Napier City Council Restructure Impacts More Than 100 Jobs
Article – Linda Hall – Local Democracy Reporter
An annual plan hearing and deliberation process is currently underway to determine the future of these facilities.
Napier City Council has confirmed it is reviewing its structure and is consulting with staff on a proposal to reshape its operation.
While it wouldn't confirm the number of staff involved, three separate sources have told Local Democracy Reporting [Hawke's Bay Today] the proposal impacts more than 100 jobs.
While restructures were not uncommon in local government, a source told Local Democracy Reporting [Hawke's Bay Today] the scale of this one was significant, and many staff, some with decades of service, had been told their positions may no longer exist.
'What's more concerning is that staff were reportedly warned not to speak to the media, raising questions about transparency and accountability in a publicly funded organisation.'
NCC chief executive Louise Miller said the council was reviewing its organisational structure and consulting with staff on a proposal to reshape its four directorates.
'This consultation follows the restructuring of our executive leadership team in February, which reduced the number of directorates from five to four and resulted in the disestablishment of one executive director position,' Miller said.
'Several key factors are driving this proposed change, including direction from Central Government to prioritise core services, major reform initiatives such as Local Water Done Well and the need to identify a further $3 million in labour efficiencies for the 2025/26 financial year.
'The proposed changes aim to create a more efficient, agile and responsive structure that is better equipped to meet these challenges,' Miller said.
One worker said the process has been handled in 'an impersonal, top-down manner, with little regard for the human impact or the potential consequences for public service delivery'.
The restructure reportedly cites the commercialisation of key community facilities, including Ocean Spa, Par 2 Mini Golf, Kennedy Park Resort and the Napier Conference Centre as a key driver.
An annual plan hearing and deliberation process is currently underway to determine the future of these facilities.
A source said: 'There are fears that essential community services may be reduced or outsourced without public consultation.'
Miller said the council acknowledged this was a difficult time for many of its staff, who are deeply committed to serving the Napier community.
'Our priority is to work closely with those affected by the proposals, to listen to their feedback, and to ensure they are fully supported throughout this process,' she said.
As of February 28, 2025, Napier City Council employed 785 on an average full-time wage of $92,829 per annum.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Tasman Goes In-House For Local Water Done Well Implementation
Tasman's future management of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services has taken a step forward, with Tasman District Council unanimously opting for an in-house business unit structure to implement requirements of the Government's Local Water Done Well programme. This unit would be managed separately from other Council operations in a ringfenced capacity. While still part of the Council, it would be independently monitored to ensure high environmental and customer standards, as set by Taumata Arowai. The Council has also agreed in principle to establish an internal advisory committee with the option of external members to help provide operational oversight of three waters activities and provide advice to the Council. A report will be provided to the Council that includes options for membership, terms of reference and associated costs. Further to this, the Mayor and Councillors have expressed a desire for staff to continue discussions with other councils regarding options for greater alignment of services, information and procurement to increase efficiency savings across the Council's water, wastewater and stormwater functions. Local Water Done Well is intended to ensure people pay cost-reflective prices for water services, that those services are delivered to an acceptable quality, and that water services providers are investing sufficiently in infrastructure. The Council was obliged to consider and consult on new water service delivery options as part of the LWDW programme. On 27 March 2025, the Council confirmed public consultation on three options for future governance and management of Water, Wastewater and Stormwater. We received 16 submissions during the public consultation period between 22 April - 23 May 2025 Two options involving setting up a Water Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), each governed by an independent board, were also considered alongside the in-house proposal. Other governance options – such as trust models like those used in the electricity sector – have been considered by Council but are not being pursued. In the short to medium term, all options deliver similar financial outcomes. The structure and scope of the new business unit is yet to be finalized. However, it was acknowledged that an in-house unit operating within its agreed parameters allowed better opportunities for community involvement, as opposed to a CCO. The next steps in the process require a Water Service Delivery Plan to be completed and submitted to Department of Internal Affairs by 3 September, 2025. The WSDP will then be shared with the Commerce Commission, with a view towards the Water Service Delivery Plan being approved and ready for implementation by November 2025. It is intended that the internal business unit will formally function from 1 July 2027 to align with the next Long-Term Plan in 2027/2037.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Marlborough Residents Speak Against Council's Preferred Water Plan
Residents have spoken against the Marlborough District Council's preferred water services model at a Local Water Done Well hearing on Monday. The Government requires councils to choose from five water service delivery options a modified status quo (an in-house council department), a single council-controlled organisation, a multi-council-controlled organisation, and two types of trusts. The Marlborough District Council's preferred option is to create a standalone Water Services Organisation owned and controlled by the council. The council said it would find greater efficiencies to deliver better service at a lower cost, and have more borrowing capacity to maintain and improve the region's water infrastructure. But Marlborough residents aren't convinced. Of about 45 submissions made, 58 percent wanted to keep water services in-house, compared to 13 percent who preferred the standalone organisation. The remainder did not indicate a preference. Five people spoke on their submissions at a hearing in the council chamber on Monday, and they were all opposed to a standalone organisation. Brendan Kearney, who used to be chief financial officer of a council-controlled organisation in Canterbury, said there was no proof that a separate organisation would be more efficient, and setting up and funding a separate entity could cost ratepayers more. It would "inevitably duplicate some overhead costs", Kearney said. He said he saw no reason for water services to be removed from a council that had maintained its water systems relatively well. "[Water] assets are in good or very good condition. That's a credit to the current council and past councils as well. Council also has low debt relative to its peers. "This is compelling evidence, in my view, that the council has performed well and will continue to do so." To create a separate organisation, Kearney said the council would need to appoint directors, manage a new relationship with the organisation, and manage the organisation's own agenda. "A standalone company is no guarantee of good governance." Kearney said there also needed to be balance in who footed the water infrastructure bill between the ratepayers of today and of tomorrow. "It's unfair to gift hundreds of millions of dollars ... to the next generations completely debt free. That means the past generations paid too much. "On the other hand, it's unfair to get those assets, billions of dollars of assets, fully debt funded ... it's unfair on future generations. "Something in between those two extremes needs to happen." Submitter Lauchy Hynd said that creating a separate organisation to take on debt outside the council books was not sustainable. "What happens when we default?" Hynd said. "We're leveraging [water assets] by three to five times to borrow money against them. "This looks to me like Three Waters from the back door. "You can kick the can down the road and borrow recklessly, but I appeal to you to act boldly on behalf of the people." Submitters also voiced concerns about allowing an unelected and "unaccountable" organisation to take control of water services. "How do we maintain the ownership and the status of [water] assets in the hands of the people of Marlborough, when we're divesting them to an unelected group?" Hynd said. Submitter Bob Watson said he was worried about the potential to more easily privatise a separate organisation, pointing how the United Kingdom's water management became privatised. Ten regional water authorities were formed in 1974, which the UK government then sold to the private sector in 1989. "I think that the potential for private ownership ... basically our water utilities to be sold off to another entity, and for us to lose the democratic voice, would be terrible," Watson said. "I like the idea that [we're] here with people that have represented the community who can speak for us." The coalition Government had previously said that privatisation of water services was not on the table. The council would make its final decision on water services delivery on June 26, and submit its plan to the Government for approval by 3 September . LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Techday NZ
4 days ago
- Techday NZ
3 key challenges in enterprise browser adoption: Lessons from Arc's pivot
When Joshua Miller's team at The Browser Company announced they were pivoting away from Arc — their beloved, innovative browser — the tech world collectively gasped. Here was a product with passionate users, glowing reviews, and genuine innovation. Yet it still couldn't crack the enterprise adoption code. Their story reveals uncomfortable truths about why enterprises struggle with browser transitions, even when the alternative is objectively better. The muscle memory problem "Switching browsers is a big ask," Miller admitted in his letter to Arc users. But in enterprise environments, it's not just big — it's monumental. You're not convincing one person to change their habits. You're orchestrating behavioral change across thousands of employees, each with years of accumulated muscle memory. Consider what Arc discovered about feature adoption: only 5.52% of daily users utilized multiple Spaces regularly. Their GitHub Live Folders? 4.17%. Calendar Preview on Hover — a feature the team loved — attracted a mere 0.4% of users. These weren't poorly designed features. They were features that required users to think differently. And that's where enterprise adoption dies — in the gap between what's possible and what people will actually do when they're trying to get work done. Arc called it the "novelty tax" — the price users pay for learning something new. In consumer markets, early adopters happily pay this tax. They enjoy the learning curve. But in enterprises, every moment spent learning new browser features is a moment not spent on actual work. IT departments understand this implicitly. When evaluating new browsers, they're not just looking at features. They're calculating the cost of confusion multiplied by every employee, every day, until new habits form. Even a five-minute daily productivity loss across a 10,000-person company adds up to 833 hours of lost work. Every. Single. Day. This calculation almost always favors the status quo, regardless of how innovative the alternative might be. The maintenance reality check Perhaps Arc's most sobering revelation was about maintenance. "We do regular Chromium upgrades, fix security vulnerabilities, related bugs, and more," Miller explained. Just keeping a browser secure and functional requires constant vigilance. For enterprises considering alternative browsers, this creates a dependency nightmare. You're not just adopting software — you're betting your security posture on a vendor's ability to keep pace with the relentless drumbeat of vulnerabilities and patches. Arc managed it, but at what cost? And what happens when the next innovative browser company can't? The AI fragmentation accelerant Just as enterprises were settling into a Chrome-dominated world, AI shattered the landscape again. Miller predicts "traditional browsers, as we know them, will die." He's not wrong. Chat interfaces are already acting like browsers. Different roles need different AI capabilities. The one-size-fits-all browser era is ending. This fragmentation makes enterprise standardization impossible. Your developers want AI-powered coding browsers. Sales wants CRM-integrated browsers. Executives want different AI assistants. Forcing everyone into one browser isn't just impractical — it actively hampers productivity. The path forward The Arc story teaches us that enterprise browser strategy must evolve. Instead of trying to standardize on one perfect browser — a goal that Arc proved is impossible — enterprises need browser-agnostic security layers. Protection that follows users across browsers, not solutions tied to specific platforms. Because in the end, the choice of browser is increasingly out of IT's hands — and that might not be a bad thing.
