From: Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2018 15:58 To: Wayne Jack Subject: Councillor FB posts Attachments: Councillor?SociaI-Media?Posts- Hi there, Wayne. I?ve waded through Napier News (fun job), and also Maxine, Richard and Kirsten?s councillor pages from December 1. I taken screenshots from the following pages: 1. Napier News (6 posts, all by Maxine) 2. Maxine and Api?s councillor page (12 posts) 3. Richard?s personal/councillor page (7 posts) 4. Kirsten's councillor page (11 posts) 5. Maxine?s personal FB page (1 post) I left out some random, unrelated-to-Napier posts from both Richard and Kirsten. Richard?s councillor page seems to also be his personal page. Both Kirsten and Maxine also have their own personal pages: I?m not FB friends with Kirsten and so can't see anything there, and almost all of Maxine's personal FB posts were then on-shared to her Councillor page. I?ve attached a screenshot of the only really relevant one from Maxine?s page (posted yesterday). There are 35 screenshots, 12 relating to pools posts. While I haven't looked at them closely was whizzing through nothing really leapt out at me. Hope that?s what you were after. Cheers, DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR Napier 4142 ww.napier.govt.nz 2019 summercyciingcarnival.cn.n1 Facebook Posts: Dec 1-Dec 19 Cr Maxine 3039, Or Richard McGrath, Cr Kirsten Wise NAPIER CITY COUNCIL Te Kaunihera Ahun'ri 33% Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 3 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1614424851992182 Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 4 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1615713975196603 Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 6 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1618627108238623 Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 10 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1624045467696787 Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 18 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1634313653336635 Napier News FB - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews • Cr Maxine Boag – 19 December - www.facebook.com/groups/napiernews/permalink/1635065099928157 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 1 December - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/609075106180620 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 3 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/videos/187608795526401 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 6 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/videos/262508897726668 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 7 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/612602812494516 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 8 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/613632229058241 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 10 December https://www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/photos/a.108643359557133/614660225622108/?type=1&theater Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 11 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/615341948887269 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 12 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/616145355473595 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 13 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/616622458759218 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 14 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/617060488715415 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 18 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/posts/619396921815105 Cr Boag - www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine • Cr Maxine Boag – 19 December www.facebook.com/apiandmaxine/videos/1982431472058500 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 4 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2717848961774035 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 7 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2720216988203899 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 9 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2720216988203899 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 10 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2722588244633440 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 10 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2722644781294453 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 17 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2728314477394150 Cr McGrath (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388 • Cr Richard McGrath – 18 December www.facebook.com/richard.mcgrath.3388/posts/2729289860629945 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 1 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/2152858848313142 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 1 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/photos/a.798163506889800/2158699424169528 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 5 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/346470502811706 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 5 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2164405076932296 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 6 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2165578263481644 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 7 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2166834350022702 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 9 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2169717536401050 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 10 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2171307292908741 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 11 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/983486498515662 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 15 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2178550692184401 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC • Cr Kirsten Wise – 18 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2183521608353976 From: Adele Henderson Sent: Friday, 7 June 2019 2:18 PM To: Wayne Jack Subject: Doc 760473 Richard McGrath snapshot of facebook posts Copy of original post supporting legal costs against council plus two further posts that may be of interest Thursday 5th June 31st May 2114'!r ?Iii-- :x Richard McGrath II Hun-tri?ing JIIGIE 3? a- 39w - Picked up 29 May 2019 if 22; Richard McGrath ?meline Friends MUTE DD KNOW To see what he shares with friends: send him a triend request. 6 Intro Richard MeGrath 23 mins - Works at Napier City Council Candidate In Napier Eeys? High Sen-apt 13] Lives in Napier. New Napier. New Zealand Friends of Dnekawa Aquatic Centre - Givealittle Friends at Dnekawa requires funds for legal costs against Napier City Counc-.. Like Comment pi) Share From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Wayne Jack Re: Screenshot 2019-07-29 at 5.18.44 AM Monday, 29 July 2019 08:45:24 Have spoken to She is following up re images, advising , checking against code and we'll log for potential predetermination if he's an EM next round Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------From: Wayne Jack Date: 29/07/19 8:25 AM (GMT+12:00) To: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Cc: @napier.govt.nz> Subject: Re: Screenshot 2019-07-29 at 5.18.44 AM Thanks for getting on to this. Was going to contact you about this. He is also incorrect in his information but that is another issue! Regards Wayne On 29/07/2019, at 8:12 AM, Devorah Nicuarta-Smith wrote: Hi Please follow up asap - if council images have been used in this post which is clear electioneering it's a breach of the rule that they must not use council resources. Aside from any other concerns in relation to the post the images need to be checked and removed asap Thanks! Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------From: Adele Henderson Date: 29/07/19 5:19 AM (GMT+12:00) To: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith , Wayne Jack Subject: Screenshot 2019-07-29 at 5.18.44 AM Note he had used council pictures here Sent from my iPhone 5213??1 .- - <36) LI a post En ma ac ievab le. Do we nqu an aquahc Minn? Yes. CUJIU UIIS Lu: ache-Jud a! euhur Unukawa or Drebensen? Yes Why The move1 Yet lo be accu?ate?y ceflreu. Candwdalc for Nemon Park ward, Napier City Sections 2019 - Aoiata Taphc #Vale {mpiandMaxine Apia?, New posts ?Jr?1? Wet Dnekawa Sports Complex vs Prebensen Drive 'Greenfields' The consultation or the Long Term Plan, moulded a vulnerable resmt of only a 1% ditterence between the two options presented to Napier. A group of six councillors [myseii included] have been seeking [0 r2- engage with the community on this very issue. halo my no 5|li0n. that 0m ?3 Sidents, it well intorrn ed would also provide the council with a well-informed uireeiicm and, a clear mandate for future spending of th eir rate 5. lhave voted against lhis proposal, at every gateway There are 6 of 12 councillors who seek a clear mandate for lhis level 01 spending, with only 1% difference in consultation results hcnii.?everr is not a clear mandate. The Mayor and remaining Si): councillors support the newI site on Prehensen drive. Every pool decision at the council has passed with a seveni'six split on voting. consultation has a 1% difference and current of Council are paseing with the narrowest margin achievable. one vote. Do we need an aquatic solution7 Yes Could this beachieved at either Onekawa or Preberiseli? Yes. Why ihe move? Yet to be accurately defined. Candidate for Nelson Park Ward, Napier City Elections 2019 Tapine From: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Sent: Friday, 7 June 2019 2:03 PM To: Wayne Jack Subject: Doc 760472 FW: Snapshot of facebook post As requested - posted 10.09am on 29 May 2019. We've just checked and it's still there Although he has changed his work status to 'candidate' there are other posts that clearly indicate he is a current councillor Devorah Nicuarta-Smith TEAM LEADER GOVERNANCE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Sent: Friday, 7 June 2019 1:58 PM To: Adele Henderson Subject: Snapshot of facebook post Picked up 29 May 2019 Richard McGrath Timeline About Friends Photos More DD YOU KNOW To see what he shares with friends: send him a friend request. 9 Intro Richard MeGrath 23 mins - Works at Napier City Council Candidate E3- Went to Napier Boys? High Senooi Lives in Napier. New zeaiand (53} From Napier. New Zealand Photos Friends of Dnekawa Aquatic Centre - Givealittle Friends of Onekawa requires funds for legal costs against Napier City.r Like Comment pi) Share From: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2019 11:38 AM To: Wayne Jack ; Cc: Antoinette Campbell Subject: RE: Advice on conduct Yes will do. I have left a message with matters so hope fully will hear back soon. Best regards @napier.govt.nz> at EquiP in relation to code of conduct Devorah Nicuarta-Smith TEAM LEADER GOVERNANCE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Wayne Jack Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2019 11:32 AM To: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith ; napier.govt.nz> Cc: Antoinette Campbell Subject: Advice on conduct Hi Devorah, Could you get some advice please on whether Councillor McGrath is in breach of the Code of Conduct and any other policies/ legislation with him sharing and promoting legal action against NCC. See email below. I have previously advised him of his actions in regards to similar activity. Regards Wayne Begin forwarded message: From: Antoinette Campbell Date: 29 May 2019 at 10:36:19 AM NZST To: Wayne Jack Subject: FW: FYI below Antoinette Campbell DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 9810 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: @napier.govt.nz> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2019 10:35 AM To: Antoinette Campbell Subject: More Timeline About Friends Photos 0U KNOW ee what he shares with friends. send him a friend request. 3+ Add Friend Intro Richard McGrath 23 mins 0 Marks at Napier City Councii Candidate Nani to Napier Boy-5' High Sendai .ives in Napier, New Zeaiand 5 ?rom Napier. New Zealand GIVEALITTLECO NZ Friends of Onekawa Aquatic Centre - Givealittie Friends of Onekawa requires funds for Iegai costs against Napier City Counc. .. [b Like Comment 5) Share Devorah Nicuarta-Smith TEAM LEADER GOVERNANCE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: To: Subject: Date: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Adele Henderson; Wayne Jack Re: Screenshot 2019-07-29 at 5.18.44 AM Monday, 29 July 2019 08:08:40 They have repeatedly been told they cannot use council resources which includes our images. Aside from any other concerns that one needs to be addressed immediately. I'll follow up Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------From: Adele Henderson Date: 29/07/19 5:19 AM (GMT+12:00) To: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith , Wayne Jack Subject: Screenshot 2019-07-29 at 5.18.44 AM Note he had used council pictures here Apia?, New posts ?Jr?1? Wet Dnekawa Sports Complex vs Prebensen Drive 'Greenfields' The consultation or the Long Term Plan, moulded a vulnerable resmt of only a 1% ditterence between the two options presented to Napier. A group of six councillors [myseii included] have been seeking [0 r2- engage with the community on this very issue. halo my no 5|li0n. that 0m ?3 Sidents, it well intorrn ed would also provide the council with a well-informed uireeiicm and, a clear mandate for future spending of th eir rate 5. lhave voted against lhis proposal, at every gateway There are 6 of 12 councillors who seek a clear mandate for lhis level 01 spending, with only 1% difference in consultation results hcnii.?everr is not a clear mandate. The Mayor and remaining Si): councillors support the newI site on Prehensen drive. Every pool decision at the council has passed with a seveni'six split on voting. consultation has a 1% difference and current of Council are paseing with the narrowest margin achievable. one vote. Do we need an aquatic solution7 Yes Could this beachieved at either Onekawa or Preberiseli? Yes. Why ihe move? Yet to be accurately defined. Candidate for Nelson Park Ward, Napier City Elections 2019 Tapine 5213??1 .- - <36) LI a post En ma ac ievab le. Do we nqu an aquahc Minn? Yes. CUJIU UIIS Lu: ache-Jud a! euhur Unukawa or Drebensen? Yes Why The move1 Yet lo be accu?ate?y ceflreu. Candwdalc for Nemon Park ward, Napier City Sections 2019 - Aoiata Taphc #Vale {mpiandMaxine From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Craig Ogborn Antoinette Campbell; ; Wayne Jack; Jon Kingsford; Bill Dalton amended media release - War Memorial Wednesday, 20 February 2019 11:02:10 DRAFT MEDIA RELEASE Napier War Memorial decision.docx image001.jpg Hello there. I've spoken to the Mayor & made changes to his quote as he requested (highlighted) & added in that Clr Kirsten seconded the motion (also highlighted). Thanks COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. Combined design preferred for Napier War Memorial Wednesday 20 February 2019 Napier City Councillors would like to see a War Memorial design that incorporates elements from all three designs that went out for public consultation last year. The Council, with the exception of Napier Mayor Bill Dalton, voted for the amended resolution put forward by Councillor Annette Brosnan, and seconded by Councillor Kirsten Wise, yesterday at the Strategy and Infrastructure committee meeting. The resolution stated that Council would like to see final concepts and designs by August, with the build to begin this calendar year. However, staff will report back to the full Council meeting in two weeks' time whether this is feasible. The resolution reconfirmed the decision made by Council in September 2017 to place the War Memorial at the Floral Clock site on Marine Parade, but included other directions, such as that staff investigate design directions such as, that the memorial be placed at forecourt level, that a curved wall open to the elements display the Roll of Honour, and that the perpetual flame be built into the existing building entranceway so it could be viewed when entering the memorial, and at night. They also wish for the original Roll of Honour plaques to be included in the design in some way. Mayor Dalton said he spoke against the motion because he felt it was too prescriptive, totally uncosted, and bore little resemblance to what the public told Council they wanted. The public was consulted over four weeks in November and December last year about the three design options. A total of 1298 people responded to an independent survey, provided feedback online and in hardcopy form. More than 200 people engaged in face to face consultation activities. Earlier in the meeting Council passed a resolution to accept the updated final Roll of Honour, which now stands at 1058 names. The review of the Roll of Honour, and research, began in January 2018 as part of the War Memorial project to return the Roll and Perpetual Flame to the Napier War Memorial Centre site. The research found good and legitimate reason for 15 names which were on the 1995 Roll to be removed. The new Roll of Honour comprises war dead from the South African War, WWI, WWII, Occupation of Japan, and Vietnam. The Napier War Memorial Centre building was extended in 2016. As part of this extension memorial elements were removed and stored pending a decision on a site for their relocation. In July 2017 it was agreed between NCC and the presidents of the Napier and Taradale and Districts Returned Service Associations to establish the memorial in close proximity to the building. That September NCC resolved to locate it at the floral clock site, and move the floral clock to the sunken gardens. In June 2018 Council resolved to release three designs for public feedback, the design that housed the elements within an annex to the building was withdrawn at the request of the designer. Subsequently a third indoor design option was offered by a member of the public, Craig Morley, to replace the annex design that was withdrawn, and in October Council amended its June resolution to allow this. ENDS For media enquiries contact: Craig Ogborn COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING MANAGER ? Napier City Council t: +64 6 834 4144 m: 027 448 3551 e: craig.ogborn@napier.govt.nz From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack Councillor FB posts Wednesday, 19 December 2018 15:57:53 image002.jpg Councillor-Social-Media-Posts-December.pdf Councillor-Social-Media-Posts-December-1-19.pdf Hi there, Wayne. I've waded through Napier News (fun job), and also from December 1. I taken screenshots from the following pages: Some information removed as not pertinent to request 4. Kirsten's councillor page (11 posts) I left out some random, unrelated-to-Napier posts from Kirsten's councillor pages Kirsten. Kirsten own personal pages: I'm not FB friends with Kirsten and so can't see anything there, also have their There are 35 screenshots, 12 relating to pools posts. While I haven't looked at them closely - I was whizzing through - nothing really leapt out at me. Hope that's what you were after. Cheers, DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Summer Cycling Carnival This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. Facebook Posts: Dec 1-Dec 19 Notpertinentto request NAPIER CITY COUNCIL 33% Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 1 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/2152858848313142 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 1 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/photos/a.798163506889800/2158699424169528 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 5 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/346470502811706 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 5 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2164405076932296 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 6 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2165578263481644 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 7 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2166834350022702 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 9 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2169717536401050 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 10 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2171307292908741 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 11 December www.facebook.com/NapierCityCouncil/videos/vb.116840435045124/983486498515662 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 15 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2178550692184401 Cr Wise (NCC posts only) - www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC o Cr Kirsten Wise - 18 December www.facebook.com/kirstenwiseNCC/posts/2183521608353976 From: To: Subject: Date: Adele Henderson Wayne Jack Doc 760493 Fwd: Yesterday's Meeting Monday, 10 June 2019 18:06:40 Worth noting about standing by the decision. She recognises it is required of her but she is failing to do so. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 17 April 2019 at 10:00:00 AM NZST To: Adele Henderson , @napier.govt.nz> Subject: YesterdayaEUR(TM)s Meeting Good Morning Adele & Firstly I wanted to say a huge thank you for all your assistance over the last couple of months regarding the financials and the aquatic centre project, it was very much appreciated. I also want to apologise if I came across as confrontational yesterday, it was not intentional and was simply a result of my frustrations as I genuinely do not feel that we should be proceeding with this project. The final vote has now been cast however and I will accept this and move on. Counting down the days to my holiday at the end of next week! Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Craig Ogborn Antoinette Campbell; ; Wayne Jack; Jon Kingsford; Bill Dalton FW: amended media release - War Memorial Wednesday, 20 February 2019 11:23:04 image001.jpg Further tweaks to the first few paragraphs. Thanks : Napier City Councillors would like to see a War Memorial design that incorporates elements from all three designs that went out for public consultation last year. The Council, with the exception of Napier Mayor Bill Dalton, voted for the amended recommendation put forward by Councillor Annette Brosnan, and seconded by Councillor Kirsten Wise, yesterday at the Strategy and Infrastructure committee meeting. The Council agreed to have a concept design worked up that reflected the elements identified in the recommendation, that included aspects from all three designs that went out for consultation, with the concepts and designs completed by August, and the build to begin this calendar year. However, staff will report back to the full Council meeting in two weeks' time whether this is feasible. The recommendation reconfirmed the decision made by Council in September 2017 to place the War Memorial at the Floral Clock site on Marine Parade. The design elements included the memorial being placed at forecourt level, that a curved wall open to the elements display the Roll of Honour, and that the perpetual flame be built into the existing building entranceway so it could be viewed when entering the memorial, and at night. They also wish for the original Roll of Honour plaques to be included in the design in some way. COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2019 11:07 AM To: Craig Ogborn Cc: Antoinette Campbell ; @napier.govt.nz>; Wayne Jack ; Jon Kingsford (jon.kingsford@napier.govt.nz) ; Bill Dalton Subject: FW: amended media release - War Memorial One other change. It has been pointed out to me by Governance that this release should use the word recommendation, not resolution - that will come after the Council meeting. Thanks COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2019 11:02 AM To: Craig Ogborn Cc: Antoinette Campbell ; @napier.govt.nz>; Wayne Jack ; Jon Kingsford (jon.kingsford@napier.govt.nz) ; Bill Dalton Subject: amended media release - War Memorial Hello there. I've spoken to the Mayor & made changes to his quote as he requested (highlighted) & added in that Clr Kirsten seconded the motion (also highlighted). Thanks COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Jon Kingsford Wayne Jack FW: Chlorine-free water for Christchurch Tuesday, 26 March 2019 14:51:04 image001.jpg image002.jpg image001.jpg Wayne, Please see email below from Kirsten. is pulling together a response for me but the request for evidence that Chlorine is effective and compliant with the DWSNZ is getting ridiculous. What response will be that this is the stated method for addressing network based contamination risk in our Water Safety Plan and this plan has been approved by the District Health Board's Drinking Water Assessor. No further proof than that should be necessary, however we can also state that it is the approved method for almost all other Council's in New Zealand. Thoughts? Jon Kingsford DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4184 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2019 2:38 PM To: Jon Kingsford Subject: Re: Chlorine-free water for Christchurch Hi Jon Just following up on my query below and I am also interested in seeing the evidence that chlorine is effective and compliant with the DWSNZ. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 On 14/03/2019, at 10:17 AM, Jon Kingsford wrote: Morning Kirsten Thank you for your email to Jon. We will come back to you with this information as soon as we can. Many thanks PA TO DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2019 9:22 AM To: Jon Kingsford ; Wayne Jack ; NCC: Councillors ; Bill Dalton Subject: Chlorine-free water for Christchurch Hi Jon I note that Christchurch City Council is on target for 95% of the city to become chlorine-free by the end of June (see article below). https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/110920557/strictestwater-restrictions-since-earthquakes-on-way-in-bid-to-bring-wellrepairs-back-on-track?rm=m I have had a number of enquiries from community members asking why Christchurch can do this and we can't. We did have a very brief conversation about this last year but I was wondering if you could please provide me with an explanation so that I can answer any questions I get. I have copied the other councillors into this email in case they are also being asked similar questions. Kind Regards Kirsten From: To: Subject: Date: Wayne Jack FW: Yesterday's Meeting Wednesday, 17 April 2019 10:01:47 Hi Wayne Thought you might be interested in the email we received from Kirsten this morning. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Napier City Council, Private Bag6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation www.sayitnapier.nz/annual-plan-2019-20-consultation/ This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2019 10:00 AM To: Adele Henderson ; @napier.govt.nz> Subject: Yesterday's Meeting Good Morning Adele & Firstly I wanted to say a huge thank you for all your assistance over the last couple of months regarding the financials and the aquatic centre project, it was very much appreciated. I also want to apologise if I came across as confrontational yesterday, it was not intentional and was simply a result of my frustrations as I genuinely do not feel that we should be proceeding with this project. The final vote has now been cast however and I will accept this and move on. Counting down the days to my holiday at the end of next week! Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Wayne Jack Adele Henderson; Antoinette Campbell; Bill Dalton Fwd: Aquatic Project Costings Monday, 16 July 2018 09:23:42 Hi all, Copy of Kirsten's email below FYI. Will discuss this further on my return but at this stage we will continue with the plan that we have for progressing the development. There has been significant meetings and information provided to Tony and Kirsten around the financials and why they were structured this way. It was also highlighted to them that the second option was just that - the second option for Council and therefore the there is a lower level of confidence in the construction figures. The decision to pause this development will need a majority decision from Council. Regards Wayne Begin forwarded message: From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 16 July 2018 at 9:15:24 AM NZST To: "NCC: Councillors" , Bill Dalton , Wayne Jack Subject: Aquatic Project Costings Good Morning All As you are all aware I had a number of concerns regarding the Aquatic Project and was very keen to press the pause button on this in the Long Term Plan to give us more time to fully assess the two proposed sites and the design options. Following on from the adoption of the LTP myself and Tony have been working with Adele to gain a better understanding of the costings which were included in the consultation document, in particular the annual rating increase of $51 and $67 per household respectively. This did not make sense in light of the similar reserves contributions ($7.3m for QEII and $7.1m for Onekawa) and the respective rates funded loans of $34m and $13.1m. The rating difference of $16 multiplied by the approx. 25529 rateable properties amounts to an additional $408k funding annually for the QEII project which based on my modelling is not enough to service the additional $20.9m of debt. After much toing and froing the following information has come to light which explains the costings: The $51 and $67 is the annual increase to the ratepayer, if the current annual cost of $59 is included this results in an annual ratepayer cost of $110 and $126 respectively. The QEII option is loan funded over a 30 year period whilst the Onekawa option is over a 15 year period. The 30 and 15 year terms have not been disclosed in the consultation document and the 15 year term makes the Onekawa option look comparatively poor value. If modelled over a 30 year term the annual rating increase for Onekawa reduces to $39 per ratepayer, considerably less than the $67 annual increase for QEII. The rationale provided for the different loan terms is that the current facilities in the Onekawa option will need to be replaced at the end of the 15 years therefore the loan for the entire Onekawa option including the new facilities is repaid over a 15 year term to ensure trans-generational funding. It does not seem logical to me that all of the Onekawa site has been assessed as having a 15 year life span. The consultation document clearly refers to refurbishment of the Onekawa option at 15 years whereas the loan modelling is based on replacement in 15 years or less. The Onekawa costings include $3.75m for maintenance of the existing facilities ($250k per annum over the 15 years remaining life of the facility) plus an additional $4m accumulating over the 15 year period for refurbishment, however as noted above the loan modelling is based on the full replacement of the facilities therefore why are renewals being budgeted. No renewals budget is included in the QEII costings. Sorry to bombard you with numbers but in my opinion the community has not been presented with an apples for apples comparison and the costings were prepared in a way to show the QEII option in a far more positive light. Interesting that despite this the community feedback was only 51% in favour of QEII. I think this, along with the many other questions a number of councillors have regarding the sites and the design, reinforces my belief that we need to take a step back and carry out an open transparent process with our community to ensure we get this right. This will potentially be the largest capital project our council has ever undertaken, with a huge monetary impact on our ratepayers and I do not believe we have received endorsement to move forward. Kind Regards Kirsten From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Wayne Jack Fwd: War Memorial Consultation Thursday, 15 November 2018 09:50:33 FYI for your response. The two nurses referred to below were both enlisted army nurses and are war dead. To suggest we do not list them is highly inappropriate. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 15 November 2018 at 9:47:05 AM NZDT To: @napier.govt.nz> Cc: "NCC: Councillors" , Wayne Jack , Antoinette Campbell , Craig Ogborn , @napier.govt.nz>, @napier.govt.nz>, @napier.govt.nz> Subject: Re: War Memorial Consultation Hi Feedback as promised. My overarching concern is that this is very much a tick box form despite us being assured this would not be the case. I appreciate this is a very different way to consult and comes with its challenges however the resolution passed by Council clearly stated that the community would have the opportunity to provide not only feedback but also input into any potential alternative designs or modifications. As such I agree with Annette's suggestion that another space is provided which invites submitters to describe something different, their own design or modifications to the design concepts. I also fully support the other suggestions made by Annette and add the following comments: - I do not see the need to include reference to the Napier Conference Centre in the opening statement, this will just antagonise some people - Do we need to include nurses in the list of those we are honouring? - Following on from 'We have three design options for you to provide your feedback on'. 'We also invite you to provide any other design concepts or modifications in the space provided at the end of this document.' Or something to that effect. - Is the comment regarding limited access to the Perpetual flame in the Building Forecourt Option really necessary? The flame is still viewable 24 hours through the window which is just as accessible as the Landscape option where the flame is in the water feature. - Outdoor design must also include fourth bullet point about costs will be finalised once detailed design plans are complete. - Outdoor design should state there is no shelter. - Outdoor design should state the perpetual flame is in the water feature which may be difficult to protect from the elements. I do not wish to be seen as 'writing the document' as this is clearly an operational role but as someone who is very active in our returned services community I am hearing feedback all the time and just trying to address some of the issues which I have identified. There is a perception in the community that the document will be bias towards the Landscape Option so we need to do everything possible to ensure the options are presented fairly. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 Not pertinent to request From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Adele Henderson Wayne Jack; Antoinette Campbell QEII Talking Point - response Wednesday, 5 December 2018 13:27:43 QEII Talking Point - response.docx Hi Wayne/Antoinette Unfortunately the tone and messaging from the talking point that was compiled on behalf of 6 Councillors has been bothering me. At some point, even in a seminar, I would like to use this as an example/learning for the future (as opposed to being an opportunity for blame). Thankfully my cup is always half full and I am prepared to use this experience to ensure that this does not happen again (or at least try) I am disappointed that the group have not requested that the matters they are concerned about be bought back to table for further discussion. Although I have compiled a response, it may not be appropriate to pass on, and as it is a first pass at my thoughts and may require editing Happy to discuss Thanks Adele As six diverse individuals elected to make good decisions while serving as half of Napier's 12 councillors we have always embraced collective responsibility. We have worked to ensure the completion of majority decisions, provided they are based on transparent assumptions and timely, complete and correct information. We believe that the decision to demolish the Onekawa Aquatic Centre and undertake a $41.3 million project modelled on the Christchurch QE11 facility at a greenfields site off Prebensen Drive was procedurally flawed and skewed from its inception. Councillors own and adopt through resolutions all aspects of the LTP journey. Council officers offered help and assistance along the path to the final adoption. Councillors have a responsibility to be aware of legislation and their responsibilities in the development of a Long Term Plan. If Councillors have concerns during that process, then they have the personal responsibility to raise those concerns and have them addressed to their satisfaction at the time. This is the role of governance in Local Government. Councillors are decision makers for their community and should be clear on process Following on from the 2015 Aquatic Strategy an external business case was prepared for four options, all at Onekawa Park. Two of these were upgrades of the 20 year old Ivan Wilson Centre and two were new builds containing 25 and 50 metre pools respectively. For the 2017 public consultation document the basic upgrade was shelved along with a more ambitious full upgrade of the Ivan Wilson Centre plus a new heated 25x25 metre pool, a 12.5 x 8 metre learn to swim pool, and a cafe and fitness gym. Public submissions favoured the 50 metre new build but council rejected this as the estimate of $38 million had risen to $50 million and a 50 metre pool had been signalled for the regional sports park. Later in 2017 council staff visited the 25 metre QE11 facility during its construction and presented this concept to council. There was no opportunity offered to any elected member to visit the facility until the middle of 2018, after they had voted for or against it. Whether a Councillor is able to see a similar pool or not, should not be considered material to making a decision as a governance body. Governance should be making the decision subject to Section 77 LGA The $41.3 million Prebensen Drive proposal was included in the 2018 Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation document as option 1 with the $20.2 million refurbished Ivan Wilson Centre and fit for present and future community purpose new build combination as option 2. Public submissions were 51% in support of option 1. Council voted for this 5-8 , including the mayor, on the clear understanding from its governance advisory that the special council meeting to adopt the plan would provide a double debating opportunity. Compiling a plan should not be subject to a "double debate". Compiling the LTP is really a long slow dance, where lots of conversation should occur in getting to a position where (majority) are in agreement over the content., Below is the outline and steps that we see as part of the long slow dance ... o Councillors are engaged along the process to help identify the issues that need to be included in the plan. o o o o o o o o Councillors should make the decisions around what meets the significance requirements for consultation. Councillors should be happy with what is being consulted on and the manner in which it is being asked in the consultation document - hence adopting the consultation document before this goes public. Councillors will have to make hard decisions on the back of feedback when they make the final resolution for what is to be included in a plan. Once the decisions are made from the resolution at the hearings, irrespective of where someone should lie on a decision, all Councillors should support the final decision Once resolutions are made, a final document (LTP) can be prepared for adoption - this should not require a double debate as agreement was reached on all the proceeding steps Anything contained within the plan can changed - a decision not to do something would not constitute an amendment A significant variance to what was consulted on in the Plan can be made, and a decision on materiality/significant would need to be considered whether it constitutes a LTP Amendment, or can be changed as part of an Annual Plan When we talk about "gateways" and decision milestones where changes to the plan can be made it might look like this .. ? Costs coming in substantially higher and general agreement not to proceed on that basis as no longer considered viable ? Something else occurred that means our project no longer appropriate eg Hastings building a 50m pool, an external provider now providing service ? Final agreement on scope eg pools, which means that it is no longer aligned to what was consulted on eg 50m pool vs a paddling pool - if its lower then won't require further consultation, but if other way around would require further consultation depending on significance 96 Effect of resolution adopting long-term plan or annual plan (1) The effect of a long-term plan and an annual plan adopted by a local authority is to provide a formal and public statement of the local authority's intentions in relation to the matters covered by the plan. (2) A resolution to adopt a long-term plan or an annual plan does not constitute a decision to act on any specific matter included within the plan. (3) Subject to section 80, and except as provided in section 97, a local authority may make decisions that are inconsistent with the contents of any long-term plan or annual plan. (4) No person is entitled to require a local authority to implement the provisions of a long-term plan or an annual plan. (5) This section applies subject to Part 4A of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Councillors were advised from lawyer on next steps after the resolution was made for the decisions as a result of the deliberations Before the special meeting a legal option was presented to council (who were now divided 6-7 in favour) that they could not reject the QE11 proposal unless they rejected and then re-consulted on the entire LTP. Rather than delay all other LTP projects, council adopted the LTP after being assured that the QE11 clone proposal could be stopped at any gateway and an alternative aquatic option advanced for public consultation. o o o o Council have resolved to do the Prebensen pool, however as noted above, can make changes to the plan. Any change would be subject to significance and assessed as such, and a further consultation would be undertaken as a result of significance of the change Council staff are here to support any decision of Council When we talk about "gateways" and decision milestones where changes to the plan can be made it might look like this .. ? Costs coming in substantially higher and general agreement not to proceed on that basis as no longer considered viable ? Something else occurred that means our project no longer appropriate eg Hastings building a 50m pool, an external provider now providing service ? Final agreement on scope eg pools, which means that it is no longer aligned to what was consulted on eg 50m pool vs a paddling pool - if its lower then won't require further consultation, but if other way around would require further consultation depending on significance The 2018 LTP consultation document stated that a $34 million loan was required for option 1 and a $13.2 million loan for option 2. A $67 and $51 annual rate increase was disclosed for each respective option. The carry over of the current $56 Onekawa facilities annual rates charge to both options was not disclosed. Below are the reasons why we show the impact to the ratepayer. If were replacing like with like and no change in costs, we would not be required to fully consult with the public as it would be a renewal (this would be typical of our underground infrastructure) We are required to be clear about the impact to the ratepayer ie from what they pay now, as a result of a decision. 93B Purpose of consultation document for long-term plan The purpose of the consultation document is to provide an effective basis for public participation in local authority decision-making processes relating to the content of a long-term plan by-- (a) providing a fair representation of the matters that are proposed for inclusion in the long-term plan, and presenting these in a way that-- (i) explains the overall objectives of the proposals, and how rates, debt, and levels of service might be affected; and (ii) can be readily understood by interested or affected people; and (b) identifying and explaining to the people of the district or region, significant and other important issues and choices facing the local authority and district or region, and the consequences of those choices; and (c) informing discussions between the local authority and its communities about the matters in paragraphs (a) and (b). 93C Content of consultation document for adoption of long-term plan (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the consultation document must describe-- (a) each issue that the local authority determines should be included having had regard to-- (i) the significance and engagement policy adopted under section 76AA; and (ii) the importance of other matters to the district and its communities; and (b) for each issue identified under paragraph (a),-- (i) the principal options for addressing the issue and the implications (including financial implications) of each of those options; and (ii) the local authority's proposal, if any, for addressing the issue; and (iii) the likely consequences of proceeding with the proposal on the local authority's rates, debt, and levels of service; and (3) The consultation document-- (a) must be presented in as concise and simple a manner as is consistent with section 93B and this section; and After repeated enquiries from Cr's Jeffery and Wise, council learnt months after option 1 was adopted that it had a 30 year loan term and option 2 a 15 year term. This was not disclosed in the LTP document. If 30 year loans were raised for each option, ratepayers would only face a $39 annual increase for option 2 at Onekawa or far less if the value of the Prebensen Drive site was committed to option 2. The above implies that we were withholding information, misleading or inaccurately calculating loans. For the purposes of all options we consider all aspects of a project to provide the most appropriate accounting treatment. All options subject to a full external audit by Audit New Zealand who reviewed all options and methodologies. We stand by the methodology undertaken for the options provided. Useful lives are an appropriate basis for a loan to align any future opportunity for the site. Trans- generational funding for large amenities is far fairer on our current citizens, many of whom struggle to pay their rates. The Prebensen Drive proposal will be the most expensive NCC project ever undertaken. Intergenerational funding of amenities is seen as an appropriate basis for spreading the cost of new community assets as they will in most cases utilise the services provided as a result. We all believe that dragging the heart out of Onekawa by relocating the aquatic facilities is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons: (1) NZ recreational facility standards state that new aquatic facilities are best located where they form part of a community hub. Sport New Zealand support the case for a new pool at a new site and its location for the reasons identified at the meeting last night. Onekawa Park contains tennis/netball courts, Omni gym and the Plunket community hub. The thriving shopping centre opposite benefits from 200,000 pool visits each year. 12,000 people walk to the pools annually. At least five schools are within safe walking distance and use it for sports days. St Patrick's Headmaster has implored council to retain the Onekawa aquatic facility. (2) The earlier four Onekawa options were subjected to an external business case. This was not was conducted for the Prebensen Drive QE11 clone, neither was the repeatedly requested socioeconomic Impact report. (3) The Onekawa Park Site is closer to three of our city's four wards including some of its most deprived residential areas. The closest adjoining suburbs contain our cities most affordable housing keenly sought for regeneration by younger families. (4) The Onekawa site has ample sealed parking and access roading in excellent condition surrounded by established parkland. It once contained and was recently proposed for a 50 metre pool so it has ample room for future expansion. The Ivan Wilson facility was recently independently assessed as having $7 million dollars of residual assets, 60% being in good to very good condition, 28% in average to good condition and only 12% in poor to average condition. (5) The contamination risk from the old dump site through soil exposure can be remedied and mitigated. This work has been budgeted at $800,000. Noting that this is only a budget and costs associated with decontaminating other sites eg Christchurch have swelled to $5m This was a certainly a greater risk when the 1998 Ivan Wilson in ground concrete facility was constructed and continues to be for the surrounding residential properties. The QE11 project manager has advised that most new public pools are stainless steel and sit entirely above ground level and that very little excavation is needed. He confirmed that the rest of the structure except for the filtration housing meets the pools lip at 1.5 meters above ground level and sits on a concrete pad. He said that the building shell was a simple concrete block/truss roof structure, no different than those used decades ago and was unequivocal in confirming that "very little excavation was done". (6) An additional $21 million plus is required for option 1 over option 2 in addition to forfeiting millions more by losing the potential value of the seven hectare Prebensen Drive site. It is council's fiscal responsibility to deliver what is necessary and affordable before taking on tens of millions of dollars of new debt to pursue a discretionary vanity project it thinks desirable. A pool is not considered a vanity project, instead seen as a core function of council, and as part of pre Consultation for the Long Term Plan, the pool received the most feedback and seen as a priority for the Community No doubt people would enjoy the water play area incorporated into the QE11 design but Napier needs to fund a water network upgrade, a library, a civic building and make urgent improvements to its social housing. Napier City Council are well placed financially to undertake a large scale pool project, along with other large scale projects including the above. We recognise that this level of capital projects has not been seen for some time, however as part of the Long Term Plan, these costs were all included and Council accepted the proposed increases to achieve these outcomes. I note that during Councillor Wise's first term with Council she was a big advocate for Napier to stop being a Council with no debt and to utilise its balance sheet better. It will only take one of our council colleagues to join us to overturn this proposal and support the more than 7,000 petitioners wanting our city's redeveloped aquatic facilities to remain at Onekawa. Council undertook its consultation on the pool as part of the Long Term Plan, where Councillors approved through a resolution to approve the Consultation that was undertaken. Any change to the Plan should be undertaken in a constructive manner and not through media tactics. Officers are happy to meet further with Councillors to ensure that any outstanding questions or queries in relation to the Pool can be answered and a solution and way forward is achieved. Where a majority still stand by their decision as part of the democratic processes then the way forward should be supported by all. Napier City Councillors - Tony Jeffery, Kirsten Wise, Larry Dallimore, Maxine Boag, Api Tapine, and Richard McGrath. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack; Bill Dalton Antoinette Campbell; ; Jon Kingsford RE: Aquatic presentation Friday, 9 November 2018 12:39:10 image003.png image004.png image009.jpg image006.jpg image007.jpg image008.jpg image013.jpg image014.jpg image022.jpg image024.jpg image027.jpg image028.jpg image029.jpg Councillor Wise is correct but is taking conclusions out of context and ignoring the constraints imposed by the scope of these reports and the assessments they contain. It is critical to understand that the exposure pathway associated with sensitive receptors at Onekawa Primary, the kindy, the plunket, and the childcare center being exposed to landfill materials during excavation was not even discussed as an exposure scenario. If Council chooses to pursue Onekawa I would recommend: ? Engaging PDP to develop an investigation and excavation methodology that could be submitted for resource consent and its effectiveness at managing airborne contaminant risks to sensitive nearby receptors (to address HSWA requirements for a Safe workplace) ? Provide advice on the health and safety requirements and monitoring needed to assure workers and the public of their safety during this work and its effectiveness (to address HSWA requirements for a Safe workplace) ? Develop a management plan for monitoring long term health of those that might be exposed should monitoring indicate a release has occurred (contingency plan to address HSWA requirements ? Provide a timeline for getting consent ? Provide advice on the likelihood and consequences of challenges from the public or other bodies to that consent application ? Develop updated cost estimates for landfill debris removal given the above ? Develop a risk register and mitigation plan including assessments of likelihood and consequences that will be submitted to Council for formal acceptance. As I have said, given the choice of Onekawa or Prebensen and a lower cost for the same customer experience at Prebensen, ignoring the advantages of the Prebensen site, I would recommend Prebensen. Risks can ALWAYS be managed or mitigated, but assuming these risks at additional cost for a lesser outcome seems counter to Councils goal of providing the best service to its ratepayers in general. Not pertinent to request Not pertinent to request MANAGER DESIGN AND PROJECTS Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Hawke's Bay Wine Auction This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Wayne Jack Sent: Friday, 9 November 2018 11:11 AM To: Bill Dalton Cc: Antoinette Campbell ; @napier.govt.nz> Subject: FW: Aquatic presentation @napier.govt.nz>; Bill, I would like to have a meeting with you today to discuss this email. This going back and forward on this issue is not helpful. We have provided significant information, conducted workshops and have had agreement on the way forward yet we continue to be challenged on the direction. It is time we put a stop to this and either get on with the project or take another direction - that will have major implications from a financial and community perspective. Regards Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 m www.napier.govt.nz Napier Library Strategy Consultation This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Friday, 9 November 2018 11:00 AM To: Wayne Jack Cc: Councillor Maxine Boag ; NCC: Councillors ; Bill Dalton Subject: Re: Aquatic presentation Hi Wayne Can you please advise when the public meetings will be held for the Aquatic Facility as this information is not included in the comms plan. I am very concerned that we appear to be ignoring the petition that was presented to council by . I felt this was discredited rather disrespectfully at the time with references to a handful of bogus signatures and it will reflect badly on us as a council if we are not seen to be acknowledging that over 7,000 signatures were collected. I feel that we charging ahead with the biggest capital spend our council has ever made when we clearly do not have the mandate from our community. Not through the LTP process and certainly not afterwards. I have also taken the time to review the information you sent through last month about the contamination at the Onekawa site and I am far from convinced that this is a high risk based on these reports. I note the 2011 reports states'The risk to uses of Onekawa Park or to excavation workers from contamination in the waste material is not likely to be significant.' The 2009 report includes a similar conclusion. Are there more recent reports which contradict this? I also request again copies of the geotechnical reports for both sites as these were not provided in the response to my original email. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 Not pertinent to request Not pertinent to request From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 18 October 2018 at 2:49:27 PM NZDT To: Wayne Jack Cc: Councillor Richard McGrath , "NCC: Councillors" , Antoinette Campbell , Bill Dalton Subject: Re: Aquatic presentation Thanks for this Wayne. A few questions have arisen in my mind subsequent to the presentation by on Tuesday as follows: 1) What are the next steps with regard to the petition we have received? Particularly as the issue of a referendum was raised. 2) I understand there was legal action taken against Council by an Onekawa property owner a few years ago regarding the contamination issue and reports were produced by Council at the time advising the contamination risk was very low. How does this link in with the information we now have to hand that the Contamination risk is very high? Is it possible for Councillors to be provided with these historical reports? 3) Would it be possible for Councillors to be provided with a copy of the Geotech Reports for both sites, or a high level summary if this is a available? Thanks in advance, the more information we have on the issues will enable us to speak with confidence to community members who approach us. Regards Kirsten Sent from my iPad From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Thanks Regards Wayne Jack Adele Henderson RE: For your comment - Investment Property Portfolio - Divestment and Investment Policy Friday, 17 August 2018 14:35:00 image001.jpg image002.jpg . I think those changes will alleviate the concerns from Kirsten. Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 m + www.napier.govt.nz Speed Limit Bylaw Review This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Sent: Friday, 17 August 2018 1:47 PM To: Councillor Kirsten Wise ; Wayne Jack Cc: Adele Henderson Subject: RE: For your comment - Investment Property Portfolio - Divestment and Investment Policy Hi After discussions with Adele, please find attached a revised draft policy with revised paragraphs on page 4 outlined in yellow. It is intended to distribute this draft policy this afternoon as information for the seminar now set down for Tuesday. Also available will be the Boffa Miskell and CBRE reports along with the PWC Investment Strategy Analysis Review Report. Regards MANAGER PROPERTY Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Speed Limit Bylaw Review This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2018 5:03 PM To: Adele Henderson Cc: Bill Dalton ; @gmail.com>; @gmail.com) @gmail.com>; Councillor Claire Hague ; Wayne Jack ; @napier.govt.nz>; @napier.govt.nz>; Craig Ogborn Subject: Re: For your comment - Investment Property Portfolio - Divestment and Investment Policy My concern Adele is that there is no governance input into the assessment of whether a property is strategic or non-strategic. The paper proposes the establishment of a panel of council officers which makes this assessment and then brings the recommendation to sell the non-strategic asset to Council. Will Council also receive any feedback on properties which the panel has assessed to be strategic and therefore not available for sale and the reasons why. Kirsten Sent from my iPad Not pertinent to request From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack; Antoinette Campbell ; Craig Ogborn; RE: QEII Talking Point Monday, 3 December 2018 11:11:04 image001.jpg ; Adele Henderson And also timed to coincide with the meeting tomorrow. Aside from making the entire council (including particularly the councillors) look stupid, this is giving oxygen to something that has nothing to do with facts. Is it worth going back on this ahead of publication? MANAGER SPORTS & RECREATION Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Wayne Jack Sent: Monday, 3 December 2018 10:53 AM To: Antoinette Campbell Cc: @napier.govt.nz>; Craig Ogborn ; Adele Henderson Subject: Re: QEII Talking Point @napier.govt.nz>; @napier.govt.nz>; It is not quite clear - are they trying to stop the development or remain at Onekawa or have the development at Onekawa keeping existing facility. They are all over the place. Regards Wayne On 3/12/2018, at 10:51 AM, Antoinette Campbell wrote: Bloody hell thats a very confused and misguided talking point riddled with errors! What are they trying to achieve? Get Outlook for iOS From: Wayne Jack Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 10:15 AM To: ; Antoinette Campbell; Craig Ogborn; Adele Henderson Subject: Fwd: QEII Talking Point Just received Regards Wayne Begin forwarded message: ; From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 3 December 2018 at 9:32:06 AM NZDT To: "NCC: Councillors" , Bill Dalton , Wayne Jack Subject: QEII Talking Point Good Morning All Please find attached a Talking Point which has been prepared by the six councillors who are unhappy with the process around the Prebensen Drive/QEII Aquatic Centre Option. This is being shared in the interests of transparency and no surprises. Regards Kirsten From: To: Subject: Date: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Wayne Jack RE: Standing Orders Template Tuesday, 28 May 2019 08:38:31 I am unsure how it would be useful to her? The Standing Orders template is released by LGNZ about mid-year so they can be considered as part of the preparation for an incoming Council. Some Council's choose to make tweaks so they are either partially or fully bespoke, and then they are adopted as part of the first meeting of the new Council. They're certainly not secret, it's just that there's no guarantee that the original template is going to be exactly what is adopted by the new Council. Perhaps once the template is released we could forward to all councillors for their feedback, which we can then consider in preparing a proposed draft document for the new Council? Best regards Devorah Nicuarta-Smith TEAM LEADER GOVERNANCE Napier City Council, Private Bag6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz iWay - Be Safe Be Seen https://www.iway.org.nz/2019/04/be-safe-be-seen-this-winter/ This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Wayne Jack Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 2:51 PM To: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith Subject: FW: Standing Orders Template What are your thoughts on this? Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 m www.napier.govt.nz Plastic Recycling Changes You can now only put plastics marked 1 and 2 in your recycling bin https://www.napier.govt.nz/services/rubbish-and-recycling/recycling/ This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 2:50 PM To: Wayne Jack Subject: Re: Standing Orders Template Great, could I please have a copy of the template. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 > On 27/05/2019, at 1:25 PM, Wayne Jack wrote: > > Hi Kirsten, > > Yes we will be looking at the use of the Standing Orders template for NCC that Council will then consider when it adopts them at the triennium meeting. > > Regards > > Wayne Jack > CHIEF EXECUTIVE > Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 m > www.napier.govt.nz > > > Plastic Recycling Changes > You can now only put plastics marked 1 and 2 in your recycling bin > https://www.napier.govt.nz/services/rubbish-and-recycling/recycling/ > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > -----Original Message----> From: Councillor Kirsten Wise > Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 9:52 AM > To: Wayne Jack > Subject: Standing Orders Template > > Hi Wayne > > I understand that LGNZ has recently issued a revised set of Standing Orders templates and that these include some significant changes from previous versions. Can you please advise if council intends to purchase this. > > Kind Regards > > Kirsten Wise > Napier City Councillor > > (021) 222 4403 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack Jon Kingsford; Adele Henderson; Munneke RE: Talk POints Thursday, 6 December 2018 15:59:28 image001.jpg image002.jpg ; Antoinette Campbell; Richard My apologies to you all - I should have finished the final sentence but I think you all can for yourselves. MANAGER DESIGN AND PROJECTS Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Napier - Your Home, Your Future - www.sayitnapier.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2018 3:48 PM To: Wayne Jack Cc: Jon Kingsford ; Adele Henderson ; @napier.govt.nz>; @napier.govt.nz>; @halcyonpm.co.nz>; Antoinette Campbell ; Richard Munneke Subject: Talk POints First We did not visit the QE II pool until March 2018. The statement that we visited in 2017 implies staff had a hidden agenda to push the QEII design. THE ONLY REASON QEII WAS EVALUATED WAS THAT IT ENABLED REUSE OF EXISTING IP TO REDUCE RISK, REDUCE COST FOR THE SAME FACILITY USER EXPERIENCE AND MAXIMISE VALUE TO THE RATEPAYER AS A RESULT. COST AND SCHEDULE VALIDATION DONE IN 2017 TO SUPPORT THE LTP WAS BASED ON THE 50M POOL OPTION AT ONEKAWA ONLY. The QEII pool was actually only compared for amenity and price ($38.6m finished at ChCH) to see if the approach of IP reuse was feasible in December - February 2018. Council staff presented this as an alternative to mitigate cost and construction risk for either the Onekawa or Prebensen site NOT Prebensen only. Onekawa also had additional risks over Prebensen due to landfill materials and abandoned and buried old pool foundations. This added a further $1.2m and additional risk for cost increases during construction. Consequentially we recommended Prebensen - better bang for the buck if a new facility is the desired outcome. Councillor Wise and the five renegade councillors who signed this document MANAGER DESIGN AND PROJECTS Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Napier - Your Home, Your Future - www.sayitnapier.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack Adele Henderson RE: Thank You Friday, 22 June 2018 10:45:00 image001.jpg image002.jpg That was good of her to acknowledge the work you have all done. And we got through the War Memorial workshop! Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 www.napier.govt.nz Toasted! Saturday 23 June 2018 This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Adele Henderson Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 10:03 AM To: Wayne Jack Subject: Fwd: Thank You FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Date: 22 June 2018 at 9:11:39 AM NZST To: @napier.govt.nz>, Adele Henderson , @napier.govt.nz> Subject: Thank You Good Morning , Adele & I just wanted to say thank you very much for all your advice and input into the Long Term Plan over recent months. I hope you didn't feel that any of the comments made at the meeting yesterday afternoon were a personal attack against any of you as this could not be further from the truth. I think it would be fair to say it has been an onerous and difficult few months for all so thank you once again for your input. Regards Kirsten Sent from my iPad From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Wayne Jack Adele Henderson Re: thoughts on me sending this as a response? Thursday, 18 April 2019 09:59:15 image001.jpg image002.jpg Good response. It is highlighting the accounting standards which she should know. Regards Wayne > On 18/04/2019, at 9:52 AM, Adele Henderson wrote: > > Hi Kirsten > > > > Thank you for your email. > > > > Organisational public trust and confidence is really important to me. As we work through the various issues we have no problem responding to any question or issues that are raised in a public arena. Where there is something "new" we would appreciate a heads up so that we can respond appropriately, or give you or other Councillors more information to support a better understanding on a particular matter. > > > > The example that I am concerned about from Tuesday's in this regard was to do with the "accounting treatment" of the land associated with the proposed new site for the pool. > > > > I decided not to respond during that meeting as it really did not relate to the resolution,. However, it would appear there may be a lack of understanding of the nuances of large public benefit entity reporting. We are happy to discuss this in more detail at our next fortnightly catchup. > > > > Council complies with Public Benefit Entity Accounting standards - below IPSAS 17 outlines the requirements associated with Property Plant and Equipment > > https://www.xrb.govt.nz/accounting-standards/public-sector/pbe-ipsas-17/ > > Clause 52 outlines examples of classes of property plant and equipment as a group of assets of a similar nature or function of the entity's operations > > > > For Napier City Council our Property Plant and Equipment asset classes are: > > > > Council operation assets > > ? Land > > ? Leasehold land > > ? Buildings Library books > > ? Plant and equipment > > ? Motor vehicles > > ? Landfill post closure > > > > Council infrastructure assets > > ? Sewerage system treatment plant > > ? Sewerage system other assets > > ? Water system > > ? Drainage system > > ? Roading network > > ? Land under roads > > > > Council restricted assets > > ? Sportsgrounds > > ? Grandstands and halls > > ? Building on reserves > > ? Swimming pools > > ? Inner harbour > > > > Comments regarding the accounting treatment of land (pool focused): > > > > 1. Land remains a separate class of asset > > 2. Whether its Prebensen land or Onekawa land, both sits as our asset, so there is not change to the total land held by Council > > 3. There is no transfer of asset required between entities in this example that would require us quantifying the cost eg NZTA > > 4. Napier City Council would still own the land whether it was farmed or utilised for the purposes of the pool > > 5. We would need to ensure that the land is correctly designated and if any changes were required that these flowed through into the asset > > 6. Changes to designation may impact revaluation and this is tested at the time of creating the new asset/changes to the use of an asset > > 7. If the revaluation of the land was significant and impacted the total class by > 10% then the entire land class of assets would need to be revalued (IPSAS 17, Clause 51) > > 8. We revalue (non-cash) land every three years as per our Statement of Accounting Policies or if there are identified changes per Clause 51 > > 9. Our Leasehold land is revalued as a class each year to ensure that its fair value is reflected correctly as this tends to move more with market chagnes > > 10. As land is a separate class we do not "capitalise" land and building together - and therefore not creating a "$50m" pool > > > > An example where we would consider the cost of the land as part of the total cost of the development would be where we did an external land purchase, for example the acquisition of school land for a pool. In this example, we would be consulting on a total project cost including the land as it would be required to be purchased and funding required. The accounting treatment would then require us to separate the cost of land into our land class as identified above. > > > > Noting the above, when we talk to the public about our costs of projects, we focus on the change to the asset class and therefore the cost of the project, its funding requirements and hence the impact to the ratepayer. To bring in the cost of land that we already own and have accounted for in the case of the pool becomes a nonsense, and is both irrelevant and confusing. We have now had media enquiry and public enquiries on what the $50m is all about - which then in my mind causes issues with trust and confidence. > > > > We have the financial model now available as requested for the 10 year impacts on rates. We will work through that at our next meeting. This modelling suggest that the 2019/20 rates are forecast to be 7.9% (down from the > > 8.68%), and we are continuing to focus on how we bring this down further. For this reason, it may not be useful to talk actual numbers in the public arena about what is happening for next year until there has been a Council workshop/direction set as this may also cause confusion going forward. You may like to refer to future pressures on rates as a result of increasing costs in areas such as waste, recycling etc. > > > > Have a lovely holiday and we will see you at our usual catchup on your return > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Adele Henderson > > DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES > > Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 > > t +64 6 833 9754 www.napier.govt.nz > > > > > > Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation > > www.sayitnapier.nz/annual-plan-2019-20-consultation/ > > > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > > -----Original Message----> From: Councillor Kirsten Wise > > Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2019 10:00 AM > To: Adele Henderson >; @napier.govt.nz @napier.govt.nz>> > Subject: Yesterday's Meeting > > > > Good Morning Adele & > > > > Firstly I wanted to say a huge thank you for all your assistance over the last couple of months regarding the financials and the aquatic centre project, it was very much appreciated. I also want to apologise if I came across as confrontational yesterday, it was not intentional and was simply a result of my frustrations as I genuinely do not feel that we should be proceeding with this project. The final vote has now been cast however and I will accept this and move on. Counting down the days to my holiday at the end of next week! > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Kirsten Wise > > Napier City Councillor > > > > (021) 222 4403 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Craig Ogborn; Antoinette Campbell; Wayne Jack; RE: WMC Design Working Group Friday, 30 November 2018 10:01:53 image003.jpg image001.jpg image002.jpg I agree with everyone's comments also. As we left the meeting on Wednesday night I felt disappointed that none of the five councillors stood up and owned the decisions when challenged about their decisions or history of this project. Silence to me equals acceptance. We are tasked with simply carrying out the operations of their decisions. In terms of lack of trust, remembering also, that this is only very small audience of our entire community It we allow an independent group to review the results we are setting a precedence for future consultation. Many thanks MARKETING MANAGER Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 www.napier.govt.nz Napier City Christmas Parade! 1pm Sunday 2 December. This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Craig Ogborn Sent: Friday, 30 November 2018 9:10 AM To: Antoinette Campbell ; Wayne Jack ; @napier.govt.nz>; @napier.govt.nz> Subject: RE: WMC Design Working Group I also agree - the councillors should be saying that they have 100% confidence in the integrity of the council officers when these types of statements are raised. We may be faceless to the public, but we are certainly not faceless to the councillors. We just need ensure that all the results are made publically available on the website once collated. To Kirsten's second point, the reason for the phone survey was to provide an independent and representative view from the community, that sits alongside the consultation results. This will hopefully reinforce the results from sayitnapier. This is not new, has been done many times as part of Auckland consultations. Craig Ogborn COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING MANAGER Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4144 www.napier.govt.nz Napier City Christmas Parade! 1pm Sunday 2 December. This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Antoinette Campbell Sent: Friday, 30 November 2018 8:55 AM To: Wayne Jack ; @napier.govt.nz>; @napier.govt.nz>; Craig Ogborn Subject: RE: WMC Design Working Group Hi Wayne Was just chatting to about your idea to have PWC carry out an independent assessment and report on the WM submissions and consultation and we think this will just send the message that we can't be trusted and that we should contract out all engagement activities going forward. The councillors carry on that the community don't trust us but it is actually that councillors (some) that clearly don't trust us ,and it is the Councillors that the community don't trust due to their poor decision making processes. clearly obtained the trust of the community meeting where she demonstrated credibility and integrity in her presentation. As for an independent working party, Kirsten's original suggestion to have a representative from Historic HB on the group cannot happen due to their extreme bias published in their last newsletter. We think we should carry on with our process and if the council or the community want to challenge it, let them. Cheers and thanks Antoinette Campbell DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 9810 www.napier.govt.nz Napier War Memorial Design Concepts This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Wayne Jack Sent: Friday, 30 November 2018 8:09 AM To: @napier.govt.nz>; Antoinette Campbell ; @napier.govt.nz> Subject: FW: WMC Design Working Group Copy FYI Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 www.napier.govt.nz Napier City Christmas Parade! 1pm Sunday 2 December. This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Friday, 30 November 2018 7:50 AM To: Bill Dalton Cc: Wayne Jack ; NCC: Councillors Subject: Re: WMC Design Working Group With all due respect Bill when the question was raised there was resounding support from those present for an independent working group. Also with regards to staff and councillors I am absolutely not questioning their ability to be nonbiased or make good decisions however as with anything council does it is all about perception. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 Not pertinent to request From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 6:25 PM To: Wayne Jack Cc: NCC: Councillors; Bill Dalton Subject: Re: WMC Design Working Group Wayne in light of the clear mistrust shown at the public meeting last night I would request again that an independent working group be formed to consider the WMC design submissions. This is particularly important considering that council itself has provided one of the designs included in the consultation. I would also like to ask why a telephone survey is being run alongside the consultation process. I do not recall this happening with any other consultation that has been undertaken in the five years I have been in council. I believe it is disingenuous to introduce this practice now for a consultation which is already being viewed with much suspicion from our community. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 Not pertinent to request On 27/11/2018, at 6:30 AM, Councillor Kirsten Wise wrote: Thank you for the update Wayne although I am very disappointed with the decision and a little surprised as you indicated you were happy with this approach when we originally discussed it in October. I appreciate that forming an independent working group to consider the submissions has not been done before but quite frankly that was the whole point. This was Council's opportunity to demonstrate we are prepared to truly involve our community who currently feel completely disillusioned with this whole process and do not trust that staff and councillors will consider the submissions in an objective unbiased manner. As for using the original working group this is simply not feasible as all community representatives have withdrawn from that group due to their dissatisfaction with the process undertaken last year. The feedback I am receiving is that the consultation document is flawed and the community feel they are being manipulated and marginalised. In my opinion we are setting ourselves up for yet another failure in what has been a blatant disregard of our community's views from the very start. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 On 26/11/2018, at 3:47 PM, Wayne Jack wrote: Hi Kirsten, Hi Kirsten, I have discussed with the team the proposal to have a working group to review the consultation submissions and the recommendation is that we remain with our normal process. It is extremely unusual to have a working group review submissions with the normal process for officers to collate, analyse and summarise submissions and report findings to council with recommendations based on what the submissions tell us and for Council to make the final decision. We are not for instance at this point of time seeing a number of different design options coming through. If the council see an absolute need for a working party then we should be using the original group for consistency and assessing against the assessment criteria that was approved by Council back in June 18. We will also look to hold a workshop with Councillors to discuss what the submissions are telling us ahead of their meeting to make a decision. Regards Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.-----Original Message----- From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2018 11:39 AM To: Wayne Jack Subject: WMC Design Working Group Hi Wayne Just following up on the proposed WMC Working Group to review the consultation submissions. Have you given any more thought to the members of this group? As per my earlier emails I believe it is vital to have a representative from Historic Places HB along with involved if you want the group to have credibility with the various communities of interest. I would see role as the facilitator of the working group. In addition to this I suggest you have new representatives from the RSAs and I am happy to have this conversation with and if you wish. Kind Regards Kirsten Wise Napier City Councillor (021) 222 4403 From: To: Subject: Date: Wayne Jack Adele Henderson Re: Yesterday's Meeting Wednesday, 17 April 2019 11:19:56 It will be interesting to see if she gets behind the project now. If there were concerto er the financials of the project and Council in general then they should have raised this during the LTP. Regards Wayne > On 17/04/2019, at 10:04 AM, Adele Henderson wrote: > > > > Adele Henderson > DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES > Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 > t +64 6 833 9754 www.napier.govt.nz > > > Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation > www.sayitnapier.nz/annual-plan-2019-20-consultation/ > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > -----Original Message----> From: Councillor Kirsten Wise > Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2019 10:00 AM > To: Adele Henderson ; @napier.govt.nz> > Subject: Yesterday's Meeting > > Good Morning Adele & > > Firstly I wanted to say a huge thank you for all your assistance over the last couple of months regarding the financials and the aquatic centre project, it was very much appreciated. I also want to apologise if I came across as confrontational yesterday, it was not intentional and was simply a result of my frustrations as I genuinely do not feel that we should be proceeding with this project. The final vote has now been cast however and I will accept this and move on. Counting down the days to my holiday at the end of next week! > > Kind Regards > > Kirsten Wise > Napier City Councillor > > (021) 222 4403 From: To: Subject: Date: Probably got the Antoinette Campbell Wayne Jack RE: Storage at Rothmans Building Monday, 6 August 2018 14:50:25 in her ear Antoinette Campbell DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Napier City Council, Private Bag6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 9810 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Wayne Jack Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 2:50 PM To: Antoinette Campbell Subject: RE: Storage at Rothmans Building I wonder why she was asking this one? Wayne Jack CHIEF EXECUTIVE Napier City Council, Private Bag 6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 4159 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Antoinette Campbell Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 2:23 PM To: Wayne Jack Subject: FW: Storage at Rothmans Building FYI Antoinette Campbell DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Napier City Council, Private Bag6010, Napier 4142 t +64 6 834 9810 m +64 27 520 0457 www.napier.govt.nz This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. -----Original Message----From: Councillor Kirsten Wise Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 1:24 PM To: Antoinette Campbell Subject: Re: Storage at Rothmans Building Great thanks for your prompt response Antoinette Sent from my iPhone > On 6/08/2018, at 12:10 PM, Antoinette Campbell wrote: > > Hi Kirsten > > The issue of storage is a regional issue and not just for NCC to resolve. > > Kind regards > > Antoinette Campbell > DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES > Napier City Council, Private Bag6010, Napier 4142 > t +64 6 834 9810 www.napier.govt.nz > > > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > -----Original Message----> From: Councillor Kirsten Wise > Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 11:18 AM > To: Antoinette Campbell > Subject: Storage at Rothmans Building > > Hi Antoinette > > Can you please advise the length of the renewed lease for the storage of MTG items in the Rothmans Building. Also what is currently being considered for a permanent solution. > > Regards > Kirsten > > Sent from my iPad