Agenda of Council Meeting

File Ref: 19/572

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Regulatory Solutions Manager

John Payne

Business Analyst

Cambell Thorsen

SUBJECT: On-Street Parking Meters

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The following resolution was made at the Strategy, Planning and Partnership Committee meeting held on 16 May 2019:

“That the report of the Regulatory Solutions Manager titled “On-Street Parking Meters” dated 16/05/2019 be left to lie on the table to allow Council officers time to inform the Hastings City Business Association of the parking technologies that are proposed to upgrade the existing parking meters in the Hastings CBD”.

1.2 On 5 June 2019 a meeting of the Hastings City Business Association was attended and a presentation on the parking machine replacement proposal was delivered. The Hastings City Business Association support the upgrade to new technology and welcome the added payment options. They also supported the fact that the removal of the current 508 single head meters replaced with about 70 machines would significantly reduce the street clutter.

1.3 A key concern of the Association was that the system has the flexibility to set periods where there could be free parking, if this was decided e.g. over the Christmas period and that reduced parking charges could be set e.g. for Gold Card holders or Community Card holders. Preliminary enquiries are that free parking periods can be set, however reduced parking charges for Gold or Community Cards would be a function controlled by the banks rather than the parking machine. Staff are investigating and hope to have more information at the meeting.

1.4 The purpose of this report is uplift the item and obtain a decision from Council on the replacement of the Hastings CBD single bay lollipop parking meters.

1.5 This proposal arises from the existing parking meters being well past their life expectancy and the mechanical inserts no longer being produced.

1.6 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 well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

1.7 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of quality infrastructure and local public service.

1.8 This report concludes by recommending that either the single bay lollipop

meters in the following locations (East to West) be replaced by Pay by Plate parking meters and the existing time restrictions remain or that all Council operated parking meters be replaced:

	STREET	LOCATION	Lollipops Removed	Machines Installed
1	Heretaunga Street East	From Karamu Road South to Russell Street South	17	4
2	Queen Street East	From Karamu Road South to Russell Street South	19	3
3	Russell Street	From Eastbourne Street East to Queen Street East	26	6
4	Market Street	From Eastbourne Street West to Queen Street West	29	7
5	Heretaunga Street West	From Market Street South to Nelson Street South	49	8
6	King Street	From Eastbourne Street West to Queen Street West	39	8
	TOTAL		179	36

Map 1

Red = existing lollipop meters - Proposed machine sites.

Dark Blue = existing lollipop meters – Proposed to remain

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 1 November 2015, Hastings District Council implemented a free parking trial across the CBD public parking resource. In order to understand the effects this trial was having on parking occupancy and duration of stay trends, Traffic Design Group (TDG) was commissioned by Hastings District Council to conduct a series of parking monitoring surveys.

2.2 Surveys were undertaken both prior to, and during the free parking trial, so as to allow a comparison of data sets. Key conclusions were:

· Parking occupancy rates over the whole survey area increased by about 7%.

· The free parking trial resulted in the displacement of some parked vehicles from the fringe parking areas into the main shopping parking areas.

· The average duration of stay increased.

· Retail spend was up 7.6%, however the retail spend was also up in other areas where there was no free parking. The positive indicators from increased retail spend cannot be directly linked to the free parking trial.

2.3 The review of the free parking trial points to achieving mixed results. On the basis of data analytics there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the trial produced significant greater retail activity or vibrancy in the City Centre.

Parking Revenue

2.4 The free parking trial resulted in a loss of $942,000 revenue. Parking revenue is used to cover costs of operation, maintaining existing assets and any surplus assists in strategic property purchases for future parking needs, funding various laneways and up-dating parking technology solutions.

2.5 Following the free parking trial Council resolved to go back to paid parking. Staff were instructed to investigate cost effectiveness of installing both on and off street electronic payment parking technology solutions.

2.6 Attached are two business cases (Attachments 1 and 2): One investigates in-ground parking sensor technology and the other Parking Machine technologies.

2.7 Global Integrated Technology Solutions New Zealand Limited undertook a survey of Hastings CBD February 2018 to evaluate the removal of the current parking devices (Eagle CK Single Bay Meters) and installing replacement parking technology (Pay by Plate Machines) and give Council an estimate for comparison purposes for the business case.

2.8 The existing single bay meters were installed in about 1995/1996. They were upgraded when the New Zealand coinage changed in 2006. They have a life expectancy of about 20 years. Many of the meters have been repaired/replaced and with the harsh Hawke’s Bay climate the LCD screens are faded.

2.9 There are currently 508 single bay meters in the Hastings CBD. One of the options is to leave 329 operational in the dark blue area identified in Map 1. However, given the costs of maintaining these 329 meters, consideration should be given to replacing them all.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Given the meters are failing at a greater rate than earlier (due to age), Council no longer has spare stock.

3.2 Council currently runs Eagle CK Digital Single Bay Parking Meters. Internal mechanisms are no longer in production. Officers have been unable to source alternative replacement mechanism (new meters). There is a US meter known as ‘Liberty’ meters. This mechanism would fit inside existing lollipop meters however, the agent who has provided New Zealand with meters for the past 35 years is unaware of these meters being sold outside the US and would be reluctant to import these for the following reasons:

· They are not designed to take NZ coins

· There are no specialist/support in New Zealand to service the meters

· Single Bay meter technology has been superseded and is now non-existent in Australasia.

3.3 Any mechanisms would require a completely new programme, back office software and auditing system, which means Council would either have to run two systems, or replace all 508 units.

3.4 The supplier no longer has Eagle CK Digital Single Head Meters and has not sold any for the past three to four years.

3.5 The current meters are run by battery. These need to be replaced annually and often more frequently as the meters age and deteriorate. The screens are faded and difficult to see through and the housing leaks which causes the batteries to deteriorate more quickly.

3.6 Council also has 9 off-street Pay & Display machines. These are also starting to reach their life’s end. The main boards that Council has used are no longer in production for the MPC104 model, the type Council has.

3.7 Parking machines can function in several different ways. If a decision is made to install parking machines, a further decision will need to be made on the most appropriate parking and payment methods.

4.0 PARKING TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP 14 MARCH 2019

Council held a workshop on 14 March 2019. The following concepts were discussed:

4.1 Staying with the current system (single bay lollipop meters)

4.1.1 The internal working mechanisms are passed their life’s end as is the external housing (about 23 years old) and are no longer in production. Officers have been unable to source new mechanisms but even if this were possible all 508 would need to be replaced. It is unknown how new ones (if we can find any) would work with regard to reporting, auditing, servicing etc. This type of parking enforcement is rapidly disappearing from around the country and most of the old meters have been scrapped.

4.1.2 There are now no spare parts and dead and dying machines have to be decommissioned. The average income from a single bay meter is about $700 per annum.

4.1.3 Replacing all the single bay meters and 9 pay and display parking machines (in off-street car parks) would ensure Council was clear of old technology and associated maintenance costs. It would also help to reduce street clutter.

4.1.4 Council’s current service Contractor is retiring March 2020. Council will need to engage another party to undertake repairs, maintenance and coin management and reporting. Napier use the same contractor and a joint service contract may be beneficial to both Councils. This could be explored in the tender.

4.1.5 Councillors requested staff bring this report to Council with a summary of the options. There appeared to be support for the Pay by Plate machine option. Councillors also wished to see options before them for parking machines which included the four main payment methods – Coins, ParkMate, Paywave and Credit Card.

4.2 Replacing 179 single bay meters and 9 off-street pay & display machines with 45 Pay by Plate meters

4.2.1 A Pay by Plate meter is one where the user inputs their registration plate number into the machine.

4.2.2 Council would need to complement this with a ‘Maintenance and Service Contract’ for two systems (on and off street machines and the remaining single bay meters). A dual-maintenance system is likely to be more expensive.

4.2.3 Council could use the spare parts from the 179 lollipops to service the remaining 329 lollipops, however these are deteriorating now at a greater rate due to being past their use by date. Council may be lucky to get 3-4 more years out of them.

4.2.4 Pay by Plate Meters will bring a lot of value for on street parking and will also de clutter the pathways of all of the current lollipop meters.

4.2.5 Pay by Plate meters have direct integration with AD-Riley (the ticketing system HDC currently uses). This would give Council a complete set up, ready to go.

4.2.6 The Pay by Plate machines have a life expectancy of about 12 – 15 years and can have updated technology installed.

(Summary sourced from Business Case)

4.3 Install in-ground sensors

4.3.1 The costs (capex and opex) outweigh the benefits because…...

4.3.2 There is some uncertainty in the credibility of the data, which may not withstand legal challenge. New technology is aimed at resolving this with triple detection so the user can rely on the integrity of the data (ultrasound, infrared, magnetic).

4.3.3 Some Councils are looking at removing their sensors as it is already old technology and only provides a part solution to their parking needs.

(Summary sourced from Business Case)

4.4 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS:

4.4.1 New Digital Column Parking Meters

Outlined below are the different methods of machine operations:

Single Bay Lollipop Meters

Disadvantages

· No longer supported

· No spare parts

· Only one payment option

· Unit required for each parking space (street clutter)

· Antiquated technology (limited data sets)

· No receipt options

· Operator often has no coins

· Can’t operate licence plate recognition (LPR) technology

Advantages

· Simple to use

· Easy to check compliance (visible)

· If one meter fails it only effects one parking space

Pay by Plate (Car number plate inputted into parking machine)

Disadvantages

· Drivers need to know their registration number

· E-costs ($0.10c cost to Council on credit card transactions)

· 3% bank cost to user

· If a meter fails it can affect several spaces (can pay at any machine)

Advantages

· Easy to use LCD steps

· Multiple payment options (coin, paywave, credit card)

· Receipt by e-mail (optional, one time set up)

· E-reminder parking about to expire

· You don’t have to return to your vehicle

· Spaces don’t need to be marked

· Paperless

· You can pay/top up at any machine

· Drivers generally know their plate number

· Can operate LPR technology

· The system is integrated with the ADR ticketing system (currently used by HDC)

· Data sets available to analyse parking data

· Can monitor machines from the office in live time

Pay & Display

Disadvantages

· You have to return to your vehicle to display the ticket

· Paper (costs, use, maintenance, weather)

· Additional element of ‘display’

· If a meter fails it can affect several spaces (can pay at any machine)

· Can’t operate LPR technology

· No receipt options (Can keep your dash board ticket)

Advantages

· Easy to use LCD steps

· Spaces don’t have to be marked

· Napier City currently use (but reviewing)

· We currently use Pay & Display in our Off-Street (consistency)

· No need for bay numbers

· Can monitor machines from the office in live time

Pay by Bay (Parking bay number inputted into parking machine)

Disadvantages

· Some people find it complicated (especially visitors)

· Each space has to be marked (plates come off, marks fade)

· E-costs (system/time to check)

· Bay tags can become souvenirs

· If a meter fails it can affect several spaces (can pay at any machine)

Advantages

· Easy to use LCD steps

· Don’t have to return to your vehicle

· Paperless

· Pay at any machine provided you know the bay number

· Can monitor machines from the office in live time

· Receipt by e-mail (optional, one time set up)

· Can operate LPR technology

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 Option 1 – Replace all 508 single bay meters and 9 off-street pay & display machines with about 74 Pay by Plate Parking Machines. Payment options Coin, Paywave, Credit Card and ParkMate. Explore a joint service contract with Napier City Council.

5.2 Option 2 – Replace the central CBD single bay meters (179) and 9 off-street pay & display machines with 45 Pay by Plate parking machines (Red area Map 1). Payment options Coin, Paywave, Credit Card and ParkMate. Explore a joint service contract with Napier City Council.

5.3 Option 3 – Status Quo – continue to use the existing single bay lollipop meters. Explore a joint service contract with Napier City Council.

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

6.1 The matters in this report are not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6.2 Although this is an operational matter staff will undertake an educational approach by:

· Delivering flyers

· Setting up a display unit in the empty Envy Shoes Shop for the pubic

· Inviting CBD Business Association, Grey Power etc. for personal presentations

· Radio and newspaper publicity

· Ensure Enforcement staff and City Assist can help the public to operate the machines

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

7.1 Option 1 would see a complete renewal of the technology with a full maintenance service contract for one system. Remove all 508 single head meters and 9 off-street pay & display machines, replaced with about 74 parking machines.

7.2 Option 2 the proposal to install parking machines would see 179 meters removed from the central CBD and 9 off-street pay & display machines, replaced with about 45 parking machines. The 179 meters could be cannibalised for spare parts to service the remaining 329 meters. The community may find it frustrating there being two different parking systems (some pay by plate machines, some single bay lollipop meters).

7.3 Option 3 would see a decrease in parking revenue as the single bay meters fail. This will progressively become more frequent.

7.4 Parking machines are now the main parking meter method used throughout New Zealand and Australasia. Initially this started as Pay & Display, however the most popular method is now ‘Pay by Plate’ and is used extensively throughout Auckland, Tauranga, Christchurch, Nelson to name a few.

7.5 The machines are powered by a 10 Watt Sola panel which charges two twelve volt batteries. Given that the pre-work has already been done (sites selected) it would take about six weeks to become operational after determining a supplier.

7.6 The particular model of off-street parking machine, MPC 104 is also coming to end of life. Although still able to be repaired main boards are no longer available and repairs have to be sent to Switzerland. The current machines only allow for coin operation.

7.7 The current contractor wishes to retire March 2020. Council will need to be operational in all aspects of the service before this date; maintenance of lollipop meters and parking machines, coin management (collection, sorting, counting and banking and reporting).

7.8 Proposed time schedule of implementation:

· Approval by Council	27 June 2019
· Issue tender notification	August 2019
· Finalise tender	September 2019
· Instalment and implementation	November 2019

8.0 FINANCIAL

Table 1

8.1 The current maintenance and service contract costs Council $43,056 per annum.

8.2 There is currently $540,000 in the Parking Machine Reserve account to fund upgrading parking technology.

8.3 Funding from the replacement needs to be provided for in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

9.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

9.1 Option 1 – Replace 508 single head meters and 9 pay and display machines with about 74 machines and use the Pay by Plate option with coin, paywave and credit card payment facilities. Explore a joint service contract with Napier City Council.

9.2 Single head meters are obsolete.

9.3 Pay by Plate multiple space terminals are efficient and less expensive to operate than single head lollipop meters.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Regulatory Solutions Manager titled “On-Street Parking Meters” dated 27/06/2019 be received.

B) That Council approves the expenditure for the replacement of parking meters be provided for in the 2019/20 Annual Plan using funds from the Parking Machine Account.

C) That Council resolves to adopt Option 1 in the Agenda Report of (A) above) – Replace all 508 single head meters and 9 pay & display machines with about 74 machines and use the Pay by Plate option with coin, paywave and credit card payment facilities.

D) That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated to prepare a tender to replace the 508 single bay meters and 9 pay and display machines with about 74 machines and operate:

a) Pay by Plate

b) Digital column parking machines to have coin, paywave, credit card and Parkmate payment facilities.

E) That the Council endorse the proposed time schedule of implementation as outlined in the table below (as per Paragraph 7.8 of the report in A) above:

Approval by Council	27 June 2019
Issue tender notification	August 2019
Finalise tender	September 2019
Instalment and implementation	November 2019

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective and appropriate to present and future circumstances by:

i) Providing parking technology within the district that is safe and readily available to motorists.

Attachments:

1	Business Case Pay by Plate Parking Machines - April 2019	REG-22-10-19-3109
2	Business Case In-ground Sensors - July 2017	REG-22-10-17-2405

File Ref: 19/473

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Parking Transportation Officer

Mel England

SUBJECT: Parking Controls

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on a change to parking controls on Nelson Street North and Caroline Road.

1.2 This report aligns with Council Objectives and Regulatory functions by:

A. Reducing public nuisance and threats to public health and safety.

B. Moving people and goods around safely and efficiently.

1.3 This proposal arises from requests for new parking controls.

1.4 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 well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

1.5 The objective of this decision is relevant to the purpose of Local Government in the provision of quality infrastructure and public service.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending:

· P5 time limit between the hours of 8:30am to 9:15am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm on school days be established outside of Taikura Rudolph Steiner School and Kindergarten on Nelson Street North.

· P60 time limit be established along Caroline Road outside of Shadez Barber shop and Wet and Forget (Hastings) businesses.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 From time to time it is necessary to introduce parking controls and or amend those that are already in place.

2.2 In order that the changes are legally established these need to be formally resolved by Council.

2.3 The following information provides the background and current situation relevant to the change being proposed.

Nelson Street North – Taikura Rudolph Steiner School

2.4 Hastings District Council have been approached by Taikura Rudolph Steiner School, staff and parents to establish P5 time limit parking controls outside the school and kindergarten, in particular around drop off and pick up times.

2.5 Hastings Health Centre opened on Nelson Street North and parking is now in higher demand creating problems for parents dropping off and picking up children in the mornings and afternoons causing unsafe parking issues.

2.6 Due to congestion happening during the drop off and pick up times more complaints have been received about illegal parking.

Caroline Road – Shadez Barber Shop

2.7 Shadez Barber Shop approached Hastings District Council to establish a P60 time limit outside of their business due to lack of available parking.

2.8 Vehicles are parking all day outside of Shadez Barber and Wet and Forget (Hastings) preventing clients from parking near or outside the business.

3.0 OPTIONS

3.1 The options available to Council are to:

Option 1 - Approve the changes being proposed

Option 2 - Not approve all or some of the changes being proposed

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

Nelson Street North – Taikura Rudolph Steiner School

4.1 Meetings have been held with the school after several complaints were received in regards to the high demand parking.

4.2 Agreement was reached on the introduction of P5 time limited parking during student drop off and pick up times.

4.3 Residents in the area have approached council staff about the parking issues and said there was high demand before the Health Centre opened.

Caroline Road – Shadez Barber Shop

4.4 An occupancy study was carried out over 2 weeks. The results found that traffic was static with an occupancy rate over the national standard of 85%, which is a good indication that time limits need to be introduced.

4.5 Consultation was carried out with the other 2 businesses in the area and there were no objections to the proposal.

5.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

Nelson Street North – Taikura Rudolph Steiner School

5.1 The P5 will only be in effect from 8-30am to 9-15am and 2-30pm to 3-30pm during school days.

5.2 Provide a safe area for parents/caregivers to drop off and pick up children.

Caroline Road – Shadez Barber Shop

5.3 The P60 time limit be introduced to support the business by providing parking for their clients visiting the premises.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parking Transportation Officer titled “Parking Controls” dated 27/06/2019 be received.

B) That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(i) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016 as set out in Attachment 1 (REG-22-03-12-19-456):

i. That the parking space on the eastern side of Nelson Street North, commencing approximately 66 metres south from the intersecting kerbline of Fitzroy Avenue and extending 22 metres south be resolved to have P5 time limit from 8-30am to 9-15am and 2-30pm to 3-30pm during school days

ii. That the parking space on the eastern side of Nelson Street North, commencing approximately 124 metres south from the intersecting kerbline of Fitzroy Avenue and extending 40 metres in a southerly direction be resolved to have P5 time limit from 8-30am to 9-15am and 2-30pm to 3-30pm during school days

iii. That the parking space on the eastern side of Nelson Street North, commencing approximately 123 metres north from the intersecting kerbline of Saint Aubyn Street West and extending 32 metres in a northerly direction be resolved to have P5 time limit from 8-30am to 9-15am and 2-30pm to 3-30pm during school days

iv. That the parking space on the western side of Nelson Street North, commencing approximately 115 metres north from the intersecting kerbline of Saint Aubyn Street West and extending 27 metres in a northerly direction be resolved to have P5 time limit from 8-30am to 9-15am and 2-30pm to 3-30pm during school days.

C) That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(i) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016, that the existing parking spaces on the eastern side of Caroline Road commencing approximately 26 metres south from the intersecting kerbline of Alexandra Crescent and extending 33 metres in a southerly direction be resolved to have P60 time limit as set out in Attachment 2 (REG-22-10-19-3166).

With the reasons for these decisions being that the objective of the decisions will contribute to performance of regulatory functions in a way that is efficient, effective and appropriate to present and future circumstances by:

· Providing parking spaces in relevant places within the district that are safe and readily available to motorists.

Attachments:

1	Taikura Rudolph Steiner School Time Limited Parking	REG-22-03-12-19-456
2	Shadez Barber - P60	REG-22-10-19-3166

File Ref: 19/470

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Transportation Asset Manager

Marius van Niekerk

SUBJECT: Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak Road Corridor Management Plan

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the recommendations contained in the Simla Avenue – Te Mata Peak Corridor Management plan (CMP).

1.2 This report contributes to the achievements of the Council’s Community Outcomes and specific Council Objectives as set out in the Long Term Plan 2018/2028:

· Accessible range of safe transport options

1.3 This request arises from the need to set the long term strategic vision for this section of the Transport network, considering both land use and transport demands. The key outputs of the Corridor management plan process are to create an integrated transport and land use strategy and an associated phased implementation plan that will outline how the corridor will respond to changes in the wider transport and land use demands over the next 30+ years.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending the adoption of the Corridor management plan for Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak road which includes :

1.6 Section A – Simla Ave between Te Mata road and Greenwood/Te Mata Peak Road intersection

1.7 Section B – Te Mata Peak Road between Greenwood/Te Mata Peak road intersection and the Gates of Te Mata Park

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Simla Avenue is a residential road in the suburb of Havelock North

2.2

Te Mata Peak road is a mixed use road having both residential and rural land use along its length and provides access to Te Mata Park and the summit of Te Mata Peak.

Simla Avenue/Te Mata Peak Road Corridor Management Plan Study Area

2.3 Tauroa road is a mixed use road having both residential and rural land use along its length and provides access to the lower areas of Te Mata Park. It is a popular entrance point into Te Mata Park through Chambers Walk. The road is narrow and winding in areas with a steep drop off into a gully on one side (near Tokomaru drive). There is a toilet and bike wash facilities provided at the Chambers Walk Car Park.

2.4 Both Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak road is classified under the One network road classification system as secondary collector because of the access it provides to the Te Mata Peak Park. Te Mata Peak is a popular tourist destination in the Hawkes Bay.

2.5 Tauroa road is classified as an access road under the One network road classification.

2.6 The mix of traffic along the corridors consists of residential commuter traffic, tourist traffic visiting Te Mata Park, and a mix of recreation/active use traffic consisting of walking, cycling and motor vehicle traffic.

2.7 There is currently provision for tourist busses to access Te Mata Peak Park summit under a Traffic Management Plan through Te Mata Peak road.

2.8 Sections of both Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak road are currently in poor condition and requires reconstruction work in the near future.

2.9 For reference the Corridor Management Plan has segmented the road into three sections:

2.10 Section A – Simla Avenue between Te Mata Road and Greenwood/Te Mata Peak Road intersection

2.11 Section B – Te Mata Peak Road between Greenwood/Te Mata Peak Road intersection and the Gates of Te Mata Park(Entrance to the park)

2.12 Section C – Entrance to Te Mata Park to the summit of Te Mata Peak.

2.13 The scope of the Corridor Management Plan is to evaluate the performance of the existing road in terms of access, parking, people and freight movement and safety.

2.14 The process adopted to thoroughly study the corridor can be summarised as follows:

· Data collection through stakeholders and public engagement

· Identification of problems and issues

· Provide an outline for the recommended solutions and proposed phased implementation plan

2.15 For further details regarding the road environment along the route please refer to the attached Corridor Management Plan report.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The draft Corridor Management Plan findings were discussed with Council at a workshop on the 20th November 2018. During the workshop it became clear that there are issues relating to Section C that would require inclusion of a wider stakeholder group.

3.2 The Corridor Management Plan recommendations for sections A and B are routine in nature and identifies minor improvements to the corridor layout, footpath connectivity improvements and quick wins that can be implemented right away.(Such as vegetation trimming).

3.3 The Corridor Management Plan recommendations for Section C, also include quick wins but there are limited opportunities for large scale physical improvements along this section. It is recommended to develop a specific business case with an increased scope to include all access routes to Te Mata Peak (including Te Mata Peak Road within Te Mata Park and Tauroa road). This approach will include comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders.

4.0 The Corridor Management Plan will be used as a point of entry into the Section C business case and will commence once adopted by Council. It is anticipated that the Section C business case will consist of the following phases:

· Scoping

· Consultation with stakeholders

· Strategic Context

· Strategy development and option identification

· Reporting/Feedback to stakeholders and Council

· Duration +- 20 weeks non consecutive

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 Option 1 – Adopt the Corridor Management Plan for Sections A and B and that community engagement for the Corridor Management Plan be concluded with a presentation highlighting the findings of the Corridor Management Plan.

· Detach Section C from Sections A and B and proceed with a separate CMP for Section C as a separate business case.

· Increase the scope for Section C to include all access routes to Te Mata Park.

5.2 Option 2 – do not adopt the Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak Road Corridor Management Plan.

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

6.1 Engagement through a public open day were held on 8 August 2018 with 95 registered attendees participating. 80% of the attendees are residents on Simla Avenue or Te Mata Peak road.

6.2 Attendees were asked to provide feedback on existing corridor issues or problems, opportunities and ideas that could be considered within the development of the study. Paper feedback forms, along with verbal feedback taken on the day, were combined with an online survey to provide comprehensive feedback on the key issues and potential considerations for inclusion within the study. A total of 69 responses were received and used as a basis for the assessment.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

7.1 Option 1 (Adopting the Corridor Management Plan) will realise the following:

7.2 The Corridor Management Plan have been developed following extensive public and stakeholder consultation and is supported by detailed engineering assessment.

7.3 Implementation of the Corridor Management Plan will deliver on the strategic objectives of Council and the transportation network by providing:

· Accessible range of safe transport options;

· Safe walking and cycling facilities;

· Efficient movement of goods;

· Infrastructure supporting economic growth; and

· Resilience to hazards and shocks.

7.4 Furthermore it will deliver the three vision statements identified by the stakeholders:

· Improved level of service for all transportation modes

· Improved customer experience

· Improved safety for all users.

7.5 The phased implementation plan will result in the renewal of existing assets and the construction of new assets.

7.6 Any significant improvements not currently included in the ten year LTP will require funding to be considered through the LTP process.

7.7 Option 2 (Do not adopt the Corridor Management Plan):

7.8 Not adopting the Corridor Management Plan will result in a sub-optimal delivery of Council and the Transportation network objectives with an inconsistent approach to long term strategic planning.

7.9 By not adopting the Corridor Management Plan, the vision statements that resulted from stakeholder consultation may not be implemented and this may result in lost opportunities for enhancing the corridor.

7.10 Not adopting the Corridor Management Plan will present a risk to the future function and performance of the corridor with its varied user groups and will impact on customer experience and safety.

8.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

8.1 Option 1 – Adopt the Corridor Management Plan for Sections A and B and that community engagement for the Corridor Management Plan be concluded with a presentation highlighting the findings of the Corridor Management Plan.

8.2 Approve Sections A and B of the Simla Avenue – Te Mata Peak and officers proceed with a separate Corridor Management Plan for Section C as a separate Business Case with an increased scope to include all access routes to Te Mata Park.

8.3 The reasons for recommending Option 1 is as follows:

· Deliver on the strategic objectives of Council and the Transportation network.

· Achieves the vision of the stakeholders identified during consultation.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Transportation Asset Manager titled “Simla Avenue and Te Mata Peak Road Corridor Management Plan” dated 27/06/2019 be received.

B) That the Council adopt the Simla Avenue – Te Mata Peak Corridor Management Plan for Sections A and B and that community engagement for the Simla Avenue – Te Mata Peak Corridor Management Plan be concluded with a presentation highlighting the findings of the Corridor Management Plan for sections A and B.

C) That the Council approve Sections A and B of the Simla Avenue – Te Mata Peak Corridor Management Plan and that officers proceed with a separate Corridor Management Plan for Section C as a separate Business Case with an increased scope to include all access routes to Te Mata Park.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute Councils strategic objectives:

I. Local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communities and helps to protect the natural environment.

II. Local public services which help meet the needs of young and old, people in need, visitors and locals, businesses and households.

III. Regulatory functions which help to prevent harm and help create a safe and healthy environment for people, which promote the best use of natural resources and which are responsive to community needs by focusing on transport improvements that support:

· Accessible range of safe transport options;

· Safe walking and cycling facilities;

· Efficient movement of goods;

· Infrastructure supporting economic growth; and

· Resilience to hazards and shocks.

Attachments:

Simla Avenue/Te Mata Peak Road Corridor Management Plan

CG-14-1-01351

Separate Cover

File Ref: 19/629

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Manager: Democracy and Governance Services

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Local Government New Zealand 2019 Annual General Meeting - Remits

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the remits which have been accepted for submission to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) to be held on 9 July 2019 and to obtain a direction from the Council on which remits to support.

1.2 This report concludes by asking Council to consider which remits they would wish to support.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 As part of the conference, all Councils were invited to submit proposed remits for the LGNZ AGM to be held on Sunday 7 July 2019. The screening committee has now assessed the remits which had been submitted and received support from at least one zone or sector group meeting, or 5 councils. The successful remits are appended to this report (Attachment 1).

2.2 In line with new practice adopted last year, the remits have been circulated early in order to provide members sufficient time to review and discuss these remits within their councils before the AGM.

2.3 At a workshop session held on 18 June 2019, Councillors went through the remits in detail and gave an indication of the remits they wished to support. A council decision is required to ratify the recommendations agreed at the workshop and authorise the delegates to support the remits indicated at the LGNZ AGM on 7 July 2019.

2.4 The remits are listed below:-

	Remit	Proposed By	Support Yes/No
1	Climate Change – Local Government Representation	Auckland City	Yes
2	Ban on the Sale of Fireworks	Auckland City	Yes
3	Traffic Offences – Red Light Running	Auckland City	No
4	Prohibit Parking on Grass Berms	Auckland City	No
5	Short Term Guest Accommodation	Christchurch City	No
6	Nitrate in Drinking Water	Christchurch City	No
7	Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987	Hamilton City	No
8	Weed Control	Hamilton City	No
9	Building Defect Claims	Napier City	Yes
10	Social Housing	Napier City, Tauranga City and Wellington City	Yes
11	Procurement	New Plymouth District	Yes
12	Single Use Polystyrene	Palmerston North City	Yes
13	Local Government Act 2002	Rangitikei District	More information req
14	Campground Regulations	Thames Coromandel District	More information req
15	Living Wage	Wellington City	Yes
16	Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act	Hastings District	Yes
17	Greenhouse Gases	Wellington City	Yes
18	Climate Change – Funding Policy Framework	Greater Wellington Regional	Yes
19	Road Safety	Whakatane District	Yes
20	Mobility Scooter Safety	Whanganui District	No
21	Museums and Galleries	Whanganui District	Yes
22	Resource Management Act	Whanganui District	No
23	Mayor Decision to Appoint Deputy Mayor	Horowhenua District	No
24	Beauty Industry	Whangarei District	Yes

2.5 In addition, at the workshop a request was made to prepare, gather support and ask the Chair of LGNZ to consider accepting a late remit on the treatment of elected members as contract workers with no sickness benefit or employment rights. If a remit can be written and support secured from five other Councils within the late timeframe it will tabled for consideration at the meeting.

3.0 OPTIONS

3.1 To decide which (if any) remits to support

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1 This matter does not trigger the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Manager: Democracy and Governance Services titled “Local Government New Zealand 2019 Annual General Meeting - Remits” dated 27/06/2019 be received.

B) That the Council indicate which remits to support as set out in the Attachment 1 (EXT-6-02-19-348 to this report

Attachments:

2019 Remits

EXT-6-02-19-348

Separate Cover

File Ref: 19/562

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Community Grants Advisor

Kevin Carter

SUBJECT: Summary of recommendations of the Community Grants Subcommittee meeting held 20 May 2019

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Community Grants Subcommittee meeting on held on 20 May 2019 and reconvened on 23 May 2019 require ratification by Council.

1.2 The relevant Community Grants Subcommittee recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

1.3 A copy of the minutes are attached for information (Attachment 1).

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The annual contestable funding round invites local community groups and organisations to apply to Council for an opportunity to work together to meet the current and future needs of our community.

2.2 There were 68 applications to this year’s annual contestable funding round. This is a substantial increase from 2018 where there were 46 applications received. This may be due to the increased promotion throughout the 2019 funding round.

2.3 The value of requests was $1,153,067.34 ($529,633 in 2018), and the contestable grants budget for 2019/2020 was $245,500.00 meaning the budget allocation was oversubscribed by $907,567.34.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Community Grants Advisor titled “Summary of recommendations of the Community Grants Subcommittee meeting held 20 May 2019” dated 27/06/2019 be received.

B) The following recommendations of the meeting held 20 May 2019 be ratified:

A) That the report of the Community Grants Advisor titled “2019 Annual Contestable Funding Round” dated 20/05/2019 be received.

B) That the Community Grants Subcommittee reviews the applications to the 2019 contestable funding round; and

C) That the Committee allocates the 2019 budget allocation of $245,500.00 to those applications whom it considers will best assist Council to achieve its desired Community Outcomes.

D) That the following grants from the Contestable Grants budget 2019/2020 be allocated:

1.0 APPROVED

1.1 That Radio Kidnappers (Application No. 1) be approved funding of $3,500.00 for the delivery of the Intermediate School Debate challenge and six radio programmes.

1.2 That Robotics and Computer Science in Schools Educational Trust (CS4S Trust) (Application No. 3) be approved funding of $5,165.23 to purchase equipment to form a new club focused on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

1.3 That Age Concern Havelock North (Expo) (Application No. 4) be approved funding of $5,000.00 to cover the costs of a Seniors Expo to be held in the Havelock North Community Centre.

1.4 That Age Concern Havelock North (Christmas) (Application No. 5) be approved funding of $9,500.00 for the Community Christmas Day lunch in Havelock North.

1.5 That Muscular Dystrophy Association (Tuaatara/Central Region) Incorporated (Application No. 6) be approved funding of $1,500.00 to continue community based field work.

1.6 That CCS Disability Action Tairawhiti Hawkes Bay Incorporated (Application No. 7) be approved funding of $1,500.00 to support young people with disabilities in the district.

1.7 That Hawke's Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust (Application No. 8) be approved funding of $3,000.00 for the creation and distribution of a bi-annual newsletter for donors and supporters of the trust, as part of the communication strategy.

1.8 That Pursuit Limited (Application No. 9) be approved for funding of $5,000.00 to increase the quality of life through employment for youth employment and the establishment of a mobile service.

1.9 That English Language Partners - Hawke's Bay (Application No. 10) be approved funding of $500.00 for English classes at the Hastings Library.

1.10 That Hawke’s Bay Youth Trust (Application No. 13) be approved funding of $6,000.00 to provide part time employment for a young person at the Giants Boxing Academy.

1.11 That Flaxmere Baptist Church Community Trust (Application No. 14) be approved funding of $8,000.00 for the co-ordination of the annual Christmas Cheer Food Parcel assembly and distribution to families in need in the community.

1.12 That Hastings Menzshed Trust (Application No.15) be approved funding of $7,500.00 to assist with providing electricity to develop their new larger shed.

1.13 That Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust (Application No. 18) be approved Contestable Grant funding of $4,000.00 and $3,500.00 funded from the Waste Disposal Levy Fund for a month long event and workshop programme on Sustainable Backyards.

1.14 That Hastings Hearing (Application No. 23) be approved funding of $5,000.00 for the continuation of funding education programmes.

1.15 That Hastings City Business Association (Application No. 25) be approved funding of $25,000.00 towards community events including night markets, pocket park entertainment, coffee with a cop, Fringe in the Stings and Santa’s Grotto to bring the community into the CBD.

1.16 That Citizens Advice Bureau, Hastings (Application No. 26) be approved funding of $2,806.00 for the purchase of new chairs for the Citizens Advice Bureau office.

1.17 That the Birchleigh Polo School (Application No. 27) be approved funding of $5,000.00 to assist in running a Polo School programme for Flaxmere College students, to learn the challenges of working with horses and playing polo, in order to improve attitude and behaviour changes.

1.18 That the Waimarama Surf Life Saving Club (Application No. 28) be approved funding of $7,000.00 to provide lifeguard programmes and training including first aid.

1.19 That the Heretaunga Womens Centre (Application No. 31) be approved funding of $18,000.00 towards the operating costs of the Centre.

1.20 That Red Cross (Application No. 32) be approved funding of $3,000.00 for equipment and consumables for the curtain bank.

1.21 That Nourished for Nil (Application No. 33) be approved funding of $7,500.00 toward general operation costs of the programme.

1.22 That Dementia Hawkes Bay (Application No. 35) be approved funding of $1,500.00 to assist in the continuation of Active Brain Programme and Stimulation Workshops.

1.23 That the Hawke’s Bay Digital Archives Trust (Application No. 36) be approved funding of $4,000 to digitise and upload the records and papers from the Hawkes Bay A & P Society.

1.24 That Budget First Incorporated (Application No. 42) be approved funding of $5,000.00 for financial literacy workshops for those in financial hardship.

1.25 That the Leg-Up Trust (Application No. 43) be approved funding of $5,000.00 for the continuation of the Leg Up programme for disadvantaged youth who suffer from social, behavioural and emotional problems, by teaching them how to work and communicate with horses.

1.26 That Havelock North Business Association (Application No. 46) be approved funding of $10,000.00 towards an events programme in Havelock North that promoted community involvement primarily the Village Street Carnival.

1.27 That No 11 Squadron District of Hastings Air Training Corps (Application No. 48) be approved funding of $3,000.00 for ongoing expenses including camps.

1.28 That Growing Through Grief Hawke's Bay (Application No. 49) be approved funding of $2,500.00 to fund grief services.

1.29 That the Hastings Art & Culture Trust (Application No. 51) be approved funding of $10,000.00 for the 2019 Edible Fashion Awards.

1.30 That Tango me Whero (Application No. 52) be approved funding of $1,000.00 to be paid direct to Hawke’s Bay Netball for the hire of netball courts for a family friendly netball tournament at the Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park.

1.31 The Te Aranga Marae Trust (Application No. 53) be approved funding of $10,000.00 for the Flaxmere Boxing Academy.

1.32 That the Interchurch Council for Hospital Chaplaincy (Application No. 55) be approved funding of $10,000.00 for the provision of Chaplains at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and that a letter be sent to the Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay District Health Board advising that Hastings could not continue future funding of the Chaplaincy without their contribution.

1.33 That the Hastings Women's Refuge (Application No. 57) be approved funding of $30,000.00 to support access to a local Safe House by women and children affected by domestic violence into a supportive environment to enable them to begin to build new lives.

1.34 That Prima Volta Charitable Trust (Application No. 58) be approved funding of $10,000.00 for the continuation and further development of Prima Volta programmes.

1.35 That the Royal NZ Foundation of the Blind (Application No. 66) be approved funding of $1,500.00 for the delivery of services to people who are blind or with low vision.

1.36 That the Disability Resource Centre (HB) Trust) (Application No. 67) be approved funding of $5,529.00 delivery of their “catwalk” project/event.

1.37 That Centenary Legacy Trust (Application No. 68) be approved funding of $3,000.00 to raise funds for internships for students

2.0 REFERRED TO ANNUAL PLAN

2.1 That Landmarks Trust (Application No. 56) request for funding of 10,000.00 for the design and construction of a sculpture for a laneway off King Street in the Central Business District be referred to the Annual Plan 2019/28 for funding consideration.

3.0 REFERRED TO THE SOCIAL AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT TEAM

3.1 That the Flaxmere Planning Committee (Application Nos. 59, 60 and 61) request for funding for:

• $11,845.00 to fund a driving simulator for the Flaxmere Community.

• $5,805.00 for the 2019 Junior Polyfest.

• $8,630.00 for a Community Newsletter and communications.

be referred to the Social an Youth Development team for consideration.

3.0 DECLINED APPLICATIONS

3.1 That the Brain Injury Association (Hawke’s Bay) (Application 12) be declined funding of $20,000.00 for ongoing costs for local service, with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.2 That Epilepsy Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Application No. 11) funding request of $4,000.00 for ongoing costs for the local service be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.3 That Youth Development Trust (Graeme Dingle Foundation) (Application No. 16) funding request of $10,000 for the “Career Navigator Programme” to strengthen Flaxmere College pupils be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.4 That Lifelink Samaritans (Application No. 17) funding request of $5,000.00 towards a local 24/7 helpline be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.5 That Hawkes Bay A & P Society (Application No.19) funding request for $30,000.00 towards the A&P show and Education Programmes be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.6 That Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hawkes Bay (Application No. 20) be declined funding of $15,000.00 for support towards a local mentoring programme for young people who faced adverse circumstances, with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.7 That Outward Bound (Application No. 21) funding request of $17,140.00 to fund four local young people to go on an Outward Bound Programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.8 That Parkinson’s New Zealand (Application No. 22) funding request of $10,000.00 towards the employment of a Community Educator & Support Groups be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.9 That Learning Hawke's Bay (Application No. 24) funding request of $10,000.00 for cultural Events for international students and regional orientation day for international students be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.10 That Te Taitimu Trust (Application No. 27) requested funding of $12,000.00 towards a twelve month youth mental health programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.11 That Peoples Advocacy Society Incorporated (Application No. 32) funding request of $8,768.00 for costs to run the service to assist people in Hastings who are experiencing problems with Work and Income, Inland Revenue be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.12 That Volunteering Hawkes Bay (Application No. 34) funding request of $13,060.00 toward general operation costs to assist in promoting, recruiting and support volunteering to all sections in the Hastings community programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.13 That Ngā Toi Hawke’s Bay (Application No. 37) funding request of $23,510.00 for the 2019/20 work programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.14 That Kidz Need Dadz Charitable Trust Hawkes Bay (Application No. 38) funding request of $7,105.00 towards the printing costs and distribution of a "Blokes Book" be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.15 That Enliven - Presbyterian Support Programmes (Application No. 39) requested funding of $10,000.00 for services to support older people in the community to work towards specific goals to gain quality of life – Senior Chef Programme to motivate older people to prepare and share food be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.16 That the Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust (Application No. 40) funding request of $5,635.61 for music therapy for those in need - wages for staff be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.17 That Arthritis New Zealand (Application No. 41) requested funding of $5,000.00 for the continuation of the National Help Programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.18 That Roberts Education And Training Limited (Application No. 44) requested funding of $370,000.00 towards funding for the Ka Hikitia Female Youth Programme (young offenders programme) be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.19 That St Andrews Presbyterian Church Hastings (Application No. 45) requested funding of $10,000.00 to undertake some market research to develop a project in delivering low cost electricity be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.20 That Hikoi Koutou Charitable Trust (Application No. 47) requested funding of $5,850.00 for whanau hauora plans developed for over 60 year olds in conjunction with Taiwhenua and Choices for a Well Being Programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.21 That Age Concern Hawke's Bay Incorporated (Application No. 50) requested funding of $10,000.00 for a new office administrator be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.22 That Kidnappers Country Music Group (Application No. 54) requested funding of $10,000.00 to support the Kidnappers Country Music Group be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.23 That the Wharariki (Flax) Trust (Application No. 62) requested funding of $30,000 for the continuation of the Whanau First Whanau Hard Collective project be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.24 That New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups Incorporated (Application No. 64) requested funding of $4,000.00 to strengthen the local Support Worker Programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.25 That 4YOUTHNZ (Application No. 65) request funding of $10,000.00 to provide weekly activities for young people be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

3.26 That Insolidarity Chartiable Trust Tu Mai Awa (Application No. 63) requested funding of $20,000.00 for whanau/family focused violence programme be declined with the reason being that the contestable grants fund was oversubscribed and in a competitive funding environment other applications better addressed the current funding priorities.

SUMMARY OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS

No.	Applicant	Requested	Allocated
1	Radio Kidnappers Charitable Trust	$9,260.00	$3,500.00
3	Robotics and Computer Science in Schools Trust (CS4S Trust)	$5,165.23	$5,165.00
4	Age Concern Havelock North (EXPO)	$9,725.00	$5,000.00
5	Age Concern Havelock North (Christmas)	$9,630.00	$9,500.00
6	Muscular Dystrophy Association Incorporated	$10,000.00	$1,500.00
7	CCS Disability Action Tairawhiti Hawkes Bay Incorporated	$3,000.00	$1,500.00
8	Hawke's Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust	$6,000.00	$3,000.00
9	Pursuit Limited	$5,000.00	$5,000.00
10	English Language Partners - Hawke's Bay	$1,596.00	$500.00
13	Hawkes Bay Youth Trust	$10,000.00	$6,000.00
14	Flaxmere Baptist Church Community Trust	$8,000.00	$8,000.00
15	Hastings Menzshed Trust	$10,000.00	$7,500.00
18	Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust	$7,500.00	$4,000.00
23	Hastings Hearing	$15,000.00	$5,000.00
25	Hastings City Business Association	$60,000.00	$25,000.00
26	CAB Hastings	$2,806.00	$2,806.00
27	Birchleigh Polo School	$5,000.00	$5,000.00
28	Waimarama Surf Life saving Club	$14,000.00	$7,000.00
31	Heretaunga Womens Centre	$18,000.00	$18,000.00
32	Red Cross	$6,197.00	$3,000.00
33	Nourished for Nil	$11,500.00	$7,500.00
35	Dementia Hawkes Bay	$10,000.00	$1,500.00
36	Hawke’s Bay Digital Archives Trust	$10,546.95	$4,000.00
42	Budget First Incorporated	$10,000.00	$5,000.00
43	Leg-Up Trust	$10,000.00	$5,000.00
46	Havelock North Business Association	$25,069.00	$10,000.00
48	No 11 Squadron District of Hastings Air Training Corps	$9,486.00	$3,000.00
49	Growing Through Grief Hawke's Bay	$5,000.00	$2,500.00
51	Hastings Art & Culture Trust	$14,000.00	$10,000.00
52	Tango me Whero	$2,100.00	$1,000.00
53	Te Aranga Marae Trust	$10,043.55	$10,000.00
55	Interchurch Council for Hospital Chaplaincy	$18,000.00	$10,000.00
57	Hastings Women's Refuge	$30,000.00	$30,000.00
58	Prima Volta Charitable Trust	$30,100.00	$10,000.00
66	Blind Foundation	$5,000.00	$1,500.00
67	Disabiliry Resource Centre (HB) trust	$5,748.00	$5,529.00
68	Centenary Legacy Trust	$5,000.00	$3,000.00
		$427,472.73	$245,500.00

SUMMARY OF DECLINED APPLICATIONS

No.	Applicant	Requested	Allocated
2	Manawatu PARS	$5,246.00	$0.00
11	Epilepsy Association of New Zealand Incorporated	$4,000.00	$0.00
12	Brain Injury Association (Hawke's Bay) Incorporated	$20,000.00	$0.00
16	Youth Development Trust Hawkes Bay (Graham Dingle Foundation)	$10,000.00	$0.00
17	Lifelink Samaritans	$5,000.00	$0.00
19	Hawkes Bay A&P	$30,000.00	$0.00
20	Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hawkes Bay	$15,000.00	$0.00
21	Outward Bound	$17,140.00	$0.00
22	Parkinson’s New Zealand	$10,000.00	$0.00
24	Learning Hawke's Bay	$10,000.00	$0.00
29	Te Taitimu Trust	$20,000.00	$0.00
30	Peoples Advocacy Society	$8,768.00	$0.00
34	Volunteering Hawkes Bay	$13,060.00	$0.00
37	Ngā Toi Hawke’s Bay	$23,510.00	$0.00
38	Kidz Need Dadz Charitable Trust Hawkes Bay	$7,105.00	$0.00
39	Enliven - Presbyterian Support	$10,000.00	$0.00
40	The Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	$5,635.61	$0.00
41	Arthritis New Zealand kaiponapona Aotearoa	$5,000.00	$0.00
44	Roberts Education And Training Limited	$370,000.00	$0.00
45	St Andrews Presbyterian Church Hastings	$10,000.00	$0.00
47	Hikoi Koutou Charitable Trust	$5,850.00	$0.00
50	Age Concern Hawke's Bay Incorparated	$10,000.00	$0.00
54	Kidnappers Country Music Group	$10,000.00	$0.00
56	Landmarks Trust	$10,000.00	$0.00
59	Flaxmere Planning Committee (driving Simulator)	$11,845.00	$0.00
60	Flaxmere Planning Committee (Polyfest)	$5,805.00	$0.00
61	Flaxmere Planning Committee (Communications)	$8,630.00	$0.00
62	Wharariki (Flax) Trust	$30,000.00	$0.00
63	Insolidartiy Chartiable Trust Tu Mai Awa	$20,000.00	$0.00
64	New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups Incorporated	$4,000.00	$0.00
65	4YOUthNZ	10,000.00	$0.00
		$725,594.61	$0.00

F) That the Chair of the Community Grants Subcommittee write a letter to the Chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board advising of the large number of health and disability related funding requests the Subcommittee had received for consideration in the 2019 Contestable Grants funding round.

G) That the Community Grants Committee attend a workshop on 2 July 2019 to review the Grants process.

Attachments:

1	Minutes of the Community Grants Subcommittee meeting held 20 May and reconvened on 23 May 2019	CG-14-8-00060
2	Community Grants Priorities for funding and Eligibility Criteria	CG-14-1-01356

File Ref: 19/444

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 27 June 2019

FROM: Manager: Democracy and Governance Services

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 April and May 2019.

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 27/06/2019 be received.

B) That the LGOIMA requests received in April and May 2019 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-19-1591) of the report in (A) above be noted.

Attachments:

Information Mgmt & Reporting - Information Requests - LGOIMA - Monthly Report to Council - April and May 2019 - Council 27/6/19

IRB-2-01-19-1591

1	Status of Actions 27 June 2019	CG-14-1-01047
2	Crash Data	CG-14-1-01350

Council	26 September 2019	10.30am	Council Chamber
Council	10 October 2019	10.30am	Council Chamber

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings