	20 October 2025	26 October 2025
3	20 January 2026	26 January 2026
4	20 April 2026	26 April 2026
Period Ending	Annual invoicing Due Date	Penalty date
30 June 2025	20 July 2025	26 July 2025
30 June 2026	20 July 2026	26 July 2026

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 2025 will have a further 10% added, firstly on 31 July 2025, and if still unpaid, again on 31 January 2026.

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

2.2 Background Summary

Once the Annual Plan for the year has been adopted Council needs to pass a resolution to set the rates for the year to enable the required rates revenue to be collected to fund Council’s budgeted activities for the year.

The resolution is drafted to comply with the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

2.3 Issues

These resolutions are procedural in nature in that they follow the legal process to collect the revenue as proposed in the Annual Plan.

The proposed rates are as set out in the Funding Impact Statement which is included in the Annual Plan document. The rates vary slightly from those published in the draft Annual Plan however the overall effect remains at an average increase of 8.9% for existing ratepayers. Examples of the impact for different categories are provided in the Annual Plan.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

This report implements decisions of Council made after consultation on the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

2.5 Implications

Financial

The recommendations in this report enable Council to collect rates revenues of $111.14 million (excluding GST) as outlined in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

Social & Policy

There are no social or policy implications.

Risk

If council does not pass the proposed resolutions, the required revenue to fund Council’s activities for 2025/26 would not be able to be collected.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Adopt the resolutions as proposed

b. Adopt an amended resolution

c. Do not adopt the resolution

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

These resolutions are procedural in nature in that they implement a decision that is made by Council when the 2025/26 Annual Plan is adopted. The preferred option is to adopt the resolutions as proposed without any alteration.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 June 2025 - Open Agenda Item 6

6. Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1861086
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development

6.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to inform the adoption of a final joint Future Development Strategy (FDS) for the Napier-Hastings urban environment, which satisfies section 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD).

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a) Receive the report titled Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy 26 June 2025.

b) Notes the resolution of the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee (FDSJC) from its Committee Meeting on 19 May 2025 as shown in the meeting minutes (Attachment 5 (Doc Id 1861089). In particular resolution B which recommended the endorsement of the IHP report with the exclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b

c) Notes this Agenda Report fulfils the Requirement of Resolution D (Report for Partner Councils) of the FDSJC.

d) Notes the draft final FDS (Attachment 1 (Doc Id 1861092) does not include the FDSJC Resolution (refer Recommendation B) to exclude NC4b Riverbend Road.

e) That the Partner Councils in accordance with Section 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 which relates to requirements local authorities to prepare and publish a Future Development Strategy (FDS), accept in part the recommendations of the FDSJC, but with the inclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b, and

f) Adopt a final FDS that includes Riverbend Road NC4b with additional wording below relating to that specific site. (to be added to page 59, following the wording describing Ahuriri Station).

Riverbend (NC4b)

Riverbend (NC4b) has long been identified as a potential location for future urban development, including through the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2010 and 2017 editions. Active planning work has been undertaken over recent years involving the landowner and Napier City Council.

HBRC has expressed concerns about the potential for development at Riverbend given the site’s susceptibility to flooding risk and other natural hazards. There is well documented evidence of flooding affecting the site (for example, recent events in November 2020 and February 2023). The low-lying topography means the site is vulnerable to runoff and flooding, including from the existing neighbouring residential area.

Significant site-specific engineering works would be required to manage stormwater and flooding effects arising from development at Riverbend, including to maintain important environmental values to an acceptable level. Additional land will be required to manage these effects outside of the existing identified NC4b area if mitigation works cannot be achieved onsite. This is acknowledged in a footnote to Table 3 of the FDS.

The inclusion of Riverbend NC4b in the FDS does not predetermine the outcome of subsequent planning process, including structure planning, plan changes, and resource consent applications.

As part of any application for consent or rezoning proposal to develop the Riverbend NC4b site, further detailed work will need to be undertaken to ensure the site’s suitability for development and necessary mitigation of stormwater and flooding impacts. This should include consideration of ‘residual risks’ (i.e. circumstances where events may exceed design and construction capacity of stormwater mitigation works) as has been recommended in the 2024 Hawke’s Bay Independent Flood Review Panel’s report.

g) Notes that if the adopted draft final FDS aligns with F, then consequential amendments will be required to be made to Attachment 1 (Doc Id 1861092) to include the additional wording.

6.2 Background Summary

The background context to the development of the FDS is set out in this report, and other reports presented to the Future Development Strategy Joint Committee (FDSJC) established by the Partner Councils. Of note, the FDSJC approved the draft FDS for notification on 23 October 2024 and then appointed an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to hold hearings and consider submissions on the draft FDS. Following those hearings, the FDSJC met on 19 May 2025 to consider the recommendations made by the IHP.

The FDSJC adopted the IHP’s recommendations for all but one site (Riverbend Road – NC4b), with the draft FDS recommended for approval by the IHP attached as Attachment 1. For clarity, note that an amended version of the draft FDS was not provided following the FDSJC recommendations.

Subject to the consideration of this recommendation report by the Partner Councils, Officers consider that the draft FDS will satisfy the statutory requirements for a Future Development Strategy under the NPSUD.

This Report fulfils the Requirement of Resolution D (Report for Partner Councils) of the FDSJC, which required that a recommendation report be prepared to inform decision-making by the Partner Councils. This Report sets out the background context, statutory requirements and considerations, and makes a recommendation on the final form of the FDS for the Napier-Hastings urban environment.

6.3 Statutory Context for FDS

The NPSUD requires all tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities (Council is a tier 2 authority) to review every 3 years and to make publicly available an FDS for the urban environment every 6 years and in time to inform or at the same time as preparation of the next Long-Term Plan of each relevant local authority. Where an urban environment involves more than one local authority, the NPSUD requires that a FDS is prepared jointly.

The NPS-UD states that the purpose of an FDS is to promote long term strategic planning by setting out how the Partner Councils (Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) intend to:

· Achieve well-functioning urban environments in existing and future urban areas,

· Provide at least sufficient development capacity over the next 30 years to meet expected demand, and

· Assist with the integration of planning decisions under the Resource Management Act with infrastructure planning and funding decisions.

A FDS is a strategic document that is intended to assist the Partner Councils with integrating planning decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) with Council Long Term Plans, Infrastructure Strategies, and funding decisions under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

Development of the FDS has been ongoing for several years and has included lengthy engagement with mana whenua, elected officials, the community, interested landowners and developers, to inform detailed technical analysis and evaluation.

The FDS has been jointly developed in partnership with Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and has directly involved Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, all of which had members on the FDSJC.

In addition, significant input has been received from council officers, consultants and interested individuals, groups and stakeholders. This included:

· Barker & Associates, which is a specialist planning consultancy

· staff from Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust

· staff from Mana Ahuriri Trust and

· staff from Tamatea Pōkai Whenua.

The draft FDS was adopted by the FDSJC for consultation and is intended (once adopted) to satisfy the statutory requirements for Future Development Strategies under the NPSUD.

Once adopted, the final FDS will replace the current Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2017 (HPUDS).

6.4 Consultation and Engagement

Section 3.15 of the NPSUD requires local authorities when preparing or updating an FDS to use the special consultative procedure in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

On October 23, the FDSJC recommended to the partner councils, (Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council,) that the Draft Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS) be adopted for public notification and submission. One variation to the draft was put forward by the FDSJC

Middle Rd

The recommendation of the committee included one amendment to the strategy proposed by the consultants and technical advisory group. This was the exclusion of Middle Road sites Hn3a and Hn3b from the strategy. For the following reasons:

· These areas are not required to provide sufficient development capacity to meet demand (including the 20 per cent competitiveness margin)

· Hn3a and Hn3b are Highly Productive land areas (including ‘Land Use Capability’ level 1 and 2)

· These areas are not included in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (except as a reserve area in the case of Hn3a)

· It would be contrary to the objectives of the FDS to include these areas.

The draft recommendations were then considered by all Partner Councils in November. All Councils agreed to accept the Joint Committee’s amendment to remove the Middle Rd sites Hn3a and Hn3b from the draft strategy. Those two sites have subsequently been removed from the draft.

An additional amendment to the draft was recommended by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council being the removal of Riverbend Road NC4b. The Hastings District Council and Napier City Council voted to retain this area. To address this, the partner councils agreed that the strategy be notified for public input, with this divergence noted via this covering note, and that the divergence will be considered by the independent panel to be appointed to hear submissions.

Riverbend Rd

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council additionally recommended that the Riverbend Road site Nc4b also be excluded from the strategy, for the following reason:

· Area Nc4b is subject to severe flooding risk.

The FDSJC also resolved at its meeting held on 23 October 2024 to;

‘Appoint an Independent Panel to assist the Joint Committee by hearing all persons / parties who wish to submit on the draft FDS. The Independent Panel will prepare a summation of all submissions and provide recommendations to the Joint Committee, for consideration by the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee can then recommend a final FDS to the Partner Councils’

The draft FDS was adopted by the Partner Councils for consultation on 19 November 2024.

The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) consisted of the following members:

· Gina Sweetman (Chair),

Field of Expertise - Resource management, local and regional planning, policy and plan development. Resource consents. Te Ao Maori, Freshwater and Chair of Hearing Panels.

· Shadrach Rolleston,

Field of Expertise - Planning and Resource Management, Spatial and Growth Management Planning, Community and Māori Engagement, Te Ao Māori, Iwi Management Planning, Tikanga Māori, Treaty Settlements, Local Government Policy Planning.

· Juliane Chetham,

Field of Expertise - Planning, environmental science, geography, coastal and marine ecology and management, Cultural Impact Assessment, Tikanga Māori, Mātauranga Māori.

· Michael Parsonson,

Field of Expertise - District and regional consenting, plan changes, policy development. Resource use, construction, infrastructure, general land use activities, and associated effects. Council hearings, fast-track panels, boards of inquiry.

· Steven (Tipene) Wilson

Field of Expertise – Māori, Iwi

The notification period for the draft FDS ran from 23 November 2024 to 23 December 2024. This period was chosen to avoid the summer break and much of January when many workplaces are closed and staff are away for significant periods of time and therefore may not have had sufficient opportunity to prepare a submission.

A total of 139 submissions were received on the draft FDS. These included a combination of online survey submissions and general submissions. The submissions were evaluated by officers from partner Councils and PSGEs. A Recommendations Report was prepared for the IHP in advance of the hearings commencing. The officers’ Recommendations Report is attached as Attachment 3 (Doc Id 1861067) (FDS-Hearings-Report-2025-03-17-1.pdf).

At the invitation of the IHP, all submitters were also able to provide additional evidence to help accompany presentations at subsequent Public Hearings.

The process adopted by the IHP provided submitters with the opportunity to critique, assess, support or otherwise any aspects of the draft FDS.

Submissions were heard by the IHP during 24 – 26 March 2025. 86 of the lodged submissions were spoken to at the hearings. Following the hearings the IHP requested that officers provide a Reply Report to consider additional evidence presented to the IHP during the hearings. The officers’ Reply Report is attached as Attachment 4 (Doc Id 1861088) (Napier-Hastings-FDS-Reply-2025-04-04.pdf).

The IHP was not required to accept the recommendations in the reply report.

In executing their role, the IHP was required to consider all information received from submitters (and their representatives), all supplementary information, officers’ reports and verbal hearing information. This information informed the IHP Recommendations Report.

6.5 IHP Findings and Recommendations

The IHP provided their Recommendation Report on 9 May 2025. The IHP Recommendation Report attached as Attachment 2 (Doc Id 1861091) was prepared by the IHP and is independent from either officer or submitter input, albeit that the IHP was informed by information provided by officers, submitters and the various experts and other persons involved in the process.

The Executive Summary from the IHP Recommendation Report is noted below:

1) Having considered the submissions received, the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP or Hearings Panel) has recommended several changes to the draft FDS. Most of those changes were recommended to us by the professional experts and advisors representing Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua (TPW), Mana Ahuriri Trust (MAT) and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) (FDS Advisors).

2) Our more substantive recommended changes to the draft FDS include:

a) A new section 4.3 on cross-boundary relationships

b) References to the Hawke’s Bay Independent Flood Review Report recommendations in respect to natural hazard data collection and Regional Policy Statement and district plan reviews

c) Amendments to Section 6 to address redress land and papakāinga

d) Amendment to the strategic objectives to amend objective 10 and include a new objective relating to nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

e) Reference to latent demand and that there may be a shortfall in wet industry in the long term in section 8

f) Amend the constraints identified in Figure 13 to include areas for the safe operation and functional needs of nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

g) Amend section 10 to address that growth area boundaries shown in the FDS are indicative only and why small sites have not been included

h) Amend table 2 in section 10 to include the additional capacity identified for the Hastings District

i) Inclusion of Middle Road (HN3a and HN3b), Wall Road (HN3b) and FM9 Portsmouth Road, Flaxmere as new Residential Greenfield Development Areas in Table 3, and include the additional land at the Mission Estate

j) Include Irongate North as a new industrial area in section 10

k) Include reference in section 10 about a potential shortfall in development capacity for wet industry and the approach to be taken if this eventuates

l) Amend 10.6 to reference a carry-over of the strategic direction for coastal and rural settlements from HPUDS in an appendix, including maps, until such time as a Rural Residential Strategy is promulgated

m) New paragraph in section 10.11 to reference the importance of the operational and functional needs of nationally and regionally significant infrastructure,

n) Amend section 10.11 to say that stormwater solutions may occur out of identified growth areas and reference specific Māori education demands

o) Include new sections in 10.11 on solid waste and nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

p) Amend table 6 to reference additional greenfield capacity and remove reference to an “overs/unders” approach.

3) Other than for the matters listed above, no substantial changes to any ‘spatial’ components of the FDS are recommended.

4) Our recommendations are to be considered and decided on by the Future Development Strategy Joint Committee.

In terms of spatial components, the key decisions and changes recommended to the draft FDS that was formally consulted on for submissions are as follows:

Residential

· Inclusion of HN3a and HN3b (Middle Road) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of H5b (Wall Rd) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of FM9 (Portsmouth Rd) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of additional land at NC6 (Mission Hills). (Medium to Long Term Priority (5 – 30 years)

Industrial

· Inclusion of IR4 (Irongate North) area (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years).

· Recognition that wet industry capacity will be needed over the long term. Recommending short-term action to investigate policy changes aimed at protecting the remaining capacity within the existing urban area for wet industry use at Whakatu.

Rural Residential

· Recommendation for councils to prioritise the development of a Rural Residential Strategy.

6.6 IHP Commentary regarding Riverbend Road

As part of their recommendation’s report, the IHP specifically addressed a number of the more contentious areas. Following the FDSJC recommendations with regard to Riverbend Road NC4b, it is relevant to include extracts of the IHP’s reasoning for their recommendations. The Riverbend Road discussion can be found from paragraphs 54 to 66 of the IHP Recommendations Report (Attachment 2).

The IHP recognised that there are significant constraints on the Riverbend site, acknowledging that it currently acts as a basin for stormwater detention area for surrounding land for the surrounding area;

Riverbend is a residential growth area in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) and meets the definition of being “identified for urban development.”10 The draft FDS identifies the area as a suitable specific growth area, acknowledging that the area is subject to complex and overlapping natural hazards constraints. While there are engineering solutions available to address these constraints, they may impact the feasibility and timing of development.

The IHP also recognised that the existing condition of the land in question, and the relevant concerns of HBRC given the flooding of the site during significant rain events in 2020 and 2023, with the site providing significant storage adjacent to existing residential areas.

Stormwater engineering evidence was presented on behalf of the Joint Venture by Ms Landon of Development Nous Limited. Ms Landon acknowledged that the site currently functions as an “unofficial” stormwater detention area for the surrounding urban areas. She described the likely approach to flood mitigation for development of the site, which included flood storage and pumping, and conservatism in her assumptions. This is subject to ongoing analysis and design and will require detailed interrogation through a resource consent process.

The IHP ultimately acknowledged that the suitability of development should be assessed through a more detailed plan change or resource process where the specific constraints of the site and feasibility of development can be properly understood. The IHP ultimately recommend the inclusion of the site as a long term priority:

For the reasons outlined above, we accept and adopt the recommendation of the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report to include Riverbend site NC4b in the FDS, at the timing recommended by the FDS Advisors. Ultimately, its suitability for development will be managed through the more granular plan change and resource consent processes. Its planning history and the consequential investment in development planning weighs in favour of its inclusion.

It is noted that to address these qualifications, a footnote was added to Table 3 of the recommended FDS (pg 65) noting ‘Additional land will be required to manage stormwater and flooding effects arising from development of Riverbend Road (NC4b), with the exact location to be determined through future planning processes.’

The IHP recommendations report also specifically addresses submitters concerns with regards to natural hazards, with specific mention of flooding. This is addressed from paragraphs 48 to 53 of the report. Ultimately the IHP concluded (noting the exceptions discussed relate to Riverbend Road and Ahuriri Station):

We accept there are site-specific opportunities to mitigate some risks but, consistent with the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report, we limit inclusion of sites with identified significant (before mitigation) natural hazard risk to the sites discussed below that are subject to other relevant factors that support their inclusion. We agree with the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report in its response to the Natural Hazards Commission and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board submissions, that site specific risk assessments for those future growth areas are most appropriately undertaken “at the structure planning and plan change [and resource consent] stage, where a detailed stormwater and flood modelling can be undertaken in the context of a specific proposal”.

The submitter information and evidence can be viewed on the FDS website https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/hastingsnapierfuturedevelopment/ under the submissions documents tab, evidence and supplementary evidence tabs. The primary submissions related to Riverbend Road were (Sub 105 – Te Orokohanga Hou Joint Venture, Sub 74 – Natural Hazards Commission, Sub 90 – HBRC, Sub 16 – John Reid, Sub 26 – Myriam Parker, Sub 34 – Gary Curtis, Sub 47 – Andrew Lessels, Sub 52 – Simon Nash, Sub 8 – Samantha McPherson, Sub 9 – Susan Gardner & Sub 12 Forest and Bird, Sub 94 MTT), however noting that there are also a number of submissions that related to natural hazards and flooding in general.

6.7 FDSJC Resolutions

The ‘FDSJC Meeting Minutes’ from their Meeting on 19 May 2025 are attached as Attachment 5 (Doc Id 1861088) (Minutes of Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee - Monday, 19 May 2025).

Two motions were put forward for amendments by FDSJC members.

Exclude Middle Road (HN3a and HN3b) and Wall Road (H5b)

With the reasons for these exclusions being the sites in i) and ii) are on highly productive land and are not required to meet demand capacity under the Future Development Strategy.

This amendment was lost (3 votes for/5 votes against/3 abstained).

The Middle Road areas (HN3a and HN3b) added 640 dwellings and the Wall Road area (H5b) added 110 dwellings to overall development capacity.

Exclude Riverbend Road (NC4b)

With the reasons for this exclusion being the site presents as a significant flooding risk and is not conducive to a well-functioning urban environment and is not required to meet demand capacity under the Future Development Strategy.

This amendment was carried (8 votes for/3 votes against).

The Riverbend Road NC4b land provided an estimated 660 dwellings to the overall development capacity.

The FDSJC recommendations will be put to all Partner Councils to consider when determining the final FDS with the risks associated with each option discussed in section 8 below. Dates for the respective Partner Councils’ meetings are:

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council – Wednesday, 25 June 2025

· Hastings District Council – Thursday, 26 June 2025

· Napier City Council – Thursday, 26 June 2025.

1.8 Options

Option One - Recommended Option

a) Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommend by the FDSJC, except for in relation to the exclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b, by adopting a final FDS that includes Riverbend Road with associated additional wording included in the FDS relating to that land. The recommended additional wording is included in Attachment 6 (Doc Id 1861090) to this report.

Advantages

· Allows Partner Councils to consider specific viewpoints of FDSJC when making decisions on the final FDS.

· Ensures that a FDS that is consistent with IHP recommendations is adopted, with appropriate qualifying statements where development concerns remain (as expressed by the FDSJC minutes and in IHP’s commentary within its own report).

· Qualifying statements can reflect many of the IHP’s observations without undermining or being a substantive departure from the IHP’s overall findings and recommendations.

· Satisfies NPS-UD requirements.

· Ensures that future plan change or resource consent processes are fully informed of the constraints that will need to be addressed around hazard mitigations.

Disadvantages

· May lead to future contention in relation to proposals for the development of the land for residential growth.

· Amendments to the recommendations that differ from the IHP’s reporting could give rise to judicial review proceedings.

· Amendments to the recommendations that differ from the FDSJC’s resolutions could give rise to judicial review proceedings, albeit for different grounds than a departure from the IHP’s reporting above.

· If heavily qualified statements are included and/or statements that are beyond factual ones, it may mean that Riverbend Road NC4b is out of step with other sites subject to constraints, noting that the recommended FDS includes qualifying language in regard to future growth areas requirements under future RMA processes.

Option Two

b) Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommended by the IHP.

Advantages

· Would be consistent with the evidence-based assessment undertaken by independent qualified experts who directly heard from submitters during the hearing process.

· Meets the obligations of the Partner Councils under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development 2020 which requires that a Future Development Strategy is prepared for the Napier/Hastings urban environment.

· If adopted by the Partner Councils, the Future Development Strategy will provide increased certainty for the future planned growth of the Napier/Hastings urban environment and assist to identify other opportunities for future growth in the longer-term.

Disadvantages

· Does not align with FDSJC recommendations regarding Riverbend Road.

Option Three

c) Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommended by the FDSJC.

Advantages

· Would be consistent with the evidence-based assessment undertaken by independent qualified experts who directly heard from submitters during the hearing process, with the exception of Riverbend Road.

Disadvantages

· May lead to risk of legal challenge, as decision would be based on recommendation from FDSJC which did not directly hear submissions.

· Potential that decision with regard to Riverbend Road is not as well informed as the recommendation of the Independent Hearings Panel.

· Removal of estimated 660 dwelling supply from FDS at Riverbend NC4b from overall capacity, meaning significant more pressure on the ability to meet demand requirements, including reliance on other development options in the Napier area.

1.9 Next Steps

· Once the Partner Councils have made their decision, the final FDS will become the adopted final strategy and replace the HPUDS.

· Following the adoption of the final FDS it is recommended that the FDSJC meet to consider the future implementation requirements of the FDS. Opportunities to do this will be time-limited given local body elections in October 2025.

· The FDS is required to be reviewed at regular intervals so that it informs each long-term plan cycle (ie. every 3 years). If a review determines that changes are required, a public consultation process will be involved for the review of the FDS itself.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This FDS seeks to control future growth in the region one of the core objectives is to provide a range of housing which meets people’s needs in neighbourhoods that are safe and healthy. The FDS is considered to promote wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Maori communities have been consulted with as of the FDS process. Papakainga and treaty settlement land forms a key part of the strategy. Post Treaty Settlement Group (PSGE) input has been central to the development of the FDS. PSGE members have been part of the joint committee and officers have inputted into the recommended FDS.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Intensification of existing urban areas and protection of fertile land are key objectives of the FDS

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

Financial Considerations have been previously considered for the FDS, the development of the strategy is now at the end of its process. Failure to agree to a consistent strategy however would result in additional costs.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of high significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

Significant informal consultation has occurred through a ‘call for opportunities’ and formal consultation was undertaken through the Special Consultative procedure which included submissions and hearings opportunities.

Risks

Opportunity: To provide a finalised FDS that guides the next 30 years growth across the sub-region

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

30 year growth strategy which informs development, long term spending and infrastructure strategies.

An inconsistent FDS, or one with significant departure from Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations may lead to higher risk of judicial proceedings.

6.8 Attachments

1 Independent Hearings Panel Recommended Future Development Strategy (Doc Id 1861092) (Under separate cover 2)

2 Independent hearings Panel Recommendation Report (Doc Id 1861091) (Under separate cover 2)

3 Napier-Hastings FDS Report Hearings (Doc Id 1861087) (Under separate cover 2)

4 Napier-Hastings FDS officer reply 4 April 2025 (Doc Id 1861088) (Under separate cover 2)

5 Napier-Hastings FDS minutes 19 May 2025(Doc Id 1861089) (Under separate cover 2)

6 Riverbend Additions to be considered for FDS (Doc Id 1861090) (Under separate cover 2)

- - Open Agenda

2. Deep Dive of SR33 Effectiveness of Emergency Management

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1856557
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Thunes Cloete, Executive Director Community Services

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of strategic risk SR33 Effectiveness of Emergency Management, highlighting the risk assessment process, identified risks, controls and proposed treatments.

i. Advantages and Gains in Identifying Risks Relating to Emergency Management.

ii. Defining Inherent Risk against Revised/Residual Risk, the formula and process.

iii. Bow Tie Report identifying the progress of Treatment Actions, both completed and in progress.

At the meeting

The Executive Director Community Services, Mr Cloete provided some context in relation to the event of Cyclone Gabrielle which occurred on 14 February 2023, and a brief summary of the report.

In response to questions the following was clarified:

· On reviewing the treatment actions it was important to note that there was a need to work across Napier and Hastings boundaries to become as efficient as possible, working with other councils and agencies to identify needs and risk.

· It was within Council’s control to achieve low risk control.

· There were currently four treatment actions remaining to reach 100% completion which will bring Council within appetite and the residual risk will be low.

· Following any event declared, Emergency Management provides feedback that would be captured in the debrief controls and emergency plan.

Committee resolution

David Pearson / Councillor Mawson

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a) Receive the report titled “Deep Dive of SR33 Effectiveness of Emergency Management” dated 12 June 2025.

b) Receive the analysis of SR33

Risk No:

Risk Issue

Inherent Risk Assessment

Revised Risk Assessment

Target Risk Assessment

SR33

Effectiveness of Emergency

Management

Extreme

Medium

Low

Carried

3. Asset Management Roadmap Progress

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1856592
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Kate Ivicheva, Manager Asset Strategy

3.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides an update on the progress of the Asset Management Roadmap, from Q42024 to Q2 2025, including key milestones achieved, acknowledges technical progress, team collaboration, outlines key constraints and forward considerations.

At the meeting

The Manager Asset Strategy, Ms Ivicheva provided a summary of the report on key activiities

and projects.

In response to questions the following was clarified:

· With the current organisational redesign underway some projects timelines may be deferred as officers do not want to overcommit on projects that cannot be delivered.

· Reprioritisation of projects will need to be undertaken for the upcoming Long Term Plan as they are linked to the financial strategy and risk assurance is a priority.

The Chair acknowledged that a lot of work has been undertaken and that there has been success in improving the cross team collaboration and support across the organisation.

Committee resolution

Councillor Crown / Mayor Wise

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a) Receive the update on the progress of the Asset Management Roadmap.

b) Direct officers to present a reprioritisation of the Asset Management Roadmap at the next Audit and Risk meeting on 7 August 2025, and confirm that timelines for the Long Term Plan will be met.

Carried

4. Risk and Assurance Report

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1857551
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Dave Jordison, Risk and Assurance Lead

4.1 Purpose of Report

To provide the Committee with an update on Council’s strategic and operational risk profiles and key risk management workstreams.

At the meeting

The Risk Assurance Lead, Mr Jordison summarised the report.

In response to questions the following was clarified:

· Controls in place for measuring the preparedness of the community are associated with budgeting, the LTP, Strategy, and processes are deemed to be effective at this point in time.

· Staff work closely with the community in Hubs, and provide training on how to respond during an event.

· Treatment of actions have not been completed due to the effect of the redesign across the organisation. A report is presented to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) on a monthly basis to support the process and risk owners identified if overdue.

· There is an overlap of how to manage the redesign process and risks associated around key personnel affected. If there are risks in relation to business continuity plans they are being managed by ELT and the Project Steering Group is managing the risk of the project.

· There are currently 14 operational risks without controls. When they are addressed it will assist in accurately determining the revised risk level.

· Training for elected members on health and safety risks had been identified as required previously, to ensure that governance responsibilities were understood. A question to be posed to elected members was whether to defer the training until after the October 2025 elections or not. Deferring the training would create a gap in understanding until December and the risk would remain out of appetite until training was rolled out.

· Members of the Committee considered deferring training to December was too late.

Committee resolution

David Pearson / Bruce Robertson

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a) Receive the report titled “Risk and Assurance Report” dated 12 June 2025.

ACTION: Officers to ask all elected members whether they consider training on SR32 Health and Safety Risks should be deferred until after the October 2025 elections or undertaken prior to October 2025.

Carried

5. Review of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1854655
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Caroline Thomson, Chief Financial Officer / Acting Executive Director Corporate Services Dave Jordison, Risk and Assurance Lead

5.1 Purpose of Report

As set out in the Audit and Risk Committee Charter, the Committee will review this Charter in consultation with the Council at least every two years. Any substantive changes to the Charter will be recommended by the Committee, and formally approved by the Council. The last review of the Charter was undertaken on 27 April 2023.

At the meeting

The following issues were identified in the Charter and suggested changes were put forward:

1. Annual and Ad Hoc Risk Reporting by CCOs/CCTOs

Insert under: “Responsibilities – Risk Management”

“Require the Chief Executive Officer or Chair of each Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) and Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) to report at least annually, or upon request, on key strategic and operational risks, including mitigation plans and emerging issues.”

2. Alignment with Council’s Risk Framework

Insert under: “Responsibilities – Risk Management”

“Ensure that CCOs and CCTOs align, where appropriate, with Napier City Council’s risk management framework and provide updates on their risk maturity and governance practices.”

3. Health & Safety Risk Oversight

Insert under: “Responsibilities – Risk Management” or create a new subsection titled “Health & Safety”

“Review Health and Safety (H&S) risk reporting and critical incidents from all Council Controlled Organisations and Trading Organisations, including near misses and notifiable events.”

4. Clarification of Audit Follow-Up

Insert under: “Responsibilities – External Audit”

“Clarify the Committee’s role in reviewing, noting, or following up on audit findings from Council appointed auditors of CCOs and CCTOs, including ensuring that material issues are addressed and reported back to the Committee.”

5. Strategic Alignment Oversight

6. Rename Audit and Risk Committee

Change to: Risk and AssuranceCommittee

Committee resolution

Councillor Crown / Bruce Robertson

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a) Review the Audit and Risk Committee Charter.

b) Recommend the following changes to the Audit and Risk Charter (Doc Id 1854654) for Council approval:

Rename Committee

· Risk and Assurance Committee

Insert under: “Responsibilities – Risk Management”

· Require the Chief Executive Officer or Chair of each Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) and Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) to report at least annually, or upon request, on key strategic and operational risks, including mitigation plans and emerging issues.

· Ensure that CCOs and CCTOs align, where appropriate, with Napier City Council’s risk management framework and provide updates on their risk maturity and governance practices.

Insert under: “Responsibilities – Risk Management” or create a new subsection titled “Health & Safety”

· Review Health and Safety (H&S) risk reporting and critical incidents from all Council-Controlled Organisations and Trading Organisations, including near misses and notifiable events.

Insert under: “Responsibilities – External Audit”

· Clarify the Committee’s role in reviewing, noting, or following up on audit findings from Council-appointed auditors of CCOs and CCTOs, including ensuring that material issues are addressed and reported back to the Committee.

Create new heading: “Responsibilities – Governance and Performance”

· Provide oversight of the alignment between CCO and CCTO performance and Napier City Council’s strategic objectives, including financial sustainability, statutory compliance, and delivery of public value.

Carried

6. NCC Guidance for Insurance Requirements

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1839726
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Sharon O'Toole, Procurement Manager Garry Hrustinsky, Corporate Finance Manager

6.1 Purpose of Report

To provide information about the new Guide for Insurance Requirements that has been developed to support Council.

The guide is to help the consideration of insurance levels and requirements when engaging suppliers (e.g. contractors, consultants, and goods suppliers).

At the meeting

The Procurement Manager, Ms O’Toole provided a summary of the report and advised that the ELT had approved the insurance guide on 21 May 2025.

Councillor Mawson rejoined the meeting at 11.13am

Ms O’Toole advised that from a risk perspective within the procurement planning process there would now be guidance and reference to insurance included when developing plans for projects.

Committee resolution

David Pearson / Councillor Crown

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a. Note the new Napier City Council Guide for Insurance Requirements (Doc Id 1855905).

Carried

7. Progress Report: Procurement and Contract Management Improvements

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1847436
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Sharon O'Toole, Procurement Manager

7.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the various improvement initiatives underway to help Council better use procurement and contract management as strategic tools to deliver the capital programme, improve the management of Council assets, and implement the recommendations in the recent Internal Audit Report: Contract Management Report completed by Crowe April 2024.

This update report was provided to the Prosperous Napier Committee meeting 10th April 2025.

At the meeting

The Procurement Manager, Ms O’Toole presented the report and provided an update on the work being undertaken on procurement and contract management initiatives and the work being done to improve delivery and manage workstreams.

Ms O’Toole advised that the 3 Waters Team, as practitioners had been piloting some of these initiatives and had provided good feedback. Having the material in a format that can be shared widely is a big improvement.

Ms O’Toole advised that currently Council had a very paper-based system which provided good guidance and training however, there was no way to ensure compliance as there was no systemic weight, other than internal audits undertaken.

The Chair noted that the procurement and management improvements was beneficial to the whole organisation.

Committee resolution

Bruce Robertson / Councillor Mawson

The Audit and Risk Committee:

a. Receive the Procurement and Contract Management progress report.

Carried

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 June 2025 - Open Agenda

Recommendation to Exclude the Public

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

Agenda Items

1. Summary of 3 Year Community Partnership Fund Committee 2025-2028 Recommendations

2. Pre-purchase of burial plots

3. Civic Awards 2025

4. Action Points Register (Public Excluded) as of 17 June 2025

Reports from Audit and Risk Committee held 12 June 2025

1. Contract Review - C2813 Bore Inspections Contract

2. Audit New Zealand - Verbal Update

3. Chief Executive - Verbal Update

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded, the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as follows:

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.	Plain English reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter
Agenda Items
1. Summary of 3 Year Community Partnership Fund Committee 2025-2028 Recommendations	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.	Applications contain private information to organisations.
2. Pre-purchase of burial plots	7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.	protect the reputation and future negotiations
3. Civic Awards 2025	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.	Privacy
4. Action Points Register (Public Excluded) as of 17 June 2025	6(d) Likely to endanger the safety of a person 7(2)(j) Prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	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.	To protect privacy.
Reports from Audit and Risk Committee held 12 June 2025
1. Contract Review - C2813 Bore Inspections Contract	7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.	it may reveal commercial information about suppliers
2. Audit New Zealand - Verbal Update	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.	Commercial activity
3. Chief Executive - Verbal Update	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.	Commercial activity
Public Excluded Text
Council has considered the public interest in the information above and balanced those interests with the reason(s) for withholding this information. This ensures Council has met the requirements for withholding information under section 7(2) of the Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Open Minutes

Annual Plan

Meeting Date:	Monday 26 May 2025 Tuesday, 27 May 2025 Wednesday, 28 May 2025
Time:	26 May - 10.15am – 6.35pm 27 May - 9.00am – 4.23pm 28 May - 9.00am – 10.23am (Public Excluded)
Venue	Large Exhibition Hall War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page

Present	Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, McGrath, Mawson, Price and Simpson
In Attendance	Chief Executive (Louise Miller) Chief Financial Officer / Acting Executive Director Corporate Services (Caroline Thomson) Executive Director City Strategy (Rachael Bailey) Executive Director Infrastructure Services (Russell Bond) Executive Director Community Services (Thunes Cloete) Manager Communications and Marketing (Julia Stevens) Communications Specialist (Kate Penny) Manager Strategy and Transformation (Stephanie Murphy) Senior Advisor Corporate Planning (Danica Rio) Community Advisor (Tiffiny Knauf) Manager Arts, Culture and Heritage (Elizabeth Caldwell) Manager Business and Tourism (Steve Gregory) Acting Manager Environmental Solutions (Sarah Schaare) Manager Water Strategy (Philip Kelsen) Manager Water Reforms Transition (Andrew Lebioda) Commercial Director (Richard Munneke) Manager Infrastructure Developments (Simon Bradshaw) Strategic Planning Lead (Connie Whelan-Mills) Team Leader Governance (Anna Eady) Executive Assistant to the Mayor (Vanessa Smith) Corporate Finance Manager(Garry Hrustinsky) [online] Financial Reporting Accountant (Teresa Bushett) [online] Senior Management Accountant (Steve Walling) [online] Finance Accountant (Jason Kelleher) [online] Management Accountant (Sammie-Lee Bedford) [online] Management Accountant (Dileepa Sugathadasa) [online]
Also in attendance	Sign Language Interpreter (Cathie Siebert) Sign Language Interpreter (Sarah Billing)
Also in attendance	Tania Wright (Hawkes Bay Museums Trust), Marilyn Perko, Penelope McComb, Joseph Wilson, Chris Mclean, Max Patmoy, Lynne Anderson (Save the Dotterels), George Streeter, Jacqui Lloyd (New Zealand Cruise Association) [online], Alan Petersen, Stan Simmonds, Mary Anne Eyles, Paul Yeo (VIN Inc), Pauline Doyle, Pip Thompson and Vincent Michaelson (Napier City Business Inc), Peter Grant (Age Friendly Ahuriri Napier), Dr Rose Stiles (Te Awa suburb residents), Hilary Heath-Caldwell, Barbara Mawson, Paul Cornille, Vivian Couper, Mark Plested, Emma Merry, Margaret Gwynn, Kerry Ansell, Julie Ganivety, Dan Scott [online], Richard Wimsett, Glen Lucas (Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park Trust), Johanna Rodgers, Richard Catley (Pirimai Residents Association), Emily Otto, Jorja Miles (Napier Youth Council), Craig Waterhouse (Rodney Green Arenas), Aviva Taylor, Eva, Jessica Taylor, Leonie Wallwork (Nga Toi Creative Hawkes Bay), Will van Asch (Ahuriri Business Association), Bruce Carnegie (Grey Power Napier), Forbes Neil.
Administration	Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Jemma McDade)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 June 2025 - Open Agenda

Order of Business

Karakia

Apologies

Council resolution

Councillors Price / Chrystal

That the apologies from Councillors Mawson, Tareha and Taylor be accepted.

Carried

Conflicts of interest

Councillor Boag declared her association with Grey Power Napier.

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

The attachment under Separate Cover 1 includes submissions from the following submitters who had indicated they wished to speak, however, their concerns may now have been addressed, or they are now unable to attend:

· Roger Sceats

· Bob Hawley

· Kieran Rynhart

· James Gaudin

· Elizabeth Pishief

· Gavin Still

· Denise Gore

Questions from Elected members will be collated and provided to officers at the end of each day for comment.

Submitters are reminded that they must speak to the material in their written submission.

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Council resolution

Councillors Chrystal / Greig

That the Draft Minutes of the Ordinary meeting (Local Alcohol Policy Hearing) held on 29 April 2025 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Council resolution

Councillors Chrystal / Greig

That the Draft Minutes of the Ordinary meeting (Local Water Done Well) held on 29 April 2025 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Submitters Speaking

Marilyn Perko #52

The speaker outlined her opposition to the proposed early closure of Napier Library highlighting her view that a library is a community centre of learning and gathering for all ages. She commented that the new build should be put on hold whilst alternative solutions for the location of the library are explored such as the Waiapu Cathedral.

Tania Wright (Hawkes Bay Museum Trust) #42

The speakers outlined that the library has been in a temporary space in the Museum Theatre Gallery (MTG) for at least five years longer than was originally proposed. This has an ongoing impact on the MTG, restricting their ability to display collections due to the reduction in available space. When the library relocates to the new build, the MTG could have been 11 years at reduced capacity.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The cost of restoring the space at the MTG is included in existing budgets.

Penelope McComb #53

The speaker supported retaining the educational programmes currently available at the National Aquarium of New Zealand (NANZ). These programmes benefit a wide range of students from across the country and enable them to experience a unique learning environment. A school visit may provide the only opportunity for these students to access this facility.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The NANZ staff and volunteers should be included in decisions shaping the future of the NANZ.

Max Patmoy #42

The speaker shared a presentation showing his proposal for Pandaland, a visitor experience focusing on education and conservation that would be a collaboration between Napier and China.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· China would retain ownership of the pandas, though they would be leased for 10-15 years.

· Pandaland would be fully funded by benefactors.

· Pandaland would require the use of Council land for the venue to be in the proposed position on Marine Parade.

Attachment

1 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Max Patmoy submission 11 DOC ID 1857130

Joseph Wilson #57

The speaker opposed the temporary closure of Napier Library outlining his view that libraries are a key community wellbeing hub for vulnerable members of the community. Removal of library services would have a greater impact on the digitally vulnerable who may not be able to travel to Taradale.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The community would be willing to pay the extra rates to retain the library.

· The Napier Library would perform it’s community function if it were open four or five days a week.

Lynne Anderson (Save the Dotterels) #3

The speaker outlined the recent successes of the project and plans for the possible future expansion and improvement of nesting areas.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Funding for, and permission to, erect fences would be sought in future through Council grants.

Attachment

2 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Lynne Anderson submission 3 DOC ID 1857132

George Streeter #51

The speaker opposed the closure of the Napier Library emphasising the accessibility and importance of the current library to the senior community, many of whom may not be able to travel to Taradale. He offered to volunteer at the Library if this would affect the decision.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The Napier Library opening for five days would be acceptable.

Jacqui Lloyd (New Zealand Cruise Association) [online] #6

The speaker described how Napier is the leading model for cruise destination management and that the personal i-site visitor experience plays a critical role. The current position on Marine Parade is ideal for parking, visitor flow and safety.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The New Zealand Cruise Association is aiming to increase the number of ships docking at Napier in upcoming years.

· The i-site in its current location is key to the success of the visitor experience and should be located near to the bus drop off location.

Attachment

3 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Jacqui Lloyd submission 6 DOC ID 1857140

Alan Petersen #80

The speaker outlined his view on all topics in the consultation encouraging the increase of individual efforts to reduce landfill.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The MTG will soon have a shake house.

Chris McLean #58

The speaker explained his passion for the Par2 MiniGolf, detailing the history and popularity of the current course along with its value for Napier locals.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Council may not be able to protect the course if it were to be sold, though the terms of a lease could set out parameters for the maintenance of the activity and course.

The meeting adjourned at 11:49am and reconvened at 1.00pm

Stan Simmonds #46

The speaker outlined his concerns for changes proposed to the i-site, NANZ and the Faraday Museum of Technology encouraging Council to retain all facilities.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The current position of the i-site is preferable for the bus traffic and customer experience.

Mary Anne Eyles #13

The speaker outlined the specialist value of modern libraries, noting that Taradale Library may not be readily accessible. The educational benefits need to be balanced against the cost.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Having the Napier Library open four days a week is preferable to closing and the extra rates costs is acceptable.

Pauline Doyle #15

The speaker highlighted the benefits of the current Council facilities including the MTG, Faraday Museum of Technology and Napier Library outlining the value to her family. She focused particularly on the educational aspects of the Faraday Museum, noting its unique learning experiences and exhibits, and the educational value of having a public library service acknowledging that she would endorse rates increases being applied to retain the Napier Library.

Attachment

4 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Pauline Doyle submission 15 DOC ID 1857148

Pip Thompson and Vincent Michaelson (Napier City Business Inc) #7

The speakers promoted the value of retaining the Napier Library in the CBD, offering suggestions as to how the closure period could be minimised. If the i-site was to be moved, a strategy would be needed to ensure that visitor experience was maintained.

· Relocating the i-site to Clive Square may cause traffic issues through the CBD at a time when efforts are being made to minimise inner city traffic. Few businesses are open at the time of day that the cruise ship visitors arrive.

Paul Yeo (VIN Inc) #1

Vin Inc is the trading name for the i-site brand in New Zealand (NZ). The Napier i-site is the flagship in terms of service and location. Reimbursement for the recent investment to the interior may be sought if the venue is not under Council control.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· NZ is marketed as a ‘people’ destination. The replacement with a digital service is not a short term solution.

· The only other privately run i-site was unsuccessful.

· It is possible for the i-site to have other income streams, including merchandise, coffee shops and post office facilities.

Peter Grant (Age Friendly Napier – Positive Aging Strategy Group) #43

The speaker advised that Napier is an age friendly city. The availability and accessibility of the Napier Library, along with the services it currently provides, supports senior citizens. Council assets should be protected within the Significance and Engagement Policy to ensure the age friendly status is maintained.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Although the current site of the Faraday Museum has challenges, the Fullagar engine is unable to be moved.

Dr Rose Stiles (Te Awa suburb residents) #39

The speaker requested that Council consider assisting the Te Awa residents with identifying land for a community facility within the suburb to increase social cohesion and provide a focus point for emergency management. Te Awa has no such facilities.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The neighbourhood support group is active in the community.

· A partnership arrangement could be pursued. Locating an available site is the main issue.

Attachments

5 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Rose Stiles submission 39 DOC ID 1857461

Hilary Heath-Caldwell #16

The speaker disagreed with the proposed early closure of the Napier Library due to the universally accessible nature of the building and resources.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Ideal opening times would include a weekend.

· The speaker would be willing to pay the additional rates charge to keep the library open.

The meeting adjourned at 2:29pm and reconvened at 3pm

Barbara Mawson #63

The speaker highlighted the value of a library as a multigenerational, universally accessible community knowledge facility. The social costs of closing the Napier Library should be considered alongside the financial benefits.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The speaker would be willing to pay the additional rates to keep the Napier Library open with a preference expressed for more than four days a week.

Vivian Couper #50

The speaker supported retaining the Napier Library as a free of charge meeting place to further knowledge and learning.

· A minimum of six days a week would be ideal, inclusive of at least one day over the weekend.

Mark Plested #59

The speaker focussed on the section of his submission regarding NANZ. He outlined the challenges he had navigating and locating information on the Council website. He was unable to reconcile the information he did locate with the Annual Plan documentation, and queried Council processes.

Attachment

6 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Mark Plested submission 59 DOC ID 1857156

Paul Cornille #77

The speaker expressed concern at the proposal to close the Napier Library noting the importance of libraries in connecting communities.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Operating the Napier Library at reduced hours, four or five days a week is a good option. Including a weekend day would not be a priority.

· The speaker would be willing to pay the rates increase to maintain the Napier Library service.

Emma Merry #60

The speaker outlined the losses to the community if the Napier Library were to close, and the challenges faced by those who would be unable to access the Taradale Library.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Operating the Napier Library at reduced hours is better than no service at all. Six days a week would be preferable.

Margaret Gwynn #67

The speaker understood the need to make rates savings, but felt that closing the Napier Library for up to two years is too great a loss to the community.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Solar panels are on the plans for the new library as is the maximisation of natural light.

Kerry Ansell #64

The speaker summarised the concerns in their submission noting that ratepayers could be encouraged to use the Redclyffe facility by having an annual voucher provided.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The concern about increasing the costs of the landfill is that the instances of fly-tipping will increase.

The meeting adjourned at 3:53pm and reconvened at 4:10pm

Richard Catley (Pirimai Residents Association) #5

The speaker acknowledged the benefit of ongoing collaboration between Council and the Residents Association. He outlined plans to explore the use of Allen Berry Reserve and increased shade for the Pirimai shops.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The Residents Association has yet to engage with residents on the other side of Kennedy Road, but has built relationships with the BUPA community.

The meeting adjourned at 4:18pm and reconvened at 5:15pm

Julie Ganivet #44

The speaker advocated for the importance of libraries as a universally accessible resource for access to knowledge and as a community hub. A library is more than a collection of books, it is the quintessence of a democratic society.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Having the Napier Library open four days a week was better than nothing.

· The speaker was willing to pay the additional rates to keep the Napier Library open.

Dan Scott [online] #55

The speaker emphasised the importance of libraries as community spaces, particularly in tough economic times where the social opportunities available can positively impact individual wellbeing. The lack of public transport to the Taradale Library may serve as a barrier to access for the most vulnerable users. He disagreed with the reduction to the resilience rate noting the importance of having funds available for emergencies.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Having the Napier Library open for four days a week was better than nothing, though including a weekend day is important for younger users.

Richard Wimsett #79

The speaker praised the current i-site and improvements made to Marine Parade in recent years, noting that in tough financial times, assets need to be leveraged to ensure maximum efficiencies.

Glenn Lucas and Tania Kerr (Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park Trust) #9

The speakers acknowledged the challenges faced by Council in balancing affordability for ratepayers and the provision of services. Although the facility is a regional one, he noted the participation percentage of specific sports by Napier residents.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· There is an annual funding agreement model in place to apply for funding within the three year partnership funding model.

· Local and regional assets need to work together to ensure services are complimentary.

Johanna Rodgers #71

The speaker supported retaining the Napier Library and Council allocating the funds required in favour of other projects. The facility is more important than the building.

Questions are answered clarifying:

· The decision to close the Napier Library has not yet been made, Council is proposing closure as its preferred option.

Emily Otto #14

The speaker supported Councils preferred option for the NANZ noting her preference is for the facility to continue operating as an aquarium. She suggested the possible addition of an escape room and children’s playgrounds showcasing Te Ao Māori and renewable energy options.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Feedback on all options consulted on was evenly split.

· The speaker would be interested in being involved in a future Think Tank process.

Jorja Miles (Napier Youth Council) #41

The speaker understood the need for change, outlining their approach to each of the consultation topics. She emphasised that young people prefer to access information via digital means and noted the lack of engaging recreational activities in Napier for young people. If the Napier Library is to be closed, the mobile and Taradale libraries would need to be well resourced.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The i-site is not used by young people due to a preference for accessing information online.

· This presentation is from the point of view of young people who represent the future of the city.

Craig Waterhouse (Rodney Green Arenas) #4

The speaker provided a background to and overview of, the facility. He requested that Council include the facility in its long term planning process as other Council owned venues are competing with the facility for business. The facility is able to generate much of its own income, but requests consideration from Council for funding.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The submitter claimed the facility is a Council asset, and requested that the facility is included in Council’s long term planning.

Attachment

7 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Craig Waterhouse submission 4 DOC ID 1857161

The meeting adjourned at 6:35pm, to reconvene on Tuesday 27 May at 9am.

Minutes of reconvened Council Meeting (Day Two) - 9am, Tuesday 27 May 2025

Councillor Mawson joined the meeting at 9am.

Apologies

Council resolution

Councillors Price / Chrystal

That the apologies from Councillors Tareha and Taylor be accepted.

Carried

Submitters Speaking continued

Aviva Taylor

The petition was received on 30 April 2025 and the Petitioner’s prayer reads as follows:

“Napier Library Closing Project – we need to fight for what’s right”

There are 37 signatories to the petition.

The petitioner noted the importance of the Napier Library and that their submission was prepared in the Napier Library.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The speaker primarily visited the Napier Library after school and at the weekend.

· The speaker supported the Napier Library being open for a reduced number of days than currently offered.

2025-05-26 Annual Plan Petition – Aviva Taylor DOC ID 1858724

James Gaudin

The petition was received on 8 April 2025 and the Petitioner’s prayer reads as follows:

“We hereby petition Napier City Council and request that council continue to fund the Napier i-site at its current location”

There are 174 signatories to the petition.

The petitioner did not speak to his petition

2025-05-26 Annual Plan Petition – James Gaudin DOC ID 1858723

Leonie Wallwork (Nga Toi Creative Hawkes Bay ) #40

The speaker explained the regional arts framework. She advised that Nga Toi has an available space which can offer some of the facilities currently provided by the Napier Library, even as interim solutions to support the community.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· The Nga Toi space is accessible, multipurpose and could be used as a drop in centre for rangatahi.

Attachment

8 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Leonie Wallwork submission 40 DOC ID 1857176

Will van Asch (Ahuriri Business Association) #2

The speaker advocated for the i-site to be moved to Clive Square for safety and efficiency. He expressed concern over the multi-use space proposed for the new Council building focussing on the potential adverse impact on surrounding local businesses. He encouraged Council to engage with the market before developing commercial activities.

Questions were answered clarifying:

· Buses would cause no more inconvenience at a Clive Square site than currently exists at Marine Parade. Businesses would adapt with altered operating hours.

· Buses would use the west side of Clive Square for safety reasons

· Buses driving through town would be passing through controlled intersections reducing the safety impact.

· Council information could be physically displayed through town.

Attachment

9 2025-05-26 Annual Plan Will van Asch submission 2 DOC ID 1857220

Bruce Carnegie (Grey Power Napier) #37

The speaker outlined the concerns of Grey Power Napier to each of the areas of consultation noting that Napier is an age friendly city. Rates increases are harder for those on a low or fixed income including superannuants. Closing the Napier Library will have a greater impact on those on a lower or fixed income as they are less mobile and require the digital accessibility of the Library with staff assistance.

Forbes Neil #92

The speaker supported most of Councils preferred options with the exception of the closure of the Napier Library, NANZ and i-site. He noted the loss of a valuable cultural resource if the Napier Library were to close. It would be difficult for residents to redirect to Taradale as resources would be stretched.

All attachments: