Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference

The Community Board is a separate entity to the Council. The role of the Community Board is set out in Section 52 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Council is authorised to delegate powers to the Community Board.

Membership

Elected Community Board Members

Mohaka and Kahuranaki Ward Councillors appointed by the Council

The Board elects its own Chairman

Quorum – 4 members

Delegated Powers

GENERAL

1. To maintain an overview of services provided by the Council within the Community Board’s area.

2. To represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of the community represented.

3. To consider and report on all matters referred to the Board by the Council, or any matter of interest or concern to the Community Board.

4. To communicate with community organisations and special interest groups within the community;

5. To undertake any other responsibilities that are delegated to it by the Council.

6. To appoint a member of the Community Board to organisations approved by the Council from time to time.

LONG TERM PLAN/ANNUAL PLAN / POLICY ISSUES

7. Authority to make a submission to the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process on activities, service levels and expenditure (including capital works priorities) within the Board’s area or to make a submission in relation to any policy matter which may have an effect within the Board’s area.

ROADING AND TRAFFIC

8. Authority to exercise the Council’s powers and functions in relation to roads within the Board’s area under the following sections of the Local Government Act 1974:

· Section 335 (vehicle crossings);

· Section 344 (gates and cattle stops);

· Section 355 (overhanging trees).

9. Authority to exercise the Council’s statutory powers (including any relevant powers conferred by bylaw) over roads within the Board’s area in respect of:

(i) Road user behaviour at intersections;

(ii) Controls on stopping or overtaking

(iii) Controls on turning

(iv) Pedestrian safety,

(v) Footpath maintenance and improvements.

(vi) Accident investigation studies, lighting and other safety works

10. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this delegation authorises a Community Board to deal with a matter, in the exercise of delegated authority, in a manner which is conflict with any policy or decision of the Council or any standing committee of the Council in relation to the same matter.

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Hastings District Rural Community Board MEETING

Monday, 5 March 2018

VENUE:

Landmarks Room

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

2.00pm

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

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

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

2. Conflict of Interest

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

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive or Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive (preferably before the meeting).

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

3. Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held Monday 4 December 2017.

(Previously circulated)

4. Presentation: Meka Whaitiri, Under Secretary Agricultural Minister 5

5. Presentation: Cambell Leckie, Hawke's Bay Regional Council 7

6. Presentation: Trevor Mitchell, Emergency Management 9

7. Representation Review 2018 11

8. Hastings District Rural Community Board Report - Rural Transportation Programme Update 15

9. Dog Control Fees 37

10. Additional Business Items

11. Extraordinary Business Items

File Ref: 18/165

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 5 March 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Representation Review 2018

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Rural Community Board on the progress on the development of options for the forthcoming representation review, and to receive feedback on boundary change proposals for the rural community.

1.2 A full report on the proposals will be presented to Council on 22 March 2018. If the proposals are approved by Council, formal consultation with the community will follow.

1.3 The Democratic Support Manager will present the options currently under consideration at the meeting

1.4 Local authorities are required to review their representation arrangements at least once every six years.

1.5 The Hastings District Council is required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to have reviewed its membership and basis of election by 31 August 2018. By 8 September the Council has to publicly notify its decisions and call for submissions.

1.6 To assist Council, the Representation Review Guidelines recently issued by the Local Government Commission in accordance with section 19ZI of the Local Electoral Act 2001 are available at www.lgc.govt.nz

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council last reviewed its representation, including community boards, prior to the 2013 elections. Under the Local Electoral Act 2001 the Council is required to review its representation only every second election, but may review it every election if it wishes to.

2.2 The Council must conduct a complete review of representation and finish that review before 31 August 2018 for the 2019 elections.

2.3 The Local Electoral Act 2001 established as its first principle the provision of:

“fair and effective representation for individuals and communities”.

2.4 The Act provides for the Council to use a ward-based structure or to have “at large” elections or to have some councillors elected from wards and other councillors elected at large, provided that the Council believes it provides for the fair and effective representation set out above.

2.5 The Act does not presently allow the population per councillor to vary from ward to ward by more than plus or minus 10%.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Council needs to establish its proposed representation arrangements for the 2019 elections by 31 August 2018.

3.2 To do this, the Council should look at possible options for carrying out the review.

3.3 The key issues to be determined in the review are:

(i) The number of councillors (between 6 and 30), including the mayor.

(ii) Whether councillors will be elected at large or in wards or in a combination of those two.

(iii) If wards are used, the number of councillors per ward.

(iv) The names and boundaries of any wards.

(v) Whether there should be communities and community boards.

(vi) The detailed representation arrangements for each community board e.g. name, boundaries, number of members.

3.4 The Council has decided to start the review in early 2018 and has started to undertake some consultation prior to looking at different options. The Council will consider the results of this initial consultation exercise later this year to identify the ‘big picture’ changes to be considered as part of the review.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 The representation review process, as shown in the timeline (Attachment 1), requires the Council to determine its representation arrangements by 8 September 2018 and then to begin a public notification process which invites submissions on its proposals.

4.2 The Council considers those submissions and may then amend its proposal. That proposal is then opened for appeals and objections. The Council decision, appeals and objections are then forwarded to the Local Government Commission for a decision.

4.3 If there are no appeals and objections the Council proposal (following the consideration of submissions) becomes the proposal for the 2019 elections.

4.4 If there are any appeals or objections, the Local Government Commission will determine the Council’s representation arrangements.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The decision on this issue is a decision which will affect the whole of the community. Best practice requires the proposals to be evidence based and involving community consultation. Initial community consultation should be carried out prior working up proposals to identify ‘communities of interest’. Once the Council has resolved on a proposal that opens it to a further public consultative procedure with submissions from any interested individuals or groups in the wider community and the possibility of appeals and objections.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of Democratic Support Manager titled “Representation Review 2018” dated 5/03/2018 be received.

B) That the Rural Community Board comment on the proposals as presented.

Attachments:

Representation Review Timeline

CG-05-14-17-5

File Ref: 18/36

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 5 March 2018

FROM: Transportation Operations Manager

Adam Jackson

SUBJECT: Hastings District Rural Community Board Report - Rural Transportation Programme Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update The Rural Community Board with the Rural Transportation Programmed Project Status and Activities Report.

1.2 This issue arises from the Board’s desire to receive regular updates on progress with the works programme and other activities.

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 This report concludes by recommending that the report be received.

2.0 2017/18 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMME PROJECT STATUS and ACTIVITY REPORT

2.1 2017/2018 Rural AWPT Programme current status is attached – Attachment 1

2.2 Upcoming Activity – Attachment 2

2.3 Photographs of current projects – Attachment 3

3.0 OTHER UPDATES

3.1 Corridor Management Plan (Middle Road) - A corridor study is currently underway, looking at current and future transport behaviours along Middle Road, and to indicate where conflicts between various transport modes occur. Taking direction from a variety of standards and policy documents, the study will highlight a number of high level recommendations for future capital expenditure along the corridor. The Corridor study is explicit in recognising that transport problems need to be addressed on a holistic basis, recognising the needs of an entire corridor and network rather than the needs of individual locations, and the analysis undertaken, consider the transportation needs of the corridor on this basis. The geographical scope of the study is limited to nearly 27km long section of Middle Road from the Porter Drive intersection to Te Aute Trust Road intersection, which stretches along Havelock North CBD, residential and rural areas to the south. A quick update on the study, mainly highlighting on key identified transport problems and (draft) recommendations will be presented to the Board on 5^th March meeting

3.2 Bridge restrictions were put in place on 1st December. Since then attention have gone to three bridges in particular for varying reasons described below:

· Red Bridge – Increased logging activity in the area is putting pressure on the Tuki Tuki Road (alternative route) users.

There is a self-imposed engine braking restriction implemented by the truck drivers on Tuki Tuki Road during the early hour operations.

The pull off bay at Red bridge have been utilised well with minor issues.

· Brookfields Bridge– The expressway/Pakowhai Road roundabout project is enabling traffic to user alternative routes. Hence the traffic at Brookfield Bridge is experiencing traffic delay issues.

· Farndon Overhead bridge – This has been used as a detour route when there are issues at Clive. Some pip fruit growers and trucking companies are experiencing inefficiencies due to the bridge restriction.

3.3 Furthermore, Police enforcement teams are being vigilant and is in communications with the staff and reporting any infringements.

3.4 A report on Red Bridge’s investigation is underway and Willowford Bridge’s investigation is complete with positive results. Bridges that pass investigations will be derestricted as the results are finalised.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Transportation Operations Manager titled “Hastings District Rural Community Board Report - Rural Transportation Programme Update” dated 5/03/2018 be received.

Attachments:

1	2017-18 Rural AWPT Programme current status	CG-14-26-00048
2	Rural Community Board Upcoming Activity	CG-14-26-00049
3	Rural Community Board photographs of current projects	CG-14-26-00050

File Ref: 18/54

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 5 March 2018

FROM: Community Safety Manager

John Payne

SUBJECT: Dog Control Fees

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek feedback from the Board on the

proposed dog control fees formula used to calculate the fees to apply from 1 July 2018

1.2 Fees are set by resolution for the registration and control of dogs under the

Dog Control Act 1996. Council is required to publically notify the fees at least once during the month preceding the commencement of the new registration year (June)

1.3 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 This report concludes by recommending no change to the current dog registration fees formula in order to maintain fees at a reasonable level.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Dog Control fees are set under Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by Council resolution, there being no requirement for the proposed fees to pass through a public consultation process. However, the fees need to be set in advance of the expiry of the registration year (June 30^th) to give dog owners sufficient time to apply for registration for the coming year.

2.2 In practise, this means that the dog registration fee setting process has to be completed ahead of the annual Plan process.

2.3 Council currently uses a fee structure based on dog control requirements at 74% private and 26% public benefit.

2.4 The registration fees for dogs under the Selected Owner Policy (SOP), which recognises responsible dog ownership, and fees for Rural dogs, are set at lower levels than the fees for urban dog owners not under the SOP scheme.

2.5 All known dog owners contribute through their fees to a fair share of the cost of operating the dog control service. Fine recoveries, application fees and impound fees help to offset the remaining costs reflecting the exacerbator component.

2.6 Registered dogs found at large are returned to their owners without costs for first time offenders. Whilst this is considered good customer service there has been a reduction in impound fees recovered.

2.7 Unclaimed dogs with suitable temperaments and low potential risk are adopted out. Dogs are neutered, micro-chipped, vet checked, registered and dewormed prior to release. The adoption fee $250 does not fully meet costs and the registration income cross subsidises this activity.

2.8 Should any dog fail to be registered by 31 July, a penalty of an additional 50% of the registration fee is applied. Dog Owners keeping an unregistered dog after the 1^st of August are issued with an infringement notice in addition to the penalty registration fee. Infringement notices may be waived in accordance with operational procedures or under exceptional circumstances in any particular case.

2.9 There remains an increased focus on dangerous, menacing, roaming and unregistered dogs.

2.10 There is a target to achieve 100% registration compliance of known dogs. There is a target to achieve 75% release rate of impounded dogs (claimed by the owner, returned home and adopted out)

2.11 Animal Control Officers will be making site visits across the district to determine why known dogs haven’t been re-registered

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 There are about 13,000 dogs on the Council database.

3.2 There are currently 4 categories of dog registration fee:

· Urban

· Urban Selected Owner Policy (SOP)

· Rural

· Special

The “special” class covers disability assist and special purpose dogs. Disability assist dogs are registered to Auckland Council by the parent charity (for example Guide dogs), while special purpose dogs (which includes Police dogs and drug dogs) are registered with this Council as Special dogs.

3.3 The table below presents the proportion of those dogs classed as Urban,

Rural, Selected Owner and Special:

Table 1.

Urban	Rural	SOP	Special	Total
3,446	6,464	3,043	16	12,969
27%	50%	23%	0.1%

3.4 The current fees:

Table 2.

	Current Fees
	On/Before 31 July	On/After 1 August
Urban	$110.00	$165.00
SOP	$73.50	$110.00
Rural	$48.00	$72.00

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option A is to recommend no change to the fees calculation formula.

4.2 Option B is for the Rural Community Board to recommend a different fee calculation formula.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The setting of Dog Control fees is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance Policy. It is a statutory process that needs to be undertaken.

5.2 There is no requirement to consult on the setting of dog control fees. There is a requirement to publically notify the fees at least one month prior to the start of the registration year.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option A: - Status quo

Fee Calculation Method

6.2 The methodology that was used to calculate the fees was subjected to a

detailed review in 2015 and is still considered appropriate as it reflects the current operations and costs structure. The review included a line by line allocation of costs against the registration or enforcement component.

6.3 Officers concluded that the registration component reflects 46% of the costs with the balance 54% relating to Enforcement.

6.4 Of the registration component 10% was considered public good and the remaining 90% should be contributed to equally by all registered dog owners (the base fee)

6.5 Of the enforcement component a public good of 40% was considered and the remaining 60% should be contributed to by the percentages that have been established in the formula, reflecting the activity cost relative to the dog registration category.

Rural/Working Dogs 5%

SOP Dogs 20%

Non-SOP Urban Dogs 75%

6.6 The fundamental elements of the dog control activity:

A) Registration of each dog each year, maintenance of the register and

public education within schools, community groups and commercial organisations.

B) Enforcement, which includes pursuing non-registration when it occurs,

dog pound operations, dealing with roaming, Dangerous and Menacing dogs, complaint investigations, general ranging duties, and public education within schools, community groups and commercial organisations.

6.7 Option B

Recommending a different fee calculation formula resulting in lower rural dog registration fees will result in higher fees in other categories. This may cause dissatisfaction and would also likely lead to more non-compliance.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option A is the preferred option as it is believed this option truly reflects where the costs lie.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Community Safety Manager titled “Dog Control Fees” dated 5/03/2018 be received.

B) That the Rural Community Board support the existing fee calculation model OR

C) That the Rural Community Board suggests the following amendment to the current fee calculation model…….

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

i) Ensuring that fees and charges reflect the costs of providing a dog control programme that is resourced at a level that meets compliance and enforcement obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 and Councils Dog Control Bylaw.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference