Agenda of Council Meeting - 22 February 2018

File Ref: 18/94

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Manager Strategic Finance

Brent Chamberlain

SUBJECT: Standard and Poors External Credit Rating Report

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council that Standard and Poors Global Ratings (S&P) has released its assessment on the Council’s finances and financial management, and has issued its External Credit Rating Report.

1.2 This issue arises from the Council’s wish to minimise its financing costs and give its lenders confidence as it works through its capital program being signalled in its Long Term Plan.

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

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to minimise the impact of debt servicing on the rate payer by being able to obtain favourable lending rates due to having a strong external credit rating from an internationally recognised rating agency.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the External Credit Rating Report from S&P be received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 On 13 July 2017 the “Summary of Recommendations of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee Meeting Held 19 June 2017” was tabled to Council.

2.2 Councillor Kerr/Councillor Travers moved that:

A) That the report of the Chief Financial Officer titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee meeting held 19 June 2017” be received.

B) The following recommendations of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee meeting held 19 June 2017 be ratified:

“6. External Credit Rating

A) That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled “External Credit Rating” dated 19/06/2017 be received.

B) That the Risk and Audit Subcommittee recommend to Council that it should acquire an external credit rating from one of the three major internationally recognised credit rating agencies.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to Hastings District Council being able to debt fund good quality local infrastructure in a manner that is most cost-effective for households and business through reduced borrowing costs.”

2.3 Credit ratings are opinions about credit risk. An external credit rating expresses a credit rating agency’s opinion about the ability and willingness of an issue/borrower, such as a council, to meet its financial obligations in full and on time.

2.4 Ratings are usually expressed as letter grades that range, for example, from ‘AAA’ to ‘D’ to communicate the agency’s opinion of relative level of credit risk.

2.5 The benefits of holding a credit rating are noted as providing:

· interest savings on all new borrowings

· an independent assessment of the credit worthiness of a Council

· assurance to the public and rate payers that the Council is fiscally sound and is being independently monitored

2.6 There are 24 New Zealand Council’s with credit ratings. Approximately 40% have an “AA” rating (being the best achieved), a further 40% with “AA-“, and the final 20% with an “A+” rating (being the lowest rating achieved).

2.7 The average New Zealand Council rating is an “AA-“rating.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 S&P were engaged as the external credit rating agency in September 2017 to review the Council’s finances and financial management.

3.2 In December 2017 two Officers of S&P met with Council Officers to review the outlook for the Hawkes Bay Economy, the Council’s Annual Plan, Draft Long Term Plan, Asset Management Plans, and Treasury and Cash Management Policies.

3.3 In February 2018 S&P ratings team met to discuss the findings of their two Officers, and subsequently has assigned the Council an 'AA' long-term foreign-currency and local-currency ratings and 'A-1+' short-term ratings. This is equivalent to best rating of any New Zealand Council, and indicates that the Council's capacity to meet its financial commitments is extremely strong.

3.4 What this means in practical terms is any new borrowings (or refinancing) that the Council undertakes with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) will now enjoy a discount of 20 bases points (or 0.2% per annum) over that offered to a non-rated Council (which the Council was previously). This an annual saving of $2,000 of every $1,000,000 of new (or refinanced) borrowings.

3.5 Council has $40m of existing debt to be refinanced by 2021, in addition to the $100m of new borrowings over a number of years as forecasted in the draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan capital programme.

A 0.2% savings of interest on the $140m of debt mentioned above is $280,000 pa, however there is a cost to maintaining an external credit rating of $55,000 pa, but there is an overall net benefit of $225,000 pa to the Council for having this rating.

3.6 S&P note the following in their report:

“Our ratings on Hastings District Council (Hastings) reflect its robust management and supportive institutional framework, high level of budgetary flexibility, and moderate debt burden relative to peers.”

“We consider Hastings' financial management to be a key strength. Its budgets are credible and processes well established, with the council preparing 10-year long-term plans every three years and annual plans in the intervening years, in line with New Zealand requirements.”

3.7 Officers are very pleased with this result as it confirms for Council and the community that Council’s finances are well managed and is on a strong financial footing to be able to meet the needs of the community in the future.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

The matters within this report do not trigger the thresholds within Council’s significance and engagement policy.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled “Standard and Poors External Credit Rating Report” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

Attachments:

External Credit Rating Report Feb 2018

FIN-15-5-18-666

File Ref: 17/1385

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT: 2018-28 Long Term Plan

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to recap the final budget position for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan and to obtain final decisions to complete the plan for audit review and final adoption on 22 March 2018.

1.2 This issue arises from the legislative requirement to adopt a Long Term Plan by 30 June 2018.

1.4 This matter relates to the decision making and consultation requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the 2018 Long Term Plan be finalised based on the decisions of the meeting and any matters arising from the external audit process.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 During 2017 the Council considered the key aspects of the 2018 Long Term Plan with a final workshop held on 13 December finalising the key remaining components of the plan.

2.2 In summary, the plan builds on the key strategic directions previously set by the Council, with emphasis on:

§ Investment in drinking water infrastructure as our first priority to meet community expectation and new standards around safe drinking water;

§ Ensuring that a range of housing options are available to meet the needs of a changing community whilst protecting our valuable soils;

§ Ensuring industrial development opportunities are easily accessible in Omahu, Irongate, Whakatu and Tomoana to meet our target of increased jobs and investment;

§ Investment in the Hastings Central City to increase its vibrancy and to meet the challenges of changing retail patterns and the function and form of the central city;

§ Investment in our core infrastructure to look after our assets prudently and to meet new challenges in bridge strengthening, changing environmental standards and climate change;

§ Continuing to enhance our parks, recreational and cultural facilities to make the Hastings District a place where talent wants to live and people want to work, live and play;

§ Working together with communities and others to build civic pride, develop our youth and uplift people and communities.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Officers have further refined where possible the work programme since the 13th December workshop to arrive at a final financial position. The forecast rates increases across the 10 years have been set in line with Council direction at 3% or less. Further to that in the first 3 years the Council Strategy to address investment in safe drinking water adds $250 to the water investment targeted rate to lift it to an ongoing sustainable level. The graph below shows the forecast rates position (excluding water) with baseline expenditure capped at 3% or less.

3.2 In addition, the Council has had to commit to a significant investment to deliver safe drinking water to parts of the community serviced by a Council water supply. The proposed method to fund this is to lift the targeted rate for water by $250 over a three period. The average residential forecast rate increase including this necessary investment is depicted below:

3.3 The final debt position is outlined in the graphs below. It also includes an escalated debt repayment plan in the latter years to create financial headroom to address future LTP matters and unforeseen events. Therefore while debt peaks at $165 million by Year 4 of the plan (as depicted below) it reduces to $130 million by Year 10 (also depicted below). The matter of how quickly the community can pay for the water investment programme (and choices in respect of this) will form part of the Council’s Long Term Plan Consultation Document.

Note: The category ‘Other” above includes a wide range of activities including various community facilities, swimming pool upgrades, potential cemetery land purchase and LGFA funding obligations.

3.4 Councillors will be aware that Hastings District Council has recently received its credit rating from S&P Global Ratings. That long-term rating of “AA” is as good as any Council has received in New Zealand. Therefore while the use of debt funding increases in the early years of the plan (predominantly to fund the water investment programme), independent review and assurance is positive regarding the outlook for Council finances and the fiscal management processes within the Council. The report from S&P Global Ratings comments as follows:

The stable outlook reflects our base-case expectation that although Hastings' budgetary performance will weaken during the next few years as it continues to roll out a program of capital upgrades, the council's debt burden will remain moderate relative to peers. Meanwhile, we expect the ratings to continue to be supported by New Zealand's institutional framework and Hastings' robust management and high level of budgetary flexibility.

3.5 The Long Term Plan is currently going through the mandatory external audit process to ensure it is robust and that the underlying information has integrity. No significant issues have been raised through that process. A further audit undertaken by the Office of the Auditor General will follow at the end of the month. That audit of all Council Long Term Plans aims to achieve uniformity in the standard of LTP’s produced across the country.

3.6 There are a few final matters that officers are now seeking guidance on so that the plan can be formally finalised and the audit process completed prior to Council adoption of the plan for community consultation on 22 March 2018.

Those matters are:

1) Funding consideration for HB Regional Sports Park

2) Development Contributions Policy update

3) Infrastructure and Financial Strategies for information

4) Fees and Charges

5) First Draft – Community Consultation Document

3.7 HB Regional Sports Park

3.8 The Council have received an earlier update from the Regional Sports Park Trust on potential development proposals. Those proposals are now brought back formally for Council consideration as Attachments 1-4 to the report. Those proposals collectively request $500,000 of loan funding from Council toward their development. The Chief Executive Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park, Mr Jock Mackintosh, will be in attendance at the meeting to answer questions.

3.9 Development Contributions Policy

3.10 Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 to review its Development Contributions Policy (DCP) at least every three years. A thorough review of the DCP was last undertaken in 2016, so the proposed changes to the Draft 2018/19 DCP are relatively minor in nature.

These changes include:

· Updating growth forecasts for residential and non-residential development

· Updating Capital Expenditure Budgets to reflect actual costs incurred since the last policy revision

· Revision of Interest Rate assumptions to match the LTP

· Changes to the timing of the Capital Expenditure work required to support growth

· Revision of the Irongate Industrial rate to reflect the adoption of the wider catchment area under Variation 2

· Subject to landowner appetite for early payment of development contributions, revision of the Omahu & Irongate Industrial rates to reflect early payments.

· Some minor corrections and cosmetic changes to improve understanding of the policy

3.11 The above changes will result in changes to the DCP Schedule of Charges which determine the level of contribution each development pays. Early modelling indicates that the DC rate for an Infill or Medium Density development will remain relatively unchanged. However, the Greenfield rate indicatively increases by approximately 7% to circa $21,000 excl GST per Household Unit Equivalent, which is largely driven by the addition of Stormwater and Wastewater capital expenditure required to service areas such as Middle / Iona, Howard Street and Brookvale, particularly for Stormwater and Wastewater.

3.12 The rural rate also increases by 9% to circa $3,600 excl GST per household unit equivalent, primarily driven by the increase in the roading contribution (additional capital expenditure) which is applied across the district.

3.13 Officers propose to bring the Draft DCP to council on the 22 March to adopt the DCP for consultation with the wider community.

3.14 Infrastructure and Financial Strategies

3.15 The Infrastructure and Financial Strategies are core building blocks of a Long Term Plan. During 2017, via a number of workshops the Council considered the ingredients of these strategies and provided governance direction and oversight. The documentation of those strategies to comply with the Local Government Act 2002 has been completed and minor changes made as a result of the external audit review process. Whilst these strategies will need to be formally adopted on 22 March as part of the Long Term Plan adoption they are submitted here for Council information. Essentially they summarise the outcomes of Council’s LTP process in a prescribed manner set out within the Act (Attachments 5-6). Some preliminary feedback from the Risk and Audit Committee for improvement will be taken on board. The main focus of marketing and communications effort will be on the Consultation Document, which is the face of the Long Term Plan for most in the community.

3.16 Fees and Charges – As part of the Funding Impact Statement the Council sets out those Fees and Charges that need to be amended via the special consultative process – along with a more extensive list of fees and charges set by Council resolution. This schedule been updated predominantly to inflation adjust various charges.

3.17 A recent review of fee setting at the Hastings Sports Centre has recommended changes which are set out in Attachment 7 to this report. These changes take account of user charges set at other similar facilities in the region and have been discussed with the key user groups.

3.18 A note highlighting these changes will be reflected in the 2018 Long Term Plan Fees and Charges Schedule to be adopted on 22 March 2018, subject to Council approval.

3.19 Future Considerations - Officers are aware that a request for further funding to maintain the regional collection may come from the Hawkes Bay Museum Trust during the Long Term Plan process. This matter can be addressed through the submission process.

3.20 Officers are working on a concept plan and overall proposal at the Blackbridge Transfer Station. This includes both beautification of the site and new Recycling Station and Refuse Transfer Station facilities. This matter will be brought to Council prior to June to enable consideration within the Long Term Plan process.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 The Development Contributions Policy Update, Fees and Charges Update and Infrastructure/Financial strategies will be formally adopted by Council on 22 March. Any comment from elected members at the meeting will be incorporated into the final versions as appropriate.

4.2 In respect of the funding request for the Regional Sports Park, this is a matter for political consideration and judgement. To assist Councillors with those deliberations the table below outlines the fiscal impact of these funding requests on the current draft LTP budget.

4.3 The options for Council are to approve these items (in full or part) within the Long Term Plan, or alternatively request the organisation to submit their proposals through the Long Term Plan submission process for consideration in June 2018.

Overall Financial Summary – Funding Requests

Proposal	Funding	2018/19	2019/20
Regional Sports Park ($250,000) - Canoe Polo	Loan	5,000	20,000
Regional Sports Park ($250,000) - Parking	Loan	5,000	20,000
Total $ impact on rates	$500,000 (Loan)	10,000	40,000
Extra on forecast rates increase		0.01%	0.04%

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 A broad outline of the intended reach and approach to seek community engagement and input into the Long Term Plan is outlined below:

Households

· Rates database mail out of Consultation Document

· Retirement villages & Housing New Zealand tenants

Wider Community

· Newspaper advertising / Radio

· Social media (videos highlighting key focus areas)

· Information sessions at key locations:

o Hastings Night Market, Havelock North Village Green (pavilion), - other Councillor suggestions.

o Dedicated Water Update Information Sessions

· My Voice My Choice website

· Citizens Panel (as a representative sample of population)

Community Groups

· ‘Interested parties’ mail-out using networks

Public Information Evenings – Councillor Café (Councillor comment sought here)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considered but not recommended due to cost vs. impact

Billboard and back of bus

5.2 A draft of the Consultation Document will be circulated prior to the meeting for Council feedback. The final Consultation Document will be submitted for adoption and community consultation on 22 March 2018, incorporating both Council feedback and any necessary changes coming from the audit review process. Officers will work with Councillor Schollum (Portfolio Leader: Community Engagement) on refining the Consultation Document and engagement process prior to 22 March 2018.

5.3 Resolution of the matters considered in this report will enable the Council to complete the development of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan and submit it for formal Council adoption on 22 March 2018 for consultation with the community.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategy Manager titled “2018-28 Long Term Plan ” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

B) That officers incorporate decisions made and feedback received from the meeting, into the final preparation of the Long Term Plan documentation for formal adoption on 22 March 2018.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the decision making and consultation requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

Attachments:

1	Canoe Polo Proposal	CP-10-1-18-40	Under Separate Cover
2	Canoe Utilisation	CP-10-1-18-42	Under Separate Cover
3	Carpark Proposal	CP-10-1-18-41	Under Separate Cover
4	Parking Visual Plan	CP-10-1-18-43	Under Separate Cover
5	2018 LTP Infrastructure Strategy	CP-10-1-18-46	Under Separate Cover
6	2018 LTP Financial Strategy	CP-10-1-18-45	Under Separate Cover
7	Hastings Sports Centre Fees and Charges Schedule	CP-10-1-18-39	Under Separate Cover

File Ref: 18/90

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Bridge Engineer

Anu Ileperuma

SUBJECT: Approval to proceed with alleyway closure (Caernarvon Drive / Sunderland Drive)

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council whether to proceed with road stopping process stipulated in local government 1974, section 319 schedule 10.

1.2 This issue arises from continued complaints of anti-social behaviour received from an adjoining property owner to the access way situated between Caernarvon Drive and Sunderland Drive.

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

1.3 This report concludes by recommending that Council resolve to stop the access way and amalgamate the land with adjoining owner’s land and that the Chief Executive is delegated authority to complete the procedures stipulated in Schedule 10, section 319, Local Government Act 1974 as well as to dissolve and amalgamate the stopped Caernarvon Drive/Sunderland Drive access way to adjoining owners.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 A number of concerns have been raised with regard to public security and safety associated with the pedestrian/cycle access way between Sunderland Drive and Caernarvon Drive in Flaxmere, by the residents directly adjoining the access way.

2.2 This access way is narrow (2.5m wide), poorly lit and has little natural surveillance due to the adjacent boundaries having high solid fencing with no through visibility. This type of environment encourages anti-social behaviour due to lack of passive surveillance available and entrapment risks.

2.3 In a report to the Works and Services Committee on 6 December 2016, the committee resolved to proceed to consult on three development options (community artwork/mural, alleyway upgrade and alleyway closure) with the affected properties, schools and interested parties as identified in the resolution.

2.4 The results from the consultation completed was presented at the Works and Services Committee on 20 June 2017 which resolved that the committee agree in principle to stop the access way mentioned and that Chief Executive be delegated the authority to initiate procedures stipulated in the Local Government Act (LGA) 1974.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 In order to initiate legal closure of the access way, agreement in principle from adjoining property owners was sought for the acquisition of land following a successful closure process.

3.2 Following the consents being signed, as the access way is regarded a legal road, stopping of roads process as detailed in LGA 1974, section 319 Schedule 10 was initiated.

3.3 The process required two public notices to be published on a newspaper along with signage to be placed on the alleyway where public had the opportunity to object to the closure within the given 40 day period.

3.4 The 40 day notice period was closed on the 19 January 2018 and no submissions (objections or otherwise) for the closure was received.

3.5 The next step in the process is for Council to declare and resolve to stopping of the road.

3.6 Once the resolution is obtained, as stipulated in LGA 1974, section 319 schedule 10, two copies of the public notice mentioned in 3.3 above and the deposited plan of the access way need to be sent to the office of chief surveyor for record.

3.7 Furthermore once 3.6 is complete, Council needs to declare that the road is stopped by public notice.

3.8 A call for a new certificate of title under Hastings District Council will be sent to Land Information New Zealand.

3.9 An easement over the land will be reserved to maintain/renew the live sewer pipe laid along the access way. Easement conditions will be registered under the new title.

3.10 Consequently, Council can subdivide the new title (sell the land) into two parcels, and each parcel can be amalgamated with the adjoining owner’s land.

3.11 The overall legal fees acquired to dispose the land is in the order of $6,500.00 and Council have spent approximately $3,000.00 so far.

3.12 Note: once the easement is in place, the value of the land acquired will be minimal. Hence, the only funding contribution Council is seeking from the adjacent land owners, who are willing to amalgamate the disposed land into their property, is a contribution towards legal costs of road stopping and vesting. The amount will be negotiated with the owners once this stage have been reached.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1: Council resolve to stop the alleyway, however retain the land.

4.2 Option 2: Council resolve to stop the alleyway and amalgamate the land with adjoining owner’s land.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 This matter has been assessed against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and whilst not considered significant in the context of the wider Hastings District, it does have a degree of significance for adjoining land owners and the local community which may use the access way and be impacted by any decision in regard to its future.

5.2 The community was consulted through two stage process where affected properties was consulted as mentioned in 2.3. Following this, further consultation commenced as part of a legal requirement, where public large could submit objections to closure within a 40 day period. No objections were received during this process.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 1 will have the following advantages and disadvantages.

6.1.1 Advantages:

· No further legal fees acquired to amalgamate land or to obtain an easement over the land (cheaper option)

6.1.2 Disadvantages:

· The area would need to be fenced off to prevent through access

· If land is not amalgamated with adjoining properties, this creates a “dead zone” which will aggravate illegal dumping at the alleyway

6.2 Option 2 will have the following advantages and disadvantages.

6.2.1 Advantages:

· The land will be amalgamated with adjoining properties, preventing any further anti-social behaviour experienced at the alleyway

· This is a site where ongoing graffiti and illegal rubbish is collected recurrently. Closure of the alleyway, will reduce the demand to remove rubbish and repaint the fences.

6.2.2 Disadvantages:

· This is the more expensive option where further legal fees are acquired during land amalgamation

· An easement will need to be placed over the land in order to maintain/renew the sewer pipe running along the alleyway.

6.3 In order to execute option 2 in a timely manner, delegation to complete the road stopping process and authority to dissolve the land and enter into an easement will need to be assigned to the Chief Executive.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 The preferred option is Option 2, where the Council resolve to stop the alleyway and amalgamate the land with adjoining owner’s land.

7.2 Adoption of this option ensures that further anti-social behaviour is eliminated at this alleyway, which was the desired social outcome expected from this exercise.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Bridge Engineer titled “Approval to proceed with alleyway closure (Caernarvon Drive / Sunderland Drive) ” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

B) That Council resolve to stop the access way and amalgamate the land with adjoining owner’s land.

C) That the Chief Executive is delegated authority to complete the procedures stipulated in Schedule 10, section 319, Local Government Act 1974 as well as to dissolve and amalgamate the stopped Caernarvon Drive/Sunderland Drive access way to adjoining owners.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and local public services by:

i) Resolving anti-social behavior observed at the access way.

Attachments:

1	Deposited Plan DP 13585 - highlighted copy	CG-14-5-00017
2	Public Notices of Accessway Closure Notice in Hawkes Bay Today	PRJ16-128-0013
3	Physical Notices - Road Closure Process Caernarvon Drive/Sundarland Drive Alleyway	PRJ16-128-0014

File Ref: 17/876

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT: Reserve Encroachment - Haumoana Memorial Park, Beach Road, Haumoana.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on resolving an existing encroachment on Haumoana Memorial Park, Beach Road.

1.2 This issue arises from the need to resolve a submission to the Cape Coast reserve Management Plan requesting that an encroachment be allowed on a portion of the Haumoana Memorial Park and that a drain on the park be piped on reserve land adjoining Adrian and Cheryl Jurys’ property at 30 Beach Road, Haumoana.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to deliver local infrastructure that contributes to public health and safety and the delivery of community infrastructure for recreational opportunity.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that Council either agree to the request to pipe a portion of open drain on Haumoana Memorial Park and the Jurys’ site, or that Council agree to a Licence to Encroach over a strip of Haumoana Memorial Park, subject to conditions.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 During the process of drafting the Cape Coast Reserves Management Plan, officers became aware that a portion of the Haumoana Memorial Domain on its Beach Road access, contained privately owned goods. The goods included a swimming pool, a house bus and a variety of other residential assets.

2.2 Investigations revealed the encroaching items were the property of owners of the section immediately to the north of the reserve being A and C Jury of 30 Beach Road.

2.3 The Jury’s themselves made a submission to the Draft Cape Coast Reserve Management Plan which essentially included two key requests. Firstly they asked that they be permitted to continue their occupation of the reserve land and secondly that Council pipe the drain that runs across the reserve and their property for community safety reasons.

2.4 Their submission is contained in Attachment 1.

2.5 Accordingly, this report brings two separate but related issues to Council for resolution. Firstly, Council needs to decide on the request to pipe a portion of the stormwater drain and secondly to decide on whether to remove or legalise the encroachment.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Reserve Management Plan Subcommittee met on August 17^th to hear submissions on the Cape Coast Plan. While the Jurys’ submission was heard, the encroachment issue was not deliberated on as any decision allowing for the occupation of a public reserve can only be made by Council itself. Hence this report.

3.2 The Jury’s submission outlined their use of the reserve and sought to retain “guardianship” of the entire piece of reserve, however in recent times their position has somewhat shifted and they now advise that if the drain was piped they would more than willingly remove their encroaching assets. In doing so, the Jurys’ would regain a sizeable piece of current drain/swale which would leave them ample usable space to store their assets on. It should be also noted that many of the encroaching items have removed from the reserve. Attachment 2 contains photos of the two properties including the drain.

3.3 In the interim, officers have met with Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) engineers to discuss the feasibility of piping a portion of the drain and the likely cost. While the drain is a HBRC asset, they have no current or future plans to upgrade it. They are however, supportive of the concept of piping this 40 metre length of open drain.

3.4 The Jurys’ submission and possible resolutions present a number of options for Council to consider. If Council was to agree to fund the installation of a piped drain over the Jurys’ land, the encroachment request would essentially disappear. However, if Council is unwilling to fund the pipe work, it will need to resolve whether or not it wants to allow an encroachment over a reserve and for what period of time.

3.5 This report will discuss Council’s options for how it might deal with the encroachment and the funding of piping a private drain.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 As there are two separate but linked issues that require resolution. The report will first consider the piping of the drain proposal because if Council agrees to fund/part fund this work, the Jury’s will no longer need to encroach onto the reserve and the occupation will cease. Conversely, if Council chooses not to pipe the stream, then the encroachment issue needs to be resolved.

Decision 1 - Piping of the Haumoana Drain

Option 1 – Status Quo – (leave drain open)

Option 2 – Council fund piping of park section only

Option 3 – Council fund piping of park and private drain

Decision 2 - Encroachment Issue

Option 4 - Status Quo (Do Nothing)

Option 5 – Remove the encroachment

Option 6 – Agree to a licence to encroach

Option 7 – Agree to sell a portion of reserve

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 Piping of the Drain

The estimated cost for piping the portion of drain that runs across the affected Beach Road properties is $60,000. This level of expenditure amount does not breach any of Council’s financial thresholds. In addition, if Council was to agree to undertake the work, the task could legitimately be funded via from the Parks new works budget. This budget line allocates $100,000 pa for Council initiated parks projects. Should a portion of funds be allocated for this particular project, it is noted that the fund, in 2018/19 will be reduced accordingly and therefore reduce Council ability to react to other issues that might arise.

5.2 The Encroachment Issue

The encroachment over public reserve raises additional issues in terms of significance and engagement. The issue has come to Council’s attention during the drafting of the Cape Coast Reserves Management Plan (CCRMP). During this process the draft landscape plan showed how the reserve might be developed and this proposal only drew comment from the Jurys. This of course is understandable given their involvement in occupying the reserve and their initial desires to maintain occupation.

Should Council not pipe the stream, then any decision around the divestment of any public asset has the potential to be significant to some sectors of the community. Should Council not pipe the stream, the Jurys’ have indicated a desire to occupy a smaller strip of reserve land adjacent to their boundary.

Should Council decide to proceed with the divestment option, as the land is vested as a Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, Council will need to follow the requisite procedures for the sale of a part of a reserve. This will require, amongst other actions, public notification and with that the right for public submission or objection. Any objections or submissions will need to be heard by a commissioner. This process will provide the public with the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposal including the amount to be paid by the Jurys’ to Council to compensate for the loss of public space.

5.3 While there is a rigorous process around the Reserve Act provisions for divestment, officers would also recommend to notify the wider community to ensure the local Haumoana community is made aware of the temporary or permanent divestment of reserve land.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

Piping of the Drain Assessment

6.1 As with any new works, the piping of the stormwater drain comes with its pros and cons. The Jurys’ submission to the CCRMP asserts that the drain is dangerous and they contend that as it is close to the main park and playground serving Haumoana, then children’s safety is put at risk.

6.2 Officers agree that the presence of an open drain, as with many other open waterways, would not the considered the ideal situation where children are present. While the drain is maintained by the Hawkes Bay Regional Council their maintenance regime typically aims to keep it operational. This has involved intermittent clearing of the channel to maintain stream flows.

6.3 Bearing in mind the current width and depth of the channel, officers believe that the piping of the drain across reserve and private land, as proposed by the Jurys, would make the local area safer, with the additional benefit of enhancing the recreation values of the Haumoana Memorial Park.

6.4 While piping the entire drain would solve the encroachment issue, it is also the most expensive. The HBRC estimate for the works is $60,000 (excl gst). In normal circumstances, and on a pro rata basis, this would equate to approximately $35,000 for the HDC portion of drain and $25,000 for the Jury’s section of drain. The Draft CCRMP suggests a softer option of an ecological response which reshapes and landscapes the existing drain to create a wetland type environment. This is a less expensive option but will still retain an open water-course and with it, the attendant maintenance issues and safety concerns.

6.5 Officers have asked the HBRC if they would contribute towards what is essentially the piping of their drain. While HBRC support the proposal they advise that they have no funds for the work and their key aim is to keep the drain operational.

6.6 Assuming Council is amenable to funding the piping of this drain over its own land, the next issue therefore is, whether it should also fund or partly fund the piping of the open drain over privately owned land.

6.7 While Council does not typically use public money for improvements on private land, it can consider proposals that could be seen to be delivering public good. In this regard, it would be hard to not agree that the piping of this 60 metre length of drain located, alongside a road and footpath, and inside a public park, offers a benefit to the local community. As an example, Council has in the past funded kerb extensions that benefit business owners in our CBD’s while adding overall vibrancy that benefits the wider community.

6.8 Recent improvement works around play equipment make the park a more attractive place for children, especially those accessing the park from Beach Road. The proposed plans to widen and improve public access to the park off Beach Road would undoubtedly be enhanced and made safer if the entire section of drain was piped. It would therefore seem fair and reasonable that Council either pay for the entire piping works or at least contribute a sizeable amount towards the piping the Jury’s section. Officers have discussed the cost issues with the Jurys who clearly would prefer Council to pay the total costs, but are prepared to contribute up $10,000 (include gst) towards costs.

6.9 Option 1 - the status quo, is the cheapest option. Council’s current level of service on both the reserve land and the drain, is minimal. Officers concede that issues of responsibility for the subject site has been somewhat hazy and the full extent of encroachment was revealed once the planning process was started. In addition, and regardless of decisions around the piping of the drain and dealing with the encroachment, Council will need to improve its maintenance response on this piece of park. Put simply we cannot expect the Jurys to continue looking after the reserve.

6.10 While the HBRC has no compelling reasons to depart from the status quo in terms of drain maintenance, concerns over water safety and the desire to improve recreational values suggest that the do nothing option will not deliver improved outcomes for the local Haumoana community. Suggestions of an improved landscaped wetland may well assist but may also eventually fall short of community aspirations of safe and enhanced recreation areas.

6.11 Option 2 – implies that Council would agree to pipe the drain but only pay for its own portion within the reserve land. This is a legitimate position for Council and comes at a cost of approximately $35,000. No specific funding stream is currently signalled for this work though, as discussed earlier, an appropriate funding line is available in 2018/19.

6.12 Officers believe the piping of the reserve land will add substantial benefits to the recreation values of the whole reserve as it will allow for a wider entrance to the park off Beach Road. This would be a safer and enhanced experience for park users. The Draft CCRMP also anticipates landscape improvements on this land as a way of adding value to the underused reserve land, fronting Beach Road, and making it more attractive to the local community.

6.13 However, by piping only Council’s section of the open drain, issues of safety and poor environmental outcomes will still exist on the adjoining Jury site. From a streetscape perspective it will appear to be a half finished project and likely to draw public criticism until the Jurys’ section was also piped.

6.14 Option 3 – would see Council funding the piping of the drain on the park land and paying for all, or a portion of the piping of the drain on the Jury’s site.

6.15 This is the most expensive option at $60,000, and it sees Council investing public money on private land. Council needs to take a cautious approach in committing to such expenditure as it could lead to it creating a precedent for future similar works. Essentially Council needs to be sure that by undertaking the works, it is delivering an enhanced community benefit that justifies the expenditure.

6.16 In this case, the benefits of piping the Jurys’ section alongside the reserve are clear. While the improved access to the park can be achieved, more importantly, a hard to maintain area and a potential public safety risk can be eliminated at a relatively modest cost.

6.17 The most difficult issue before Council is weighing up the quantum of funds Council might reasonably contribute towards piping the Jurys’ section of drain without compromising Council’s position should similar situations occur in the future. Officers have shared these concerns with the Jurys’ who have indicated that they are willing to contribute up to $10,000 (incl gst) towards the piping costs to reflect the benefits they will be receiving by having 200m2 of section of existing open drain made usable.

6.18 From a landscape and amenity perspective, a piped drain and re-grassed area will provide an improved frontage and utility for both Council’s park and the Jurys’ residential section. By piping the drain, the Council section will be able to actively utilise an additional 400m2 of reserve, while the Jury’s will be able to access 200m2, that has been effectively separated from their main residential property.

6.19 In addition, by piping the whole drain, the Jurys will willingly withdraw their request to occupy a portion of reserve, as they will no longer need it. This would in itself provide a good outcome as it would ensure all park land is available to the public, and Council would be seen as taking a consistent position on dealing with encroachments.

6.20 The following table sets out the possible funding options and their cost implications for Council

Element	Cost
Jury’s section of pipe	$25,000
Council only section of pipe	$35,000
Total Cost	$60,000
Council cost less Jury’s contribution	$51,300

6.21 As discussed earlier, there is an appropriate funding stream available to undertake this work. The key issue is to determine what level of funding Council feels is appropriate. Officers believe there is real merit in having the Jurys’ contribute to the works as it is showing they too are willing to contribute in partnering with Council to achieve improved community outcome.

6.22 Should Council decide to make funds available, and as the Jurys’ will be benefiting from an improved land value, it would seem appropriate that they be bonded for a short term to ensure that they don’t sell up and take the improved land value at ratepayers expense. Council has utilised the bond system in the past for similar community investments that have the potential to deliver private benefits. It is suggested that a bond should be registered that reduces annually. Essentially this would mean if the Jurys’ sold in the in the first year that the drain was installed, they would repay the Council its full or 100% contribution, with this amount reducing equally over five years. After the completion of five years, the bond would no longer have effect.

Encroachment Assessment

6.23 The portion of Haumoana Memorial Park that is subject to the Jurys’ encroachment, covers 1214m2. The Jurys have variously occupied and maintained the reserve land for some 20 odd years. While the encroachment had included a pool, bus and a variety of items, in recent times most of their belongings have been removed. The main items of occupancy now is their motorhome and caravan. While the Jurys’ contend that they were given consent, there are no official records of Council granting consent or a lease to enable occupation.

6.24 It would also seem and that the encroachment had over many years, gradually expanded the private use of public land. The level of encroachment has certainly reduced over the last 12 months. It also recognised that the Jurys’ have invested a lot of time and effort in looking after this portion of land with no assistance from Council. Officers are not without a degree of sympathy for the Jurys in this matter. Notwithstanding the range of options proffered in this report, the RMP submission process presents a timely opportunity to clear up ownership issues and responsibilities for this subject site.

6.25 Despite the history of this occupation, Council’s District-wide Reserves Management Plan (DWRMP) has adopted policies on dealing with encroachments, and hence this report.

6.26 As reported earlier, if Council resolves to pipe the stream, the encroachment issue will be resolved and the following discussion rendered largely academic. The following discussion assumes that Council has decided not to pipe the drain and the encroachment issue needs separate resolution. Therefore, to resolve the issue of the illegal encroachment, Council needs to decide on which option is most appropriate.

6.27 Option 4 – Status Quo.

6.28 Option 4 is essentially not taking enforcement action to an illegal encroachment on a public reserve. Both the DWMP and the Reserves Act 1977 clearly disapprove of encroachments. The DWRMP prohibits encroachments without Council approval, especially where they impact on a reserve’s recreational values.

6.29 Officers are also mindful that by ignoring this encroachment, it will potentially create a precedent and encourage other property owners to ignore Council’s rules in regard to encroachments and its policies to remove or at least licence encroachments where acceptable.

6.30 The encroachment and the dissecting drain both impact on the public’s use of the reserve. While it is noted that the lack of knowledge of the reserve’s existence has meant the public were largely ignorant of its existence, the draft plan, as consulted on, proposed developing the land to improve accessibility and recreational values to the wider park. With that knowledge, the wider community do have a right to access their public space. It is also noted that no submissions to the CCRMP, other than the Jury’s, commented on the current or proposed use of the Beach Road reserve property.

6.31 Option 5 - Removal of the Encroachment

As Councillors are well aware, encroachments on reserves can be a troublesome issue. Encroachments are neither supported by the Reserves Act 1977, nor Council’s DWRMP. In general, Council seeks to either formalise the encroachment or request its removal.

By adopting Option 5, requiring the removal of the encroachment, Council could swiftly deal with this issue. The removal of the remaining household items would be at the Jurys expense with no cost to Council and the ratepayer.

6.32 This option is clearly not favoured by the Jurys who ideally, notwithstanding the piping of the drain, would like to retain use over a portion of the reserve, primarily to park their mobile home.

6.33 Option 6 - Agree to a Licence to Encroach

6.34 Council could consider allowing the encroachment on its reserve by granting a licence to the Jurys. Bearing in mind the length of occupation without public complaint, and the efforts the Jurys’ have made to remove most of the items of encroachment, officers believe there is some merit in allowing for a reduced area of occupation. This could entail a strip of some six metres width and 30 metres long, for the Jury’s exclusive use for motorhome storage. Attachment 3 shows the extent of a strip of park land proposed to be occupied, should the drain remain open.

6.35 From a policy perspective, officers are also wary of legitimising illegal encroachments where they don’t add value to the reserve. Officers would not be supportive of an extended long term lease as this application should be limited to the Jury’s personally due to special circumstances. Council needs to be cautious and should not be sending a message to other landowners that should they too encroach onto public land, they can easily legitimise their actions by just asking Council for a licence.

6.36 While officers are aware that there are other encroachments on our reserves, and we seek to remove them as part of the Reserve Management Planning process, there is some sympathy for allowing a small encroachment in this case. By granting a Licence to Encroach, Council will be largely resolving and legitimising an encroachment, while seeing the removal of a larger quantity of household items.

6.37 The key issue for Council will be in setting an annual fee for the Licence to Encroach to help compensate for the loss of recreation land values. The proposed Licence to encroach would set aside 170m2 of land for the Jurys’ exclusive use. It is difficult for Council to assess what sort of charge would be appropriate in these cases as they are quite rare. The lease struck would need to consider the utility gained, effect on reserve values and the history of the site.

6.38 Clearly the Jurys’ believe they have not done anything wrong in regard to the encroachment given they believe Council was happy with the current situation. Given the land is undeveloped, and Council will be taking back the bulk of the site, and that the occupation is relatively benign, an annual charge of $1.00 would probably seem appropriate in this particular case.

6.39 Option 7 - Sell a portion of reserve

6.40 While the Jurys’ have not requested to buy a portion of reserve, an assessment of this option is included for completeness. The following assessment is based on the potential sale of 200m2 of reserve land.

6.41 While the selling of reserve land is not a course often taken, Council does from time to time consider such options where the impacts on the reserve are minimal and a more fair and reasonable outcome might be achieved. As a starting point, officers would only support this position where it was clearly understood that all costs associated with the transaction were carried by the property owner and is at no cost to the ratepayer, and funds received from the sale redirected to park improvements.

6.42 The key legislation that controls land dealings with regard to reserves is the Reserves Act 1977. It prescribes a process that Council must follow in order seek the Minister of Conservation’s consent to partially revoke the recreation reserve status and therefore allow for a subdivision to divest a portion of the reserve.

6.43 Section 24 of the Reserves Act requires Council to first resolve to partially uplift the classification and publicly notify its intention to divest the portion of reserve. Every person claiming to be affected by the proposed change has the right to object to the proposal. The objection period covers one month and any objections must be in writing.

6.44 Once the objection period is over, Council details its request for the partial revocation, including any reports and objections, and awaits the Minister’s response. Assuming the proposal travels successfully to this point, the subdivision, gazettal and formation of titles will follow. This can be a long and time consuming process, and not without cost. Officers believe that should this option be considered, the cost of this should be borne by the Jury’s as the main beneficiary and not the ratepayer. In addition, should the Jury’s decide to abandon the process at any stage, they should be required to pay the costs incurred up to that date.

6.45 The key issue for the Minister to consider is whether the revocation of a portion of recreation reserve will have a detrimental impact on recreation values. Council’s DWRMP too seeks this outcome to ensure recreation values are not diminished by the sale proposal.

6.46 Officers believe that if the currently undeveloped area of reserve was to be enhanced it would be of considerable benefit to the local community through improving access and connectivity. Officers also note that any efforts to improve these elements will be somewhat hamstrung until the piping of the drain is resolved.

6.47 While a full valuation has not been obtained, the area of land proposed to be divested covers approximately 200m2 and at the reserve’s current value of $16.50m2, it is nominally worth around $3000, based on the reserve land value. However if the residential land value was considered, the sale would be in the order of $30,000. To this amount, the cost of subdivision would probably add another $10,000 to the cost.

6.48 On balance there is no compelling reason for Council to sell off a portion of this reserve and go through a lengthy and uncertain divestment process, other than resolving a contentious encroachment issue. Bearing in mind the lack of interest on the part of the Jurys’ in purchasing and the cost implications, it is not considered a viable option.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Decision 1- Piping the Haumoana Drain

7.2 Option 3 - is the preferred option.

7.3 By adopting Option 3, Council would be committing to funding the piping of the drain across Council and the Jurys’ land. While this action is the most expensive, it will result in the most beneficial outcomes. Firstly, and importantly, the piping will remove a safety risk on both properties. The drain is in close proximity to the footpath and main access way to the park and by eliminating this risk, public safety would be promoted.

7.4 Secondly, by opening up access to the full width of the park, improved connectivity will be provided between the street and park. This will make park access easier and provide safer clear sightlines. This too is a positive community benefit.

7.5 And thirdly, by piping the park the entire encroachment will be willingly removed giving clear ownership delineation for both parties. It also means that Council’s policy on the removal of park encroachments will be achieved.

7.6 While the status quo option is the cheapest, it does not solve any of the issues in front of Council and leaves the Haumoana community with less than attractive park entrance. This option is not supported by officers.

7.7 By adopting option 2 Council would only pipe its portion of drain. While cheaper for Council and offering improved park connectivity, this option does not solve the encroachment issue nor improve safety issues as a substantial length of drain (on Jury land) would remain open and therefore continue to pose a safety risk.

7.8 On balance, Option 3 will deliver the most beneficial outcome for Council, community and the Jurys. In addition, and as the Jurys’ have agreed to make a contribution of up to $10,000 towards the piping work, Council can be confident that its funding of work on private land is outweighed by the achieving of a number of improved community goals. In addition, by requiring a bond be registered that gives Council the ability to recover funds from the Jurys should they sell their property within the first five years, Council can be assured that the Jurys won’t be able to realise an increased property value, at the expense of the ratepayer.

7.9 Decision 2 – The encroachment

7.10 Option 6 is the preferred option.

7.11 As reported earlier, if Council resolves to pipe the drain as recommended by officers, the consideration of Options 4 - 7 is no longer required.

7.12 By adopting option 6, Council will make a reduced area of land available to the Jurys’ at a minimal cost. It will also see the bulk of the affected land, clear of encroaching materials, returned to Council to develop and open up wider access to the main reserve. It is a solution that the Jurys are happy to accept as it assists them with some of the difficulties posed by their own site, due to the location of the drain.

7.13 Officers believe that it would be unwise to accept the status quo as this would be essentially turning a blind eye to its own policies of not allowing private use of public land. For this reason, Option 4 is not supported.

7.14 While officers agree that the encroachment should be removed, they are also mindful of the circumstances and background surrounding this situation. The Jurys’ believe that they have not wilfully encroached so to demand the full removal of their belongings would seem a somewhat draconian action. For these reasons Option 5 is not supported by officers.

7.15 Option 7 suggests the divestment of a portion of reserve. This option is not requested by the Jurys. It is also generally contrary to Council’s policies on selling reserves. The process is also time consuming and likely to be very costly. For these reasons it is not supported by officers.

7.16 Reserve Management Plan Submissions

7.17 The final decisions on the issues before Council in this report will likely have consequential impacts on the Council’s decisions on submissions to the CCRMP. These will essentially revolve around the Jurys’ submission and the draft funding streams required to be included in the 2018/28 LTP, to deliver on Council’s to be adopted action plan. These consequential changes will be reported back to the next Economic Development and Urban Affairs Committee meeting on 15^th May 2018.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parks and Property Services Manager titled “Reserve Encroachment - Haumoana Memorial Park, Beach Road, Haumoana. ” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

B) That Council adopt Option 3 and agree to fund the piping of 45 metres of the open Haumoana Drain adjacent to Beach Road Haumoana, with a contribution of $10,000, detailed in a suitable contractual agreement from A and C Jury.

C) That A and C Jury take out a bank bond for a period of five years, and that the bond shall be for $15,000 in the first year reducing by $3,000 annually.

D) That Council adopt Option 6 and agree to grant A and C Jury a Licence to Encroach to allow them to occupy some 200m2 of reserve adjacent to their property at 30 Beach Road Haumoana, as shown on Attachment 3.

E) That the Licence to Encroach shall be for a period of 20 years and A and C Jury shall pay Council the sum of $1.00 per annum, on demand.

F) That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to enter into negotiations and to issue A and C Jury with the Licence to Encroach.

G) That subject to Council’s decisions above, officers report to the Economic Development and Urban Affairs meeting 15 May 2018 on consequential amendments to decisions on Cape Coast Reserve Management Plan submissions.

· Providing local infrastructure that contributes to public health and safety and the delivery of community infrastructure for recreational opportunity.

Attachments:

1	Jury Submission	AST-5-17-1458
2	Photos of the two properties	CG-14-1-00610
3	Haumoana Memorial Park Site Plan	CG-14-1-00606

File Ref: 17/1208

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes

Alison Banks

Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT: Flaxmere West Land Development

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about options available to develop Council owned land adjacent to Kirkwood Road in West Flaxmere.

1.2 This issue arises from proposals received from Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and Bruce Greaves along with a petition organised by Barry and Wendy Cooze and presented to Council on February 1^st 2018.

1.3 Council has also received enquiries from Housing New Zealand and Ministry of Social Development around vacant land in this area.

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

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to enable Council to realise value from land held for resale in a way that meets the current and future needs of the Flaxmere community by encouraging the development of good quality and affordable homes.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending that the report be received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 As part of the development of Flaxmere in the 1980s a subdivision was created for an area of land located between Boston Crescent, Mitchell Place, Tarbet Street and Kirkwood Road. The subdivided land owned by Council comprises 73 sections. Roading and services are fully complete to 31 sections; 23 sections have services but no road access and 19 sections have no roading or full services. Subdivision details are provided in in the map below.

2.2 The Hastings City Council was the purchaser of the blocks of land for all of Flaxmere for subdivision and was the subdivider. All of the separate residential titles were issued by 1990. Development of some of the roads and services was stopped due to the slowdown in sales from the late 1980s.

2.3 Records show that the development has been accounted for through the Flaxmere Land Development Reserve at that time and as part of the subdivision consent and development contributions were accounted for at that time.

2.4 From 2007 to 2009 Council and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga (TToH) considered a joint project (Matariki) for quality affordable housing on the subdivision and the adjacent land owned by TTOH but this proposal did not eventuate.

2.5 In 2013 the Council and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga also had discussions on the possibility of a land swap involving some of the subdivision sections but this also did not eventuate.

2.6 In 2014 Council had discussions with Horvath Construction Ltd who were interested in developing a proposal to purchase all of the 73 sections owned by Council in this area. A formal proposal was however never received.

2.7 Following the discussions with Horvath Construction, officers undertook a stocktake and strategic review of Council’s surplus land holdings in Flaxmere. The investigations identified that the land held within close proximity to the Flaxmere Town Centre potentially had more strategic value for the purpose of developing housing for the older members of the community should that opportunity arise. Although the findings of these investigations were never formalised with Council.

2.8 The review also identified that there was a potentially greater opportunity to develop good quality family homes on this Kirkwood Road land with the ultimate aim of improving the overall housing stock in this part of Flaxmere.

2.9 In April 2016 Council received a proposal from Bruce Greaves to develop good quality affordable housing on the sections owned by Council that fronted Kirkwood Road. Council agreed to sell six sections to Mr Greaves at that time. Houses have been built or are currently under construction on 5 of those sections. Later in 2016 Council placed the balance of sections along Kirkwood Road on the open market with a further eight sections being sold.

2.10 The sections sold at this time were sold with the following covenants:

2.11 Council has in the Kirkwood Road / Te Aranga Marae area 59 sections still available for sale and development under the current subdivision layout.

2.12 In early 2017 Councillors voiced their concerns around homelessness and social and affordable housing in the Hawkes Bay. Officers were instructed to revisit the Matariki Housing Development Project and reengage with other key stakeholders. Council officers first met with TToH in May 2017 at the request of the TToH CEO to discuss opportunities of developing the land owned by Council and TToH surrounding the Marae and adjacent to Kirkwood Road in Flaxmere.

2.13 A working group was formed with representatives from Council, TToH, U-Turn Trust and Te Aranga Marae to evaluate the best options for further development of the land owned by Council and TToH between Kirkwood Road and Mitchell Place / Boston Crescent in Flaxmere.

2.14 A workshop was held on 7 July 2017 where George Reedy (TToH CEO) and Emma Horgan (TToH Project Manager) introduced Council to the Waingākau Village project outlining the ownership of the land at Flaxmere West, introducing Cohousing concepts and examples, highlighted key stakeholders and further work required before coming back to Council in September 2017.

2.15 George Reedy and Emma Horgan again presented to Council on September 26^th which included an overview of the detailed business case that has been developed to-date. The Waingākau Village Business Case highlighted three options from traditional housing, cohousing and a mix of both traditional and cohousing.

2.16 The project teams preferred option was the combination of Community Housing (Cohousing) and conventional housing as detailed below.

2.17 Council was identified as an important enabler of development in this area and still owns 59 sections as shown in the map below. Council owned land is highlighted in light blue on the map below and effectively encompasses the area where option 3 above has been identified for traditional type housing with some of the Council land required for the cohousing development.

2.18 Key elements of the proposal include the development of 76 Cohousing houses with a mixture of one, two and three bedroom homes and 44 houses in the conventional development style using the existing subdivision layout. The cohousing approach is an intentional community of clustered housing with common shared neighbourhood facilities. The attached document provides more detail on the principles of cohousing.

2.19 Council was informed at the October 26^th 2017 meeting that by December 2017 both TToH and Council Officers will be in a better place to update Council and put a well-informed proposal on the table for consideration. This has taken a little longer and is being presented to Council now. At that meeting Council was informed that there was no requirement of Council at that stage to confirm what involvement Council may have with this project, including how and when Council will sell the 59 sections still in Council ownership.

2.20 Council was asked to support this project in principle with the information gathered from TToH’s consultation to be used to inform Council further as to the role that it would take and how and when it will sell down the sections that are currently owned by Council. Council was told at that time that it would have the opportunity to satisfy itself as to the most suitable financial arrangement for this project at a future time. There was no financial impact on Council at that stage by supporting the TToH.

2.21 Council resolved at the October 26^th meeting:

That Council accept in principle Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga proposal which will allow them to further investigate and consult wider.

That the Council’s in principle decision is not to be considered or taken as any form of consent or approval in terms of the Council’s regulatory role under the Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004 or any other statute.

That Council officers will further explore what involvement it will have with the delivery of the Waingākau Village project and present this back to Council.

That Council Officers develop Social and Affordable Housing Strategies and present to Council for consideration in November 2017.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Following Council’s endorsement in principle of the TToH proposal in October, TToH have engaged with the community and stakeholders to get a better understanding of the overall acceptance of this project. TToH has undertaken to develop a Detailed Business Case using Treasury’s Better Business Case methodology. A paper supporting the TToH proposal is attached as Attachment 1. The TToH proposal focuses on the development of the land currently owned by Council, Te Aranga Marae and TToH.

3.2 Council has also received a proposal from Mr Bruce Greaves to develop the same land but is restricted to the Council owned land. A copy of Mr Greaves proposal is attached as Attachment 2.

3.3 Council received on 9 January 2018 a letter and petition from lead petitioners Barry and Wendy Cooze regarding the potential development on Kirkwood Road which was presented to Council on February 1^st 2018.

3.4 The petitioner’s prayer reads as follows:

“We petition that the parcel of land adjoining Kirkwood Road, be made available to the general public for purchase and development, pursuant to the convenants attached to Kirkwood Road, Lots 9-13 and 25-27.

We the undersigned, seek the prompt release for the sale of the aforementioned sections, to the wider community, thereby allowing a continuation of the current standard of development as seen in Kirkwood Road.”

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

3.5 Following consultation with the community TToH have revised their proposed development plan which is detailed below.

3.6 The TToH proposal included maintaining the current subdivision layout for 44 of the Council owned sections with a further 15 Council owned sections to be incorporated into the Cohousing development. The TToH proposal does suggest a minor change to the existing road layout, replacing the unformed cul-de-sac (Ryde Place) off the currently unformed Mawson Avenue with a small loop road for safety reasons.

3.7 The map below is the current ownership of this land overlaid over the TToH proposal. This map highlights that a large proportion of the currently Council owned land is proposed to be used for traditional type housing, consistent with what has been built along Kirkwood Road with just 25% of what Council owns proposed to be used for Cohousing. It is expected that if Council was to sell its land to the TToH for this proposal, that the covenants created previously for the Kirkwood Road sections would principally be put in place for development also.

3.8 The proposal from TToH puts a large emphasis on creating a community and the wrap around services that it provides to support the development of that community.

3.9 The TToH proposal also has an emphasis on building good quality homes that are safe and healthy which is aligned with the other services that TToH provides to the community.

Bruce Greaves (Aranga Construction Limited)

3.10 Mr Greaves has a long history of developing good quality family homes in Flaxmere with 35 homes completed since 2006. Mr Greaves would like to purchase from Council the 16 sections on Boston and Tarbet Streets that are fully serviced and can be built on immediately. Mr Greaves would also like to purchase the remaining sections from Council and would undertake responsibility for constructing all remaining infrastructure to the currently unserviced sections.

3.11 Current covenants applied to the sections sold to-date along Kirkwood Road would apply to any additional sections sold to Mr Greaves.

Petition

3.12 The petition received and presented to Council raised a number of concerns including:

· That they were under the impression that the remaining sections in this area would be developed and sold with covenants applied in the same manner as was applied to their property

· That they were misled or should have been forewarned of the proposed cohousing development being planned by Council and TToH.

3.13 The petitioners have been invited to attend this Council meeting and have been given the opportunity to speak to their petition and this report.

3.14 The petitioner’s main concern is with the co-housing part of this development proposal from TToH where a higher density of houses is proposed than what the current subdivision layout would have allowed. When they purchased their section and built their house there was an expectation that the balance of the sections would be developed in the same way with the same or similar covenants.

3.15 Council has not misled those that have purchased sections along Kirkwood Road. Following the sale of sections in late 2016, Council instructed officers in early 2017 to revisit the Matariki Housing Development Project and reengage with other key stakeholders.

3.16 Council officers first met with TToH in May 2017 at the request of the TToH CEO to discuss opportunities of developing the land owned by Council and land owned by TToH surrounding the Marae and adjacent to Kirkwood Road in Flaxmere. At the time these sections were sold to the Cooze’s, Council was not aware of any potential development proposal that was different to the current subdivision layout.

3.17 It should also be noted that Council does not own all the land involved in the TToH proposal and only 25% of the Council owned land has been incorporated into the cohousing development which is at the centre of the petitioners concerns.

3.18 It is expected that if Council was to engage with the TToH, or any other developer, that the covenants put in place for the Kirkwood Road properties would be applied to the balance of Council’s land in this area that was to be developed.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the options currently available to Council. Any future decision to be made by Council will be made in Public Excluded as it will require Council to fully understand the financial consequences of their decisions and to settle on terms that will require negotiation with one or more parties.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 This report is for the purpose of providing an update to Council on the current options available for development in the Flaxmere West area, and to provide the petitioners on this topic with the opportunity to present their petition after having had the opportunity to hear Council’s response in this report. A decision on the preferred pathway is not sought from this agenda item.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes titled “Flaxmere West Land Development” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

With the reasons that this development will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure by addressing Social and Affordable Housing issues in partnership with community and key stakeholders.

Attachments:

1	Waingakau Village TToH Business Case	CG-14-1-00612
2	Proposal from Aranga Construction	CG-14-1-00613

File Ref: 18/107

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 February 2018

FROM: Mayor

Sandra Hazlehurst

SUBJECT: Dis-establishment of Chairmen's Committee

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to

· dis-establish the Chairman’s Committee, and

· the formal processes of regular performance planning, performance review and remuneration review for the Chief Executive to be the responsibility of Council.

1.2 This proposal arises from a request from the Mayor.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that the process for setting of performance indicators and conducting performance reviews is in line with legislative requirements as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the Chairmen’s Committee be formally disestablished and replaced with the process set out in Attachment 1 of this report.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Mayor has requested that consideration be given to alternative arrangements for the performance planning and performance review process and remuneration for the Chief Executive.

2.2 In setting performance indicators and conducting performance reviews for the Chief Executive, the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 must be taken into account. These requirements are set out in full in the procedure at Attachment 1. As long as these requirements are met, consideration and determination of these matters may be considered by Council or delegated to a Committee of the Council.

2.3 Following the triennial election in October 2016, the Council approved the Hastings District Council Committees and Rural Community Board Delegations Register which included the Chairmen’s Committee with responsibility for “dealing with all matters relating to the employment relationship between the Council and the Chief Executive and monitoring the performance of the Chief Executive in relation to agreed key result areas”.

2.4 The membership for the Chairmen’s Committee is as follows:-

Chairman - The Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Chairman of Economic Development & Urban Affairs Committee

Chairman of Finance and Monitoring Committee

Chairman of Planning and Regulatory Committee

Chairman of Social & Cultural Development

Chairman of Works and Services Committee

Quorum – 4 members

2.5 The powers delegated to the Chairmen’s Committee are to provide on behalf of Council a formal process:-

· of regular review and planning with the Chief Executive and Council in respect of the Council’s performance expectations of the Chief Executive, and the Chief Executive’s performance

· to prepare and adopt the Performance Agreement between Council and the Chief Executive

· to assist the Chief Executive to identify areas and priorities for efficiency and baseline reviews

· to receive briefings and act as a governance sounding board for organisational change and improvement processes

· to review and set remuneration and other conditions of employment on behalf of Council.

· to develop, with the Chief Executive, and approve professional development programmes and initiatives to further develop the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive’s performance review, planning and related processes are to be conducted in line with the process set out in appendix 1 of the Committees and Community Board Delegations Register 2016.

The Chairmen’s Committee reports to the Council.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 In order to introduce a new procedure for considering the Chief Executive’s performance review and performance planning and remuneration review, it is first necessary to discharge the current Chairmen’s Committee arrangements. Under Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, a Council may

· appoint committees, subcommittees, and other subordinate decision making bodies that it considers appropriate, and unless expressly provided in legislation or regulation

· may discharge or reconstitute a committee or subordinate decision making body.

3.2 In the absence of delegations to a Committee, Council is the responsible decision making body.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1 To retain status quo.

4.2 Option 2 To dis-establish the Chairmen’s Committee and adopt the procedure for the Chief Executive’s performance planning, performance review and remuneration review as set out in Attachment 1 of this report.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

The issues canvassed in this report do not trigger any thresholds with the Council’s Significance Policy. The nature of the Council’s committee structure is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Council. No consultation is required.

6.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1 This is a political decision. It is for the Council to decide whether it wishes the issue of the Chief Executive’s performance planning, performance review and remuneration review to be delegated to a Committee or determined by full Council.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Mayor titled “Dis-establishment of Chairmen's Committee” dated 22/02/2018 be received.

B) That the Chairmen’s Committee be formally discharged, and its terms of reference, delegations and procedures be removed from the Committees and Community Board Delegations Register 2016 with immediate effect.

C) That the process provided in Attachment 1 of the report as set out in A) above, be adopted and included in the Committees and Community Board Delegations Register 2016 with immediate effect.

Attachments:

Review and Performance Plan of Chief Executive

CG-14-1-00609

Committee	Date	Time	Venue
Civic Honours Awards Subcommittee	16 April 2018	9.00am	Landmarks Room
Council (Speed Limit Submissions)	4 May 2018	9.00am	Council Chamber
Community Grants Subcommittee	17 May 2018	10.00am	Council Chamber
HDC : Maori Joint Committee	23 May 2018 (previously 28 May 2018)	1.00pm	Council Chamber

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings