Agenda of Council Meeting - 6 December 2018

TRIM File No. CG-14-1-01077

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday, 6 December 2018

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

A G E N D A

1. Prayer

2. Apologies & Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3. Seal Register

4. Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest.

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (preferably before the meeting).

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday 20 November 2018, including minutes while the public were excluded.

(Previously circulated)

6. Presentation by HB Sportsperson of the Year Rose Morton 5

7. 2018 Hastings Youth Council Annual Report 7

8. Water Improvement Update - Garth Cowie 21

9. 3Waters Review 23

10. Proposed Eastbourne Street East Upgrade 29

11. Duart House - Seismic Strengthening 45

12. Naming of the new Arterial Link in Whakatu 51

13. Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 3 December 2018 67

14. Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 28 November 2018 69

15. Summary of Recommendations of the Opera House & Arts Precinct Subcommittee held on 22 November 2018 71

16. Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes 75

17. Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update 79

18. Presentation to Peter Kay, Chair of Rural Community Board 85

19. Additional Business Items

20. Extraordinary Business Items

21. Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Items 22 and 23 86

22. CBD Linkage, 200 Block Heretaunga Street West, Laneway, Carpark, Pocket Park to Queen Street West

23. Te Mata Park - Request for Funding to purchase land

File Ref: 18/1172

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Youth Development Co-ordinator

Angela Hughes

SUBJECT: 2018 Hastings Youth Council Annual Report

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about the activities of the 2018 Hastings Youth Council. Representatives from Youth Council will be presenting to Council, and a short video of activities undertaken will be played.

1.2 This report concludes by recommending that the report of the Youth Development Coordinator titled “2018 Hastings Youth Council Annual Report” dated 6 December 2018 be received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Recruitment for the 2018 Youth Council began in February 2018 via a social media campaign whereby young people submitted their interest to be part of the 2018 Youth Council.

2.2 43 of applications were received and were reviewed by a panel.

2.3 22 were selected for the 2018 Youth Council representing the following schools and tertiary institutions;

· Kate Allen Hastings Girls High School

· Caroline Jones Hastings Girls High School

· Hena Dugh Hastings Girls High School

· Emilee Scarborough Hastings Girls High School

· Connor Molloy Napier Boys High School

· Gurjas Sekhon St Johns College

· Cairo Smith St Johns College

· Matekairoa Butler Flaxmere College

· Oscar Malpas Hastings Boys High School

· Xinyi Chen Iona College

· Cameron Young Karamu High School

· Abigail Masengi Karamu High School

· Hope McCleland Karamu High School

· Charlotte Frogley Woodford House

· Kaikohe Hutana Te Aute College

· Ella Hoogerbrug Havelock North High School

· Eleanor Matich Employed

· Max Sharp EIT

· Dylan Bishop St Johns College

· Sam Anderson Sacred Heart College

· Rytasha Sekhon Hastings Girls High School

· Rose Vaima’a Hastings Girls High School

2.4 Following the induction tour on February 21 the Youth Council held a planning day on February 22 to develop their Annual Plan for 2018 whereby the Youth Council identified activities to deliver this year. The Youth Council Annual Plan 2018 is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

2.5 These activities and /or events included:

· Colour Run

· Basketball Competition

· Youth Grants

· Facebook / Civic Pride

· Mayor’s Task Force- Trades Training Graduation

· Youth Potential Awards

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 During the year Youth Council members have been involved in numerous community and Council based projects including;

· Directions Youth Health Service initiative’s Jan - Dec

· The Waitangi reserve beach clean-up 4 March

· The Mayfair community Census day 4 March

· Zeal, Youth Paint Party at Hawkes Bay Sports Park 9 March

· Cancer Council Relay for Life 11 March

· Mayor’s Task Force – Trades Training Graduation 2 May

· Youth Potential Awards 11 July

· Festival of the Future, conference in Wellington 27- 29 July

· Environmental Youth Council “BLUE” movie 9 August

· Presented to the CBD Master Plan Workshop 14 August

· YES - Youth Enterprise Scheme August

· Ministry of Education local planning initiative’s August

· Hawkes Bay District Health Board Initiatives August

· Sport Hawke’s Bay Youth Engagement Initiatives August

· SADD – Students Against Dangerous Driving September

· Maori Language Week September

· Women’s Suffrage Celebrations / Events 19 September

· Colour Run at Hawkes Bay Sports Park 22 September

· Mental Health Week October

· Environmental Youth Council “Green Games” October

· Youth Council, Youth Grants Programme 1 November

3.2 The Youth Council, Youth Grants programme began in September 14^th ending November 1^st.

· Youth Grants submissions opened online 14 September

(Via the council website. Advertised on Facebook) Applications closed 14 October

Total of 47 applications received

Youth Council Selection Panel met 17 October

10 Individual winners, and one group were selected

· Youth Grant Presentation Evening 1 November

Held in Council Chambers, 70 people attended

A list of the 2018 Youth Grant winners is attached to this report as Attachment 2.

3.3 The last official meeting of the year for the Youth Council was held 7 November.

3.4 A review of the Hastings Youth Council is underway, examining the purpose, structure and mechanisms to strengthen youth involvement within Council and Community events and initiatives.

3.5 Council members were asked for feedback relating to their experiences and suggestions to strengthen youth involvement through the Youth Council. Some of their recommendations include;

· Extending the age of Youth Councillors to 21, from the current 15-19 years old.

· Improving communication channels with schools, EIT and local businesses

· Creating more opportunities for young to people to be involved in organising and running youth and community events

· Creating opportunities for more direct and frequent contact and communication with Councillors.

3.6 This information will help direct any changes to the Hastings Youth Council programme for 2019.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Youth Development Co-ordinator titled “2018 Hastings Youth Council Annual Report” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

Attachments:

1	Hastings District Youth Council Annual Plan	COP-09-02-18-892
2	Youth Grants Programme 2018 Winners table format	COP-09-02-18-954

File Ref: 18/1125

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Acting Chief Executive

Neil Taylor

SUBJECT: 3Waters Review

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This report requests the Council to approve initiating a review to address how we improve the management of drinking water, storm water and wastewater (“3Waters”) in the Hawke’s Bay region. This review will develop recommendations for performance improvements to our 3Waters systems to help shape Central Governments 3Waters strategy.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The purpose of the review is to have developed recommendations for regional performance improvements to our 3Waters systems to help shape Central Governments thinking to deliver:

· Safe, NZDWS compliant and reliable drinking water

· Better environmental performance for our water services

· Efficient, sustainable, resilient, and accountable water services

· Achieving these aims in ways our communities can afford their water bills.

2.2 The Councils will need to engage the services of an external agency to support the delivery of this review of which the cost is estimated at $200,000. This cost will be attributed on the following basis: 35% NCC, 35% HDC, 15% HBRC 7.5% WDC, 7.5% CHBC. We will be seeking a fixed cost engagement via our procurement process.

2.3 The Government is reviewing how to improve the management of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater (3Waters) to better support New Zealand’s prosperity, health, safety and environment. Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has announced a reform programme to transform drinking, storm and wastewater. It is focused on the challenges facing the sector, including funding pressures, rising environmental standards, climate change, seasonal pressure from tourism, and the recommendations of the Havelock North Inquiry. The review is in its second stage.

2.4 Stage One – This stage explored the issues and opportunities with 3Waters services by gathering and analysing information. This was completed at the end of 2017.

2.5 Stage Two – This stage commenced in March 2018. It is looking at options for improving the 3Waters system, including the management, service delivery, funding, and regulatory arrangements.

2.6 Central government has advised that they will work closely with councils, iwi and all stakeholders with an interest in 3Waters services in order to develop options and recommendations.

2.7 This review is an opportunity to provide the Hawke’s Bay’s perspective into the Central Government review on developing options to address the key concerns on how we can improve the management of drinking water, storm water and wastewater (“3Waters”) to better support our community’s prosperity, health, safety and environment.

2.8 The Minister has advised she is supportive of our region’s proposal to complete this review and other Councils are interested in our approach and how it may be adopted as part of the wider government review.

2.9 This review will need to address the following challenges for our water systems and communities:

· Meeting community expectations for each of the 3Waters across quality, treatment and management

· Meeting regulatory requirements for the 3Waters for quality, treatment and management

· The ability to replace infrastructure as it ages, and or fund and manage new infrastructure to meet changing customer and regulatory requirements.

· Declining rating bases in some areas, high growth in others

· High seasonal demand in small tourism centres

· Adapting for climate change and adverse natural events.

Scope of the Review

2.10 The review shall identify and develops options for structure and governance models that:

· Develops and confirms ‘Key Principles’ of approach that are shared and agreed by the respective council’s

· Identifies service and delivery model opportunities through joint provision of all or some elements of the ‘Three Water’ services

· Develops strategic capacity and resilience across the water network

· Provides excellence in strategic and management capability to ensure safe, secure efficient drinking water, waste water and storm water service outcomes to our communities.

· Provide economic value

· Provides capital efficiency current and future ‘Three Water’ assets

· Delivers operational and maintenance excellence through the most effective service delivery model

· Improves customer service

· Provides greater environmental, community and cultural focus

2.11 In addition, the review shall:

· Identify a range of models which shall be compared to the status quo including clustering of sub-regional entities. The model’s must be flexible enough to future proof for the inclusion of private water suppliers.

· Clearly demonstrate how well and why the identified models meet each of the objectives including benefits analysis, cost of service delivery, funding requirements, how fees and charges are levied, and processes.

· Consideration must be given to where benefits/costs shall be distributed.

· Undertake risk analysis of the options (with mitigating actions) and the status quo including identifying explicitly information with respect to the risk and legal liability issues that arises from the implementation of the scenario’s.

· Recommend the next steps to enable the entire objectives to be met including a programme and cost/resource estimates to do this – this should also include transition plans/costs and timetables for such a transition

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

3.1 Option 1: Approve this Councils 35% apportionment of the cost from the CE Projects budget to undertake this review.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

Funding will be provided from existing budget.

The review will be outsourced to an external consultancy to deliver the report, however the will be an impact on council staff to provide information to complete the analysis and participate in workshops throughout the review process.

b) Risk Analysis

This option is considered to be a low strategic risk option. This option would contribute the Hawkes Bay regional perspective into the Central Government review on how we can improve the management of drinking water, storm water and wastewater (“3Waters”).

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes

This review will align with the government initiatives on 3Waters review and link to our provision of safe water throughout Hawke’s Bay.

d) Statutory Responsibilities

Will contribute towards meeting our 3Waters standards & legal obligations

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans

The project is not part of the latest LTP.

f) Community Views and Preferences

This option will require specific engagement with Tangata Whenua.

g) Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option are:

· provision of the Hawkes Bay’s regional perspective into the Central Government review to shape their thinking

· working together as a region to develop the best regional model to deliver a strategic and sustainable approach to 3Waters.

· There are no perceived disadvantages of this option relative to option 2.

3.2 Option 2:

Not approve use of budget to complete this review and wait for Central Government outcome without considered Hawkes Bay regional input.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are no financial or resourcing implications in choosing to do nothing in the short term.

b) Risk Analysis

By doing nothing, the Government may mandate a new regime that does not address the specific requirements/expectations of the Hawke’s Bay region & our communities.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes

The Council would continue progressing against its LTP plan whilst noting that the Government has a 3Waters review which will impact directly on that plan.

d) Statutory Responsibilities

No direct impact.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans

No direct impact although the review will allow the Council to be engaged with government change in an informed and planned manner.

f) Community Views and Preferences

This is an opportunity for the Hawkes Bay to develop a regional vs local approach. If we act independently then the review will still need to occur in accordance with our LTP, or a Central Government imposed regime. It will cost significantly more than this combined regional approach to the review.

g) Advantages and Disadvantages

Disadvantages are significant and may impact on our ability to develop future solutions for our region to deliver:

· Safe, NZDWS compliant and reliable drinking water

· Better environmental performance for our water services

· Efficient, sustainable, resilient, and accountable water services

· Achieving these aims in ways our communities can afford their water bills.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

COMPLIANCE
Significance	The matter being assessed is being of some importance
Options	This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for address the matter: 1) Approve this Councils 35% apportionment of the cost from the CE Projects budget to undertake this review to contribute to Central Government strategy for 3Waters. 2) Not approve use of budget to complete the review and wait for Central Government outcome without considered Hawke’s Bay regional input.
Affected Persons	The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are Councilors, Council staff, Rate Payers, Community Members, LGNZ and Central Government.
Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Implications	Not applicable for this phase of activity – Review Only
Significant Policy and Plan Inconsistencies	Not applicable for this phase of activity – Review Only

5.0 NEXT STEPS

5.1 Should Option 1 be approved our next steps are as follows:

· Commence tender process for consultant to lead the review across the respective Councils with the expectation that this is completed in December.

· Confirm scope and draft project plan with a view to completing the review by the end of June 2019.

6.0 FURTHER INFORMATION

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Acting Chief Executive titled “3Waters Review” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) The Council approve Option 1 as set out in this report to deliver a 3Waters Review for the Hawke’s Bay Region.

C) That Council approve the cost of the review apportioned across the Hawke’s Bay Councils as follows:

Napier City Council	35%
Hastings District Council	35%
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council	15%
Wairoa District Council	7.5%
Central Hawke’s Bay District Council	7.5%

D) That the maximum budget provided be limited to $75,000 for Hastings District Council’s share.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/1169

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Parks Planning and Development Manager

Rachel Stuart

SUBJECT: Proposed Eastbourne Street East Upgrade

1.0 SUMMARY

1.0 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the reallocation of funds set aside to deliver the CBD Street Upgrade Programme, in order to advance the street upgrade of Eastbourne Street East between Warren and Russell Streets.

1.1 This request arises from the need to enhance this section of Eastbourne Street East as part of the planned capital works to renew the existing asphalt and pavement of these two CBD blocks in early 2019. The current scope of the renewal work and budget provides only for a standard like for like renewal treatment.

1.2 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of good quality local and public infrastructure which meets the needs of our community by contributing towards establishing vibrant, functional and high amenity urban centres.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending the Council amend the Hastings CBD Street Upgrade Programme to enable the advancement of the Eastbourne Street upgrade to align with the programmed asphalt and pavement renewal programme.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Hastings CBD Street Upgrade Programme

2.0 The Hastings CBD Street Upgrade Programme is funded substantially (80%) via a targeted rate on properties within the Hastings CBD, and equates to $300,000 per annum.

2.1 Following consultation with the Hastings Business Association, Council adopted a revised ten year CBD Street Upgrade Programme in October 2017 (Attachment 1). This sets out an agreed street upgrade programme, that seeks to deliver a considered series of projects that will add to the vibrancy of the CBD, while responding to other related projects in an integrated fashion.

2.2 The Programme builds on the previous city centre upgrade and improvement works. The scope considers key corridors (pedestrian and vehicle) and entryways connecting to previously upgraded streets (such as the Heretaunga Street spine) of the city centre.

2.3 It was intended that the sequencing and staging of individual elements within the programme can be reprioritised if the need to respond so arises.

2.4 The current identified priorities in the programme are Karamu Road, Eastbourne Street (Railway Road), Eastbourne Street (Civic Square) and Water Feature.

2.5 Concept Plans for the Karamu Road streetscape upgrade were endorsed by the Landmarks Advisory Group on 6 December 2017 and adopted by the Works and Services Committee on 12 June 2018 for construction. This work was programmed for September 2018.

Long Term Plan 2018-2028

2.6 In May 2018 Council consulted the community over the Long Term Plan for the District. One of the key issues of consultation was the proposed investment of $4.5 million into a vibrant and people focused city centre.

2.7 While a number of positive submissions were received, two submissions questioned the level of investment without full reconsideration of vehicle movements within the CBD, in particular over the railway line and through the mall.

2.8 In order to move this vision forward, Council engaged Urbanism Plus to review the 2010 Urban Issues work related to the city centre’s public spaces and streetscape with particular reference to this issue. Workshops have now been completed and it is envisaged that the final review advice will be presented to Council at their first meetings of 2019.

2.9 Given this, the upgrade of Karamu Road was deferred pending the outcome of the Urbanism Plus work stream. There was also a concern that the upgrade may not be completed by 1 December, which would have significant impact on the retailers within the CBD over the busy lead up to Christmas.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.0 In September 2018, Officers were advised by the Transportation team of their intention to renew the asphalt and pavement of Eastbourne Street between Russell and Warren Streets in early 2019. The current scope of work and budget provides for a standard, like for like renewal treatment.

3.1 This programmed work presents Council with an opportunity for reduced CBD disruption and significant time and cost savings by combining proposed future enhancement works with this renewal project; by delivering all works under a single contract at the same time.

3.2 In order to progress this opportunity, Officers have prepared a proposed design for this part of Eastbourne Street East using the adopted CBD palette. The cost to implement this plan has been estimated at $550,000.

3.3 The $693,000 originally estimated for this work is currently spread over three years from 2020/21. If Council wishes to advance this upgrade, an amendment is required to the CBD Street Upgrade Programme which is discussed in this report.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.0 There are two options for Council to consider.

Option 1: Retain the existing CBD Street Upgrade Programme

Option 2: Adopt a revised CBD Street Upgrade Programme to advance Eastbourne Street East; and adopt the proposed design for these works as included in Attachment 2.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.0 While the total work programme proposed by officers is of a considerable value, it does not challenge any of Council’s significance thresholds. In addition, Council has already carried out consultation on the projects and their respective budgets during the formulation of the last LTP and subsequent Annual Plan processes. Targeted consultation with the Hastings Business Association has also been carried out and meets their wider City Centre Strategy 2013.

5.1 The amendment to the work programme and proposed design has been shared with the Hastings City Business Association who are supportive of the initiative and amendment to the programme in order to advance this project.

5.2 The proposed design was taken to the Landmarks Advisory Group at their meeting on 14 November. Members of the group were supportive of the initiative and proposed design. The Group requested that Rata be used as tree species along this route to continue the successful Karamu Road planting theme.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

CBD Street Upgrade Programme

6.0 The current adopted Street Upgrade programme identifies (1) Karamu Road, (2a) Eastbourne Street (Railway Road), (2b) Eastbourne Street (Civic Square) and (5) Central Water Feature as the upgrade priorities for the next five financial years as identified in Table 1 below. Rough order estimates were allocated when the programme was adopted.

Table 1: Adopted CBD Upgrade Programme (2018-2023)

Description	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
1 Karamu Road	$878,000
2a Eastbourne (Railway Rd)	$120,000	$578,000
2b Eastbourne (Civic)			$231,000	$231,000	$231,000
5 Central Water Feature	$231,000
2 Miscellaneous Works			$50,000		$50,000
Total Expenditure (2,600,000)	$1,229,000	$578,000	*$281,000*	*$231,000*	*$281,000*

6.1 Adoption of Option 1 would see the existing CBD Street Upgrade programme retained. Officers advise that due to changing circumstances this current programme cannot be successfully delivered. This is due to both Karamu Road and Eastbourne Street (Railway Road) being deferred pending the delivery of the Urbanism Plus work, and completion of the Police Station. Both of these projects are programme for delivery in 19/20. This provides opportunity to use existing funds to advance the Eastbourne Street (Civic) upgrade that has been planned and able to be integrated and delivered alongside the planned infrastructure renewal upgrade.

6.2 Option 2 proposes a resetting of the next five years of the programme, as indicatively proposed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Proposed Revised CBD Upgrade Programme (2018-2023)

Description	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
1 Karamu Road		$500,000	$500,000
2a Eastbourne (Railway Rd)		$500,000
2b Eastbourne (Civic)	$550,000
2c Eastbourne (300 E)				$200,000
5 Central Water Feature					$250,000
2 Miscellaneous Works				$50,000	$50,000
Total Expenditure (2,600,000)	$550,000	$1,000,000	*$500,000*	*$250,000*	*$300,000*

6.3 As at 1 July 2018 there is $952,387 in the CBD development reserve following the construction of the Heretaunga Street West 200 Block upgrade and the Eastbourne Street bus shelter. Table 3 below identifies the funds available for the next five financial years.

Table 3: CBD Development Reserve

	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Total	952,387	1,257,702	1,569,734	1,888,483	2,214,559
Targeted Rate Allocation	305,315	312,032	318,749	326,076	334,015
Balance	1,257,702	1,569,734	1,888,483	2,214,559	2,548,574

6.4 On this basis Council can safely and appropriately dedicate $550,000 to Eastbourne Street in 2018/19 while retaining sufficient funds (via carry forwards and new funds) to upgrade Karamu Road and Eastbourne Street (Railway Road) in 2019/20.

6.5 This shifting of priorities will allow Council to integrate the upgrade of Eastbourne Street with the programmed pavement renewal programme to achieve significant cost and time savings.

6.6 The proposed enhancements described in detail below.

Proposed Streetscape Design

6.7 Option 2 also recommends the adoption of the proposed streetscape design. The proposed plan is included in Attachment 2.

6.8 The proposed enhancement treatments for the southern side of Eastbourne Street, fronting Civic Square include:

· CBD Nubrik® clay pavers for the entire footpath length;

· Extra width extruded concrete kerb and channel to compliment the limestone kerb blocks in Heretaunga Street.

· Feature lighting to match those outside the Opera House in Hastings Street; with the addition of low pedestrian lights and flag track provision.

· Trees to provide an avenue effect down Eastbourne Street and to create a visual link between the Opera Plaza and Civic Square, down to the CBD.

· Pedestrian threshold at the intersection of Russell Street and Karamu Road with granite sett pavers to create an enhanced entry point to Civic Square

6.9 The proposal for the northern side of Eastbourne Street is for a slightly lower level of enhancement to reflect the commercial nature of this side of the street:

· CBD Nubrik® clay paving bands for the entire length;

· Extra width extruded concrete kerb and channel to compliment the limestone kerb blocks in Heretaunga Street.

· No lighting

· Trees to create an avenue effect down Eastbourne Street, to create a visual link between the Opera Plaza and Civic Square, down to the CBD

6.10 A decision on tree species can be finalised at a later time, however the Landmarks Advisory Group have requested that these be the native Rata, as adopted along Karamu Road. These trees are performing well in this space, and Officers are therefore supportive of this recommendation.

Financial Implications

6.11 The cost for the implementation of the above enhancement works is estimated at $550,000.00, which includes a 15% contingency and 10% design cost.

6.12 Officers are requesting a change to the priorities included in Table 1 of the CBD Street Upgrade Programme, to advance the proposed works on Eastbourne Street, ahead of Karamu Road. This will enable the integration of these works with the programmed pavement renewal programme for significant time and cost savings by combining proposed future enhancement works with this renewal project; by delivering all works under a single contract at the same time.

6.13 In addition, it is prudent to further delay the proposed Karamu Road works given a significantly higher level of treatment to this road is being recommended by Urbanism Plus as part of their street enhancement master plan work.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.0 It is recommended that Council adopt Option 2 and amend the 2017 Street Upgrade Programme to advance the upgrade of Eastbourne Street between Warren Street South and Russell Street South to 2018/19; and defer Karamu Road until 2019/20.

7.1 It is also recommended that Council adopt and endorse the proposed street upgrade plan for Eastbourne Street as included in Attachment 2. This will enable the design to be incorporated into the programmed renewal upgrade that is due to be tendered in January 2019, and delivered in April. If Council does not adopt these the proposed design, Officers would recommend that the programmed renewal be deferred until a revised plan is adopted otherwise Council will likely be criticised for rework.

7.2 The development of the current LTP has had the benefit of providing a clear direction on Council’s vision for our main commercial district. While officers have been progressing preliminary concepts for Karamu Road, the potential to integrate the Eastbourne Street upgrade with the programmed pavement renewal programme for this street provide an opportunity for significant time and cost savings by combining proposed future enhancement works with this renewal project; by delivering all works under a single contract at the same time.

7.3 In addition, it is considered prudent to further delay the proposed Karamu Road works given a significantly higher level of treatment to this road is being recommended by Urbanism Plus as part of their street enhancement work. Their work to date has identified Karamu Road, and in particular the 100 South block as being a key CBD activity node.

7.4 Council can be assured it has appropriate funds available to advance the work. In addition the proposed projects have a strong level of support from the key stakeholders. The proposed works will contribute to CBD vibrancy and continue to develop the Hastings commercial heart’s point of difference in Hawkes Bay.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parks Planning and Development Manager titled “Proposed Eastbourne Street East Upgrade” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) That Council resolve to adopt Option 2 and amend the 2017 Street Upgrade Programme to advance the upgrade of Eastbourne Street between Warren Street South and Russell Street South to 2018/19; and defer Karamu Road until 2019/20; and adopt the proposed Concept Plan as included in Attachment 2.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) The integration of street upgrade works with the programmed pavement renewal programme will result in significant cost and time saving by delivering all works under a single contract.

Attachments:

1	Adopted CBD Upgrade Programme October 2017	STR-22-8-18-691
2	Proposed Eastbourne Streetscape Upgrade Design	str-22-8-18-693

File Ref: 18/382

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT: Duart House - Seismic Strengthening

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the scope of works to be undertaken as part of the seismic strengthening of Duart House.

1.3 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of good quality community infrastructure providing recreational and cultural opportunities that meet the needs of our current and future community.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending that That Option 3: Strengthening to 67% NBS (New Building Standard) in two stages, be approved as the preferred option.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Duart House, located at 51 Duart Road in Havelock North, was originally constructed in the early 1880’s with a variety of additions added over time.

2.2 The building was originally designed to the applicable loading and material design standards at the time. These standards and relevant building codes have been reviewed and revised many times since then.

2.3 Duart House is a listed Heritage 2 building and is identified as a heritage item in the Hastings District Plan. While Council could consider doing nothing to the building, and essentially shutting its doors, this option has not been seriously canvassed due to the community’s desire to retain these heritage values and likelihood of considerable public disapproval should Council take such a position. Similarly and suggestion of demolition has not been seriously canvassed in this report.

2.4 In terms of the status of the building under current legislation, the facility can continue operating under its current conditions, however to leave it open to the public, Council has four years to upgrade the building to 34% NBS and in particular, to make safe the chimneys.

2.5 Since 2012, Council has undertaken a number of assessments to check the vulnerability of Council owned facilities. Eleven buildings have been identified as earthquake prone or potentially prone i.e. building assessed below 34% of NBS.

2.6 As a result of these assessments, Council, during the formulation of the 2015-25 LTP, resolved to prioritise the strengthening of these buildings with ratings under 34%NBS for strengthening or replacement within 6 years. It aims that by 2020 all Council owned buildings will meet the current earthquake standard with a minimum rating of 34%NBS, the requirement under the current legislation.

2.7 In August 2013 a detailed earthquake evaluation was undertaken for Duart House which showed the building to be earthquake prone with the subfloor and ground floor being assessed 30% NBS. The building’s pile foundations and chimney stacks have been identified as the key element contributing to this rating.

2.8 To meet the minimum requirement of 34% NBS re-piling of the existing pile foundation and removal of the chimneys is required. To achieve 67% NBS, the ground floor requires new bracing elements to be installed in addition to the re-piling and chimney removal. The re-piling project and associated works for Duart House are indicatively programmed for mid 2019.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Although Council have not formally adopted a target earthquake strengthening level, all buildings that have either been strengthened or are a work-in-progress, a minimum strengthening of 67%NBS has been achieved, well above the 34% NBS required under the current legislation.

3.2 Officers have completed the detailed seismic designs for Duart House to meet either a 34% or 67% NBS requirement and costed the two options.

3.3 As a result of the need to undertake the additional works related to building consent requirements and associated renewals/improvements regardless of the strengthening level chosen, the cost difference between meeting the 34% NBS option and the 67% NBS option is approximately $500,000.

3.4 This reports seeks Council guidance on whether or not it wishes to attain the higher standard and also seeks additional funding to undertake the work.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are three options to be considered for this project:

Option 1: Strengthening to 34% NBS in 2018/19.

Option 2: Strengthening to 67% NBS in 2018/19.

Option 3: Strengthening to 67% NBS in two stages.

4.2 For all options the works related to the building consent requirements, renewals/improvements, general costs and fees will still be required. This limits the scope of items that can be removed to meet the current available funding.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The issue of significance has been assessed in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and in particular the thresholds and criteria contained within this policy. The issue does not trigger any of the financial thresholds nor challenge any criteria of significance.

5.2 Officers have worked closely with the Duart House Society who manage the facility on behalf of Council. Understandably their preference is to undertake the higher level of strengthening and they ask that the work be completed during winter, which is the time they have the least amount of bookings and disruption. Depending on the decision made on this report, the Society will be consulted regarding the outcome and construction timeframes will be coordinated with them.

5.3 In addition, as Duart House is listed as a Heritage 2 building, Heritage NZ has been consulted and have indicated their support of the work to be undertaken. Understandably their key aim is to retain the building and its heritage values for the present and future community to enjoy.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 The scope of the project not only includes strengthening works but also requires other upgrades as the project triggers Building Code improvements and offers the opportunity to integrate other building renewal works that have been deferred prior to committing to these works. The following table outlines the cost estimates for the strengthening options.

Strengthening to 34%

Strengthening to 67%

Strengthening to 67% in 2 stages

$460,000.00

$760,000.00

$830,000.00

(All estimates excl gst)

6.2 Council currently funds earthquake strengthening via the Building Reserve. This reserve is in turn financed via loan, and the interest is funded by rates. The decision around the funding of the earthquake strengthening work via loan funding is based on the premise that the assets are shared and enjoyed over generations who over time pay their fair share. Therefore in this instance, any decision on making available additional funding, needs to recognise that there will be an increase in rates for ongoing servicing of the loan going forward.

6.3 Option 1: Strengthening to 34% NBS.

6.4 The estimated cost for undertaking the 34% strengthening works and required ancilliary items is $455,064.00. There is currently $260,000 set aside for Duart House works, leaving a shortfall of approximately $200,000. To service this additional cost, the loan funding impact will be approximately $15,000pa.

6.5 This option represents the minimum level of seismic strengthening required to meet legislative requirements. Due to the evolving nature of earthquake related legislation, Council has not as yet adopted a policy for earthquake strengthening of its own buildings. To date most upgrades have been to the higher standard as the price differentials have been minor and it made sense to upgrade to the higher standard. This particular project stands out as the funding gap is of a magnitude to bring back to Council for approval.

6.6 From a policy perspective, it is also noted as Council has already undertaken a full engineering assessment, it is now well aware of the shortcomings in the building. While Council could legitimately repair to the lower level, it needs be cognisant that in doing so it may well be sending a mixed message to the community on how Council is responding to its own responsibility on dealing with its earthquake prone buildings. While the building probably does not provide for a high level public use, it is a public venue that can theoretically accommodate up to 129 people.

6.7 As a construction period of two months will be required to undertake this work, with the additional funding, the project can be completed in winter 2019 within the facility’s off season.

6.8 Option 2: Strengthening to 67% NBS.

6.9 Although this has not been formalised as policy, in recent years, Council has been strengthening its public buildings to 67% NBS. This higher level clearly provides a better margin of resilience in the event of an earthquake and has generally been easily and affordably achieved. As the legislation is now set in place, Council will soon need to decide on what level it wishes buildings to be upgraded to. Officers will report back in 2019 with recommendations and cost implications on this matter.

6.10 Officers are currently proceeding on the assumption that we will at least need to meet the minimum 34% NBS. It is also noted that by adopting the higher standard in the upgrade of Duart House, Council would be sending a clear message to the community that it too is serious about looking after our heritage assets and more importantly the welfare of the community that uses our public buildings.

6.11 As shown in the above listed table, this option requires more element improvements over and above the re-piling task and its related improvements. As such this option would require additional funding of approximately $500,000, over and above $260,000 allocated in the existing budget.

6.12 The rates impact to service this loan would be $45,000pa.

6.13 In terms of work scheduling, a construction period of 4 months will be required. This will need to be discussed in more detail with the Duart House Society, though on the face of it, potentially the work could also be undertaken in winter 2019.

6.14 Option 3: Strengthening to 67% NBS in two stages

6.15 This option would entail completing the required works to attain 34%NBS, (chimney removal, base re-piling and associated works) in 2019 with the additional works required to meet the 67%NBS at a later date, but probably no later than 2023. However due to the project being split over financial years, there will be additional costs as the works will require additional consents, rework of damage to previously completed tasks, new setup costs and the impact of inflation. The project manager’s estimate these additional cost is $70,000.

6.16 In terms of servicing a loan, the impact of the additional $70,000 on the ratepayer, will be an additional $5600pa, over and above the $45,000 required for the total strengthening project.

6.17 The main advantages are is that the additional funding can be spread over two or more financial years and transition the rates increase gradually.

6.18 It also offers Council the opportunity to look to other funding sources who might contribute to the increased scope. While working through fund raising will extend the project and cost, if Council was successful in obtaining external funding, it would reduce the impact on ratepayers.

6.19 The main disadvantages are the increased overall cost and that the work will be extended into two potentially disruptive construction periods.

6.20 This will be the most expensive option if fully funded by Council as the establishment costs and some of the preparation and make good work will also have to be duplicated over the two construction periods. However, as reported above, the additional cost could be offset if external fundraising is obtained.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 3 is the preferred option.

7.2 While strengthening to 67% NBS has been the nominal target for seismic strengthening level that has been implemented across other Council facilities, this timber framed heritage building poses a number of difficult issues. There is no doubt that Option 2 will provide an immediate and better margin of resilience in the event of an earthquake, but it will require additional loan funding to be undertaken in 2019/20.

7.3 The cost of servicing a loan to attain 67% NBS is not excessive at $45,000pa and will be seen as sending a positive message in terms of keeping our community and heritage building asset safer in an earthquake event. However, by undertaking the lower 34%NBS work only at this juncture, Council can give itself some additional time to fund raise from alternative sources. If fundraising was successful, it would deliver a substantial saving to the ratepayer over the long time.

7.4 Legislation will permit the upgrade to 34% NBS. Therefore Option 1 is the cheapest option and offers an acceptable solution. Its main drawback for Council is that it may be seen as sending a signal that Council is risking community safety to save merely money.

7.5 Option 3 suggests doing the required chimney removal, re-piling and building consent work, while allowing more time to investigate whether the additional funds can be accessed from other sources. One balance, this option is the more prudent and potentially more affordable option for ratepayers, and preferred by officers.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parks and Property Services Manager titled “Duart House - Seismic Strengthening” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) That Option 3: Strengthening to 67% National Building Standard in two stages (over 4 years) be approved as the preferred option.

C) That additional loan funding of $200,000 be approved in the 2019/20 Annual Plan for the Stage 1 seismic strengthening of Duart House and external funds are explored for Stage 2.

i) Undertaking the strengthening of an earthquake prone Council facility in two stages, Council meet legislative requirements while canvassing other funding options to make the upgrade more affordable to ratepayers.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/1209

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage

Dr James Graham

Group Manager: Planning & Regulatory

John O'Shaughnessy

SUBJECT: Naming of the new Arterial Link in Whakatu

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to name the new arterial route constructed between State Highway 2 North and Pākōwhai Road, as the “Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial”.

1.2 Hastings District Council is responsible for naming (and renaming) roads within its boundaries, with final acceptance held by LINZ.

1.3 The physical construction of the new arterial is nearing completion with an estimated completed date of early 2019. Preparations are also being made to undertake a formal opening on 16 December 2018.

From a number of perspectives such as emergency service direction, road legalisation and emergency reference, it is essential this new route is named.

1.4 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to include Māori in the decision making processes of Council and to take into account the mana of mana whenua in the Whakatū Arterial Project Area.

This report concludes by recommending to Council that the new arterial be named the “Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial”.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Whakatū Arterial project has involved significant mana whenua engagement from the Enquiry by Design phase and then through the regular Project Community Liaison Group. This matter of naming the new arterial was presented to Council’s Māori Joint Committee on 16 August 2017. However prior to this, Council’s former Strategic Advisor Culture & Heritage Officer sought input from Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) Chairman Mr Ngahiwi Tomoana, to suggest possible names for the new arterial.

2.2 Further to those initial discussions it was decided that more broadly based consultation be undertaken with appropriate Māori interests with a view to determining a name acceptable to that community. The original suggestion of “Ahikā” by Mr Tomoana was included for consideration.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 To facilitate this process Council engaged Mr Marei Apatu from Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (TTOH) on a contract basis.

Outlined below are whakaaro received on the naming issue:

· The expressway

· should not be named after a tipuna.

· Pākōwhai – dog park across the way and everyone knows this name. For the entire expressway.

· Mangateretere West Land Expressway – name of the block.

· Mangateretere Whakatū Expressway – can’t leave out Whakatū.

Included as Attachment 1 are the minutes from the meeting held on 25 October 2018. The recommendation from this meeting was to name the new arterial the “Mangateretere Whakatū Expressway”.

4.0 ROAD NAMING POLICY

4.1 In accordance with HDC Road Naming policy, a name for the new arterial is required, as construction nears completion.

Note: Recent aerial photos of the constructed arterial are shown in Attachment 2

4.2 Arterial Name Suggestions

In this instance due to the process already undertaken by Mr Apatu, Council officers believe the appropriate approach is take the name suggested from this process and consider it against the criteria of the road naming policy.

4.3 Councillor Road Name Suggestions

The Heretaunga ward Councillors (Councillors Rod Heaps, George Lyons, Ann Redstone) and the Chair of Works and Services Committee (Councillor Kevin Watkins) were asked for their input on the naming of the new arterial and their preference is “Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial”.

4.4 History

Some of the background history of the land in this area is included as Attachment 3. This information is an extract from a report by NZ Infrastructure Services, May 2015.

4.5 Iwi Consultation (considered in section 3.1 of this report)

4.6 Approval Criteria

4.6.1 The Hastings District Council Road Naming Policy lists the following criteria for evaluation of the suitability of proposed road names:

· Cultural Significance

· Existing or common theme

· Significant feature

· Historical event or person, and

· Personal name for special services

In addition, in order to be accepted by Land Information New Zealand the road name will also have to fit with the criteria set out in the Australia / New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing Standard.

4.6.2 Road Type

Section 11.1 of Council’s Road Naming policy states that The Australian / New Zealand Rural and Urban Addressing Standard (NZS 4819:2003) Appendix B contains a list of Road Types for New Zealand. The above standard has now been replaced by ‘AS/NZS 4819:2011’.

The suggested name “Mangateretere Whakatū Expressway” does not accurately reflect the scale, function and built form of the new road and it is considered that ‘arterial’ is a more accurate term to use.

4.6.3 Evaluation of Proposed Names:

Section 4.4.5 of ASNZ2011 states that a road name “shall be easily pronounced and spelt, however, in the case of indigenous languages it is accepted that a traditional name which may appear at first to be complex will, over time, become familiar and easy to use within the community”.

In this case, it is my opinion that the proposed name Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial could not be considered to be difficult to spell.

Section 4.4.7 of ASNZ2011 states that there shall be no duplication of road names within the same locality, adjoining locality or local government area. The name Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial is not already used in our District.

Google Maps shows that there are two other road names in Hawke’s Bay which include Mangateretere / Whakatū, these being Te Mata Mangateretere Road and Whakatū Road.

Section 4.4.8 of ASNZ2011 sates that indigenous road names should be endorsed by the local indigenous community. In this case endorsement has been obtained and the proposed name originated from this community.

Section 4.4.10 of ASNZ2011 states the length of a name should be shorter, rather than longer, especially where the road itself is short. The proposed name Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial is not considered to be long.

Note that 4.4.9 of NZSS states that road names shall not consist of conjoined names of places along the route.

For these reasons the name has been referred to LINZ for confirmation of acceptability.

4.5.4 Cultural and Existing or Common Theme

The proposed name does not follow an existing theme.

4.5.5 Topographical Features

The proposed name from the consultation process does not follow a topographical feature.

4.5.6 Conclusion

Given the assessments above, it is recommended that the public road be named Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The completion of construction of this project is significant from a capital works perspective having a value of a total project value of approximately $24m.

The naming aspect of this project in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy is not significant.

5.2 In terms of engagement, there has been significant engagement with the local community.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

6.1 The options are discussed below:

Option 1 - Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial

6.2 This option has been consulted with through mechanisms such as the Whakatū Arterial Project meeting and other engagements outlined in section 3.0 of this report. There appears to be support for this name.

6.3 The proposed name does have the advantage of local people of being easily referenced in terms of what areas it links, namely Whakatū and Mangateretere.

6.4 Results on consultation with LINZ and emergency services will be circulated as soon as it is available.

6.5 The financial implications of choosing a specific name have already been made allowance for in terms of road signage and legalisation costs.

Option 2 – Do Nothing

6.6 Council is required to consider the ‘Do Nothing’ option as part of its decision making process. In this instance this option will not give effect to Council’s Road Naming policy or contribute to wayfinding in locality for the general public or industry users.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 As is always the case, Council has the option to choose an alternative option to those outlined in this report, however considering the process to date it is recommended that Council name the new road the “Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial”. The change from Expressway to Arterial better reflects the form and function of the road.

7.2 This name has clearly geo-spatial references that will help locals and others to reference its location.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage titled “Naming of the new Arterial Link in Whakatu” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) That Council resolve to name the road presently being constructed between State Highway 2 and Pākōwhai Road as the “Mangateretere Whakatū Arterial”.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) Providing a name to this new road which clearly indicates geo-spatial locations within Hawke’s Bay and will enable both business and households to better access or travel through this area.

Attachments:

1	Whakatu Arterial Project Meeting Minutes 25/10/18	CG-14-1-01083
2	Whakatu Arterial Link Aerial Photos	CG-14-1-01082
3	Whakatu Arterial - Background history of the land	CG-14-1-01084

File Ref: 18/1176

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage

Dr James Graham

SUBJECT: Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 28 November 2018

1.0 sUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendation from the HDC - Māori Joint Committee held on 28 November 2018 requires ratification by Council.

1.2 The relevant HDC - Māori Joint Committee recommendations to be ratified are set out below

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

A) That the report of the Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage titled “Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 28 November 2018” be received.

B) The following recommendations of the HDC - Māori Joint Committee meeting held 28 November 2018 be ratified:

“5. REVIEW OF MĀORI PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL DECISION MAKING

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Review of Māori Participation in Council Decision Making” dated 28/11/2018 be received.

B) That officers be requested to prepare governance options for a full Council/Māori Joint Committee Workshop to be held on 27 February 2019 on the way forward based on the following:

· A recommendation and process for appointments to Standing Committees from HDC: Māori Joint Committee members.

· Opportunities for the HDC: Maori Joint Committee to have a voice (but not a vote) at the Council table.

· A mechanism/control that imparts Council/Committee reports with implications for Māori and cultural considerations.

C) That the future role and Terms of Reference of the HDC: Māori Joint Committee be included in the Work Programme in 2019.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by improving Māori engagement in the Council’s governance and decision-making processes.

8. MAORI LANGUAGE STRATEGY/POLICY AND HDC CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS

A) That the report of the Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage titled “Māori Language Strategy/Policy and HDC Cultural Responsiveness” dated 28/11/2018 be received.

B) That the HDC: Māori Joint Committee recommends that Council endorse and support the development of a Te Reo Māori Strategy and Policy at Hastings District Council that will be officially launched at Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori 2019.

C) That the HDC: Māori Joint Committee recommends that Council endorse and support the development of mandatory (compulsory) cultural training for all staff at Hastings District Council from 2019, and to be delivered by the Pou Ahurea Team.

With the reasons for these recommendations being that the objective of the recommendations will contribute to effective local decision making and action by Council and Council staff on behalf of all communities.”

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/1171

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider amendments to the schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for the 2019 Meeting Calendar which was adopted by Council 27 September 2018.

1.2 This report recommends that the 2019 Meeting Schedule as amended below be adopted.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 19 states:

(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints”.

(5) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings-

a) The schedule-

i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate, and

ii) may be amended

2.2 Although a local authority must hold the ordinary meetings appointed, it is competent for the authority at a meeting to amend the schedule of dates, times and number of meetings to enable the business of the Council to be managed in an effective way.

2.3 A number of changes have been made to the 2019 meeting schedule amongst other minor schedule amendments, to accommodate a two week break in July 2019 and to clear meetings in early February 2019 to allow time for the newly appointed Chief Executive, Nigel Bickle to be officially welcomed and settle in.

2.4 The Council Retreat has also been rescheduled to enable the Chief Executive to participate in visioning and strategic planning for 2019.

2.5 The following changes are proposed to be included in the 2019 meeting schedule (Attachment1):

Committee	Date	Time	Venue
Reserve Management Plan Subcommittee (Raureka Park)	12 and13 February 2019	9.00am	Council Chamber
Reserve Management Plan Subcommittee (Cornwall Park)	12 and 13 March 2019	9.00am	Council Chamber
Rural Community Board	To be confirmed
Risk & Audit	18 February 2019 (Previously 11 February 2019)	10.00am	Landmarks Room
Community Development	26 February 2019 (Previously 12 February 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
HDC : Maori Joint	6 March 2019 (Previously 27 February 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
Community Development	30 July 2019 (Previously 23 July 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
Strategy, Planning & Partnerships	1 August 2019 (Previously 25 July 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber

2.6 Councillors will be kept informed of specific changes on a day to day basis through the centralised calendar system.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) That the 2019 Meeting Schedule be amended as follows:-

Committee	Date	Time	Venue
Reserve Management Plan Subcommittee (Raureka Park)	12 and 13 February 2019	9.00am	Council Chamber
Reserve Management Plan Subcommittee (Cornwall Park)	12 and 13 March 2019	9.00am	Council Chamber
Rural Community Board	To be confirmed
Risk & Audit	18 February 2019 (Previously 11 February 2019)	10.00am	Landmarks Room
Community Development	26 February 2019 (Previously 12 February 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
HDC : Maori Joint	6 March 2019 (Previously 27 February 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
Community Development	30 July 2019 (Previously 23 July 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber
Strategy, Planning & Partnerships	1 August 2019 (Previously 25 July 2019)	1.00pm	Council Chamber

Attachments:

Proposed changes to 2019 Meeting Schedule

CG-14-1-01079

File Ref: 18/1186

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 6 December 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the number of requests under the local Government official Information Act (LGOIMA) 1987 received in October and November 2018.

1.2 This issue arises from the provision of accurate reporting information to enable effective governance

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that the Council is meeting its legislative obligations.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the report be noted.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The LGOIMA allows people to request official information held by local government agencies. It contains rules for how such requests should be handled, and provides a right to complain to the Ombudsman in certain situations. The LGOIMA also has provisions governing the conduct of meetings.

Principle of Availability

2.2 The principle of availability underpins the whole of the LGOIMA. The Act explicitly states that:

The question whether any official information is to be made available … shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

Purpose of the Act

2.3 The key purposes of the LGOIMA are to:

· progressively increase the availability of official information held by agencies, and promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings, in order to:

o enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

o promote the accountability of members and officials; and

o so enhance respect for the law and promote good local government; and

o protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

2.4 City, district and regional councils, council controlled organisations and community boards are subject to LGOIMA and official information means any information held by an agency subject to the LGOIMA.

2.5 It is not limited to documentary material, and includes material held in any format such as:

· written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents;

· non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including databases, video or tape recordings;

· information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise (including knowledge of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their official capacity);

· documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an agency;

· the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.

2.6 It does not matter where the information originated, or where it is currently located, as long as it is held by the agency. For example, the information could have been created by a third party and sent to the agency. The information could be held in the memory of an employee of the agency.

What does a LGOIMA request look like?

2.7 There is no set way in which a request must be made. A LGOIMA request is made in any case when a person asks an agency for access to specified official information. In particular:

· a request can be made in any form and communicated by any means, including orally;

· the requester does not need to refer to the LGOIMA; and

· the request can be made to any person in the agency.

2.8 The Council deals with in excess of 14,000 service requests on average each month from written requests, telephone calls and face to face contact. The LGOIMA requests dealt with in this report are specific requests for information logged under formal LGOIMA procedure, which sometimes require collation of information from different sources and/or an assessment about the release of the information requested.

Key Timeframes

2.9 An agency must make a decision and communicate it to the requester ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.

2.10 The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and without undue delay. The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the maximum unless it is extended appropriately in accordance with the Act. Failure to comply with time limit may be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman.

2.11 The Act provides for timeframes and extensions as there is a recognition that organisations have their own work programmes and that official information requests should not unduly interfere with that programme.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Council has requested that official information requests be notified via a monthly report.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update” dated 6/12/2018 be received.

B) That the LGOIMA requests received in October and November 2018 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-18-1460) of the report in (A) above be noted.

Attachments:

Information Mgmt & Reporting - Information Requests - LGOIMA - Information Requests Monthly Report to Council October/November 2018

IRB-2-01-18-1460

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings