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 (6 members)

Chair (elected by the Board)

Deputy Chair (elected by the Board

4 Elected Community Board Members

1 Mohaka Ward Councillor

1 Kahuranaki Ward Councillor

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.

File Ref: 19/440

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 27 May 2019

FROM: Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT: Annual Plan Submissions 2019/20

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Board on submissions received to the 2019/20 Annual Plan and to highlight any particular matters of relevance raised in respect of the rural community.

1.2 A number of members of the community will be addressing the Board in respect of their submission.

1.3 This issue arises from the special consultative process undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to enable public participation in the decision making processes of Council.

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

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Draft Annual Plan was released for public consultation on 6 April 2019 with submissions closing on 12 May 2019. The Council has received 34 submissions to the draft plan. The lower level of submission response was expected, given that the Council was not consulting on any new proposals. The Annual Plan contains the Year Two 2018/28 Long Term Plan work programme, which is planned to be delivered without any consequential change.

2.2 The submissions received cover a range of issues, and predominantly include requests for funding support for new initiatives.

2.3 The Draft Annual Plan contained a proposed general rates increase for the rural area of 2.8% for the 2019/20 financial year.

2.4 The submission issues that have a rural focus (or have an impact in the rural area) can be summarised as follows:

§ Waimarama Hall Maintenance (submission 16 - Tony Lane)

§ Waipuka 2E litter issues (submission 18 – Kiri Goodspeed)

§ Te Pohue and surrounds Community Plan (submission 20 – Kiri Goodspeed)

§ Bayview/Whirinaki cycleway (submission 22 – Vicki Butterworth)

§ Esk river care group – (submission 25 – Dan Bergoff-Howes)

§ Rating system – (submission 27 – Jim Galloway)

§ Consultants/Post RMA work evaluation – (submission 30 – John Roil)

2.5 The following section provides some further supporting officer commentary where appropriate for the submission topics listed above.

Waimarama Hall Maintenance (submission 16)

The submitter outlines a range of Waimarama Hall maintenance items requiring attention.

Officers are currently working through the list of items with the view of developing a staged potential funding plan to address the priority issues. The funding plan may consist of a combination of rural halls funding, community plan funds, some operational budget allocation, external funding applications and local community input.

In recent years the use of the hall by the local community has dropped off. A new group of volunteers has been formed and the community impetus of earlier years is returning. This enthusiasm is the backbone of rural halls and officers are keen to support this local energy.

The request is for multiple actions totalling circa $100,000 with local community support totalling circa $15,000. These works may be able to be reasonably carried out over three to four years.

As part of an overall staged funding plan as outlined above, Officers support the earmarking of $10,000 from the existing parks new works budget to assist the hall committee in undertaking priority 1 tasks in 2019/20.

Indiscriminate littering – Waipuka 2E (submission 18)

The submitter outlines concerns regarding littering at Waipuka 2E and suggests a waste collection solution.

Parks staff have been in discussion with land owners adjoining the Tiakitai Road coastal reserves. Officers are in support of the request to install litter receptacles to try to improve the state of the reserves and nearby sites. Officers believe the best option is to install a double litter bin which allows for general litter and recyclables.

The initial cost to supply and install the double bin can be appropriately funded from the Waimarama Reserves Management Plan LTP allocation. However the annual cost of servicing the bins is $950pa and will need to be allocated in the maintenance budgets for the 19/20 Annual Plan and in subsequent years.

The request to install a 40 foot recycling bin is not supported by officers. There are a number of reasons why this is not supported including;

· The containers are only for recycling and not general waste and litter;

· The Waimarama community already has a recycling facility at the Domain and this would be an unnecessary duplication and cost;

· A recycling container in this isolated location is likely to attract unwanted rubbish and litter as some members of the community will take the opportunity to dump non-recyclable goods in or near the container. This will likely lead to making the small Tiakatai reserves more untidy;

· The initial installation of a double bin should suffice as an interim measure however as a partnership with local hapu develops, other options for controlling litter can be brought back to Council.

Te Pohue Community Plan (submission 20)

The submitter outlines a request for the development of a community plan for the Te Pohue, Te Haroto, Tarawera area within the Mohaka ward.

Officers support the development of a Te Pohue Community Plan, which can be accommodated within the budget and work plan for 2019/20.

Bayview to Whirinaki Cycleway extension (submission 22)

The submitter outlines a proposal and funding request for $100,000 toward the Bayview to Whirinaki cycleway.

Officers support the proposed Bay View to Whirinaki Cycleway Extension. This would be a popular addition to the Hawke’s Bay trails and complete an iconic off-road route from Whirinaki all the way to Clifton, connecting communities as it does so. It would also link a major employer and a large recreational facility with the urban areas of Hawke’s Bay.

This project utilises a mix of local roadsides, state highway, railway land and beachfront. It spans both Napier and Hastings and would create a new walking and cycling bridge between the two. 50% of funding has been approved by MBIE with roughly 10% being requested from each of the three councils and 20% from Pan Pac.

The project is not currently funded in the LTP.

Esk River Care Group (submission 25)

The submitter requests start-up funding for the Esk River Care Group.

The HDC has begun with the initial steps of working alongside the Esk River Care Group as they look to promote a community driven plan to restore portions of the Esk River catchment. This is a bold and worthwhile plan and that involves many landowners including Council. Officers are supportive of this group and suggest an allocation of $10,000 seed funding be considered by Council. This can be used to set up their trust structure, undertake survey work in partnership with adjoining land owners or to initially undertake an approved planting plan on Council or public reserves.

Rates (submission 27)

The submitter outlines a number of matters in respect of the rating system, with particular regard to the use of uniform charges.

Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC):

Council is able to recover up to 30% of its rates revenue through uniform and targeted rates (excluding Water & Sewage Disposal) that are set on a uniform basis. Historically this has sat around the 25% mark.

One of the drivers for the reduction from 24% to 23% is the increase in ‘non uniform’ rates such as Water and Wastewater. As a result of significant increases in these activities, the uniform based charges now represent a smaller % of overall rates.

Another driver has been the reallocation of communication costs within the Leadership function. These are now recovered in the same way as other Marketing Costs which are funded through a combination of General Rates / Community Resource Management Rate ( 35% of these costs are funded on a uniform basis).

It is predicted that this trend will continue over the lifetime of the LTP with the UAGC % reducing to approximately 22% by 2028.

Council could consider increasing the level of its uniform charges by shifting costs from the general rate to the UAGC or Community Resource and Management Rate. It should be mindful that the higher level of uniform charges would shift the incidence of rates from high land value / high differential properties to other rating groups, particularly low land value properties. This is always a balance the Council needs to manage.

The costs associated with Administration Buildings in particular are currently recovered from General Rates. They are allocated 80% to Rating Area One / 20% to Rating Area Two. Of the $345,534, $69,107 is recovered across Rating Area Two properties, set differentially on a land value basis.

Council could determine that the benefit of these particular costs are equal and move the costs from General Rates to the UAGC basket of costs, however in this instance the impact on most Rural properties would be minor. For example: whilst a $500,000 land value Farm would see a reduction in their General Rates of $11.50, they would see a corresponding increase in their UAGC of $12.

General Rate:

Council undertook a thorough review of its differentials in 2012 looking at the levels of service each differential group broadly receives from those activities funded through General Rates. Due to the financial impacts of the changes recommended, council agreed to implement the changes in differentials over an 8 year period. These changes were paused in (Year 5) due to the concerns that the revaluation may have skewed the intended outcomes.

Whilst the differential changes has marginally shifted the incidence of rates from Residential properties (<1ha) to Lifestyle / Horticulture / Farming properties (>1ha), a major causation of recent higher than average rate increases for Farming properties was the 2016 revaluation where Lifestyle / Horticulture / Farming land values increased at a greater rate than other properties within RA2.

Recommendation

It is the Council practice to periodically review the equity and fairness of rates and Officers recommend that a review of the analysis that underpins the current system be undertaken and reported back to the Council’s Rating Review Working Party. It is timely to do this as the analysis will also consider any 2018 revaluation impacts. The appropriate level of uniform charging moving forward can then be considered in that context.

Use of consultants and post evaluation of work (submission 30)

The submitter questions the council’s use of consultants and calls for a formal post evaluation of work.

In a general sense resource consents have become more complex over time. This reflects best practice and the outcome of Environment Court decisions which naturally means that consenting has also become more complex. Council does not automatically require peer reviews in either building consent or resource consent applications. The release in late 2017 of revised liquefaction hazard maps and the subsequent implementation by Council of its guidelines around geotechnical investigations have led to use of peer reviewers on land investigation matters mainly related to subdivision.

Council does use local as well as out of the district RMA specialists and geotechnical engineering reviewers. We have found often that there are conflicts in the use of local RMA specialists and geotechnical engineers due to their engagement and roles undertaken with local private sector clients who lodge with HDC. Council has undertaken formal post evaluation RMA assessments where these are of substantial public interest such as the Te Mata Track resource consent. This has resulted in an improvement in the recognition of cultural values in significant landscape areas.

Council management does support its staff to make the appropriate judgements on both building consents and resource consent applications. We accept that some parties may not see it this way however it is considered overall that the consenting officers do achieve a good balance between meeting requirements of the Building Act and Resource Management Act, achieving the statutory processing timeframes and seeking appropriate advice where complexity dictates.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Any comments the Rural Community Board wishes to make in respect of the submissions will be documented at the meeting of the Board and tabled for Council consideration at its meeting commencing on Tuesday, 4 June 2019.

3.2 It has been the practice of the Board to provide advice to Council as to the proposed upper rates increase limit when assessing new proposals for funding via the submission deliberation process.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategy Manager titled “Annual Plan Submissions 2019/20” dated 27/05/2019 be received.

Attachments:

1	Submission No. 16 - Tony Lane (Waimarama Hall Committee)	CP-01-23-1-19-16
2	Submission No. 18 - Keri Goodspeed (Recycling Waimarama)	CP-01-23-1-19-18
3	Submission No. 20 - Kiri Goodspeed (Community Plans)	CP-01-23-1-19-20
4	Submission No. 22 - Vicki Butterworth (Hawkes Bay Regional Council)	CP-01-23-1-19-22
5	Submission No. 25 - Dan Bergoff-Howes	CP-01-23-1-19-25
6	Submission No. 27 - Jim Galloway (Federated Farmers)	CP-01-23-1-19-27
7	Submission No. 30 - John Roil	CP-01-23-1-19-30

File Ref: 19/517

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 27 May 2019

FROM: Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT: Te Pohue Community Water Supply Request

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the future maintenance and management of Te Pohue community drinking water supply.

1.2 This proposal arises from a request by the community to return the management and maintenance of the existing community water supply to Council.

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide safe and effective services to the community.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that Council take back the maintenance and management of the Te Pohue water supply and recommend to Council that funding provision is included to complete initial upgrades to meet drinking water requirements.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The small community supply at Te Pohue services approximately 20 properties and the Te Pohue School.

2.2 The water supply was largely constructed in 1975 by the then Hawkes Bay County Council (HBCC). This work changed the water source from the small lake at Te Pohue to a spring located on a private farm in the general vicinity. Funds were levied from the community by the HBCC to complete the works.

2.3 Easements were established across this farm, and elsewhere in the system where the pipe crosses private land. These easements were set and remain in the name of the HBCC (which in practice transferred to Hastings District Council (Council) following amalgamation of councils in 1989.

2.4 In 1982 Te Pohue community petitioned the HBCC to take over the maintenance and management of the Te Pohue water supply. This request was accepted by the HBCC and the local community took over the responsibilities to maintain and manage the supply.

2.5 Small adjustments to sections of the easements were approved by council officers in 1993 following a request of a landowner to enable private building works.

2.6 The supply currently has a committee that oversees the management and operation of the water supply including collection of funds from those serviced from the supply. This committee is not a legal entity.

2.7 The supply is currently classified on the Ministry of Health Register of drinking water supplies as a neighbourhood supply with a stated population of 60.

2.8 The system currently has no treatment, with the raw spring water feed into the system, and down to the community through 50mm galvanised pipes (some which have PE pipe installed as liners following leaks), into 2 reservoirs (one relatively new plastic tank, and one old concrete tank in need of renewal, and out to surrounding properties.

2.9 Council documents, such as the earlier small communities sanitary service assessments (completed for Council by OPUS in approx. 2005) had noted the supply as a private supply with no council involvement.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 During 2018 a periodic water sample test returned a positive result for E. coli, this event has triggered a series of events and reviews that the community has been working through.

3.2 The school has installed a UV unit to enable it to provide drinking water to the students and staff, this was done so they could cease the need to provide bottled water. It is understood by officers that specific treatment and storage for the school had been programmed by the Ministry for Education but the school was still waiting for this work to be completed.

3.3 The water supply committee has had discussions with the local Drinking Water Assessor (DWA), at this discussion the DWA noted to them the requirements and potential liabilities in the Health Act for non-compliance. Officers do not believe the DWAs or water supply committee have performed a risk assessment of the supply. The potential liability issue triggered further concerns by the various parties involved in the supply, namely the property owner where the spring is located, the private resident who is consent holder for the water take, and the volunteer committee overseeing the management of the water supply.

3.4 The committee is aware that the requirements and expectation on what is required in providing a water supply to a community had tightened and that future changes were likely to increase these requirements further.

3.5 Given these issues the community approached Council officers as they considered potential pathways forward, including the option to transfer back the maintenance and management of the supply. These discussions culminated in a public meeting that Cr Kerr and Mr Thew (Group Manager Asset Management) attended in Te Pohue on 27th March 2019. At the meeting the situation and potential options were discussed. In these it was emphasised that it was a community decision that needed to be taken, and then council would consider the community request.

3.6 The basic essence of the options discussed with the community were:

3.6.1 Self-service supply, this could involve rainwater tanks, or the use of the current supply as a raw water supply (which would require the ongoing management of the existing supply) and each property needing to demonstrate compliance with the building act requirement of providing a potable water supply - councils regulatory team would need to be provided information to support this for each property.

3.6.2 The community upgrade the current system to make and keep it compliant to current (and future) legislative requirements. The committee had done some investigation of potential costs for this (up to $62k one off costs, and estimated $700-$800annual costs). From initial assessments officers note that the actual costs are likely higher, particularly for other upgrades/renewals and if the DWA require more sophisticated treatment control and monitoring systems.

3.6.3 That the community request that council take back over the maintenance and management of the water supply. The harmonised water rate was discussed as was the fact that council would need add chlorine, along with raw water treatment (likely Filters and UV) to the supply to provide protection from the real risks in the reticulation. They were advised if they don’t want chlorine then do not ask for council water supply involvement.

3.7 At the meeting it was noted that the community would do a vote on the options they wanted to be considered. The outcome of that vote was 20 vs 2 in favour of requesting council to take back the maintenance and management of the supply, with properties then charged annually as per the water targeted rate. A submission (attached) from the community has been received from the community in this regard.

3.8 Initial site inspections by officers has occurred to get a very basic understanding of the current system, collation of further information is currently underway.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1: Not accept the request to take back the maintenance and management of the supply

4.2 Option 2: Accept the community request to take back the maintenance and management of the supply

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 This decision relates to a submission from an affected community. The objective of the communities request aligns with the Council priority area of safe drinking water.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 1 would leave the community in its current situation, where the water committee would have to consider its role and the future options. To continue it will need assistance from various entities to deliver safe and compliant drinking water to the community. If it did not continue then the properties served in community would need to make changes to individually provide their own water needs. The community could also consider its options given the question over actual scheme ownership, with the former HBCC decision only mentioning transfer of maintenance and management, and the easements remaining in favour of HBCC.

6.2 Option 2 would require council to make funding allowances both operationally and to capital budgets to plan, operate, and make capital renewals and enhancements (e.g. inlet improvements, reservoir, treatment plant, backflow, changes to pipework, etc.) to the system.

6.3 Officers have not completed a detail assessment to confidently assess the potential costs at this stage. Immediate improvements to provide safer water would be in the range of $75k - $100k, however to meet the full requirements of the Drinking Water Standards, and to align with the adopted approach for Councils supplies then substantially more investment would be required. For context the cost of full treatment and control system upgrades across the other rural supplies is in the order of $1M per site, with variations across the small supplies depending on specific needs. The level of service provisions, now and into the future will also need assessment (i.e. firefighting provision, on demand vs top up, etc)

6.4 If the committee and Council decide to accept the submission then officers will endeavour to provide a better indication of costs and realistic delivery timeframes prior to the final adoption of the Annual Plan. The aforementioned costs are provided as a guide to assist with deliberations.

6.5 In terms of the potential impact on the targeted water rate the following provides a guide:

· $100k of operational spend results in an increase in the order of $4.00 per property per year, and

· $1M of capital spend has an effect of approximately $3.20 per property per year.

6.6 There would be no immediate impact on the water targeted rate for the 2019/20 financial year as set out within the draft Annual Plan. The forecasted projection of the water targeted rate in the Council’s Long Term Plan through to 2027/28 will however need to be adjusted. This adjustment can also consider how to spread the impact of any increase over time, considering when the council has more budget capacity than it does currently. Future adjustments would also consider other project costs over the term of the Long Term Plan.

6.7 Liability for the supply’s compliance would shift to Council so an agreed plan would need to be compiled alongside health officials. This work would need to be prioritised alongside the other water priorities.

6.8 The consideration of precedent also should be considered, in that what is councils approach if, or more likely when, other community supplies make similar requests. One special consideration for this supply is that the supply was originally built and operated by council (via HBCC), Council has a role given the easement ownership, and the earlier decision was specific to maintenance and management, with ownership not specifically noted.

6.9 Council will need to consider its policy position and approach to future applications for assistance. This Policy development will need to consider, once available, the new regulatory requirements for drinking water and in particular consider the obligations on territorial authorities and water suppliers. Ideally the policy could be progressed via regional collaboration, with the joint drinking water governance committee supported by the joint working group providing the vehicle to progress this.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 2, that Council take back the maintenance and management of the Te Pohue water supply and provide additional funding into the 2019/20 annual plan to enable upgrades.

7.2 The first steps would need to include:

· Collection asset / pipe information and condition assessment

· Risk assessment and source protection

· Treatment options, and staging

· Transfer of consent and confirm easement arrangements (for access, and reservoirs)

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A. That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Te Pohue Community Water Supply Request” dated 27/05/2019 be received.

B. That the Hastings District Rural Community Board endorse the request from the Te Pohue Water Committee for Council to take back the maintenance and management of the supply.

C. That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommend to Council to include additional funding into the 2019/20 Annual plan to enable improvements to the supply.

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 to provide safe drinking water in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

· Providing appropriate investment and management oversight to meet current and future requirements of a safe drinking water supply.

Attachments:

Supply Submission for Te Pohue Water Supply Management Submission - Kiri Goodspeed

WAT-20-10-19-1458

File Ref: 19/443

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 27 May 2019

FROM: Transportation Operations Manager

Adam Jackson

SUBJECT: Rural Transportation Activities Report

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 2018/19 RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITES REPORT

3.0 Mohaka River – Pakaututu Protection Works

3.1 During the September 2018 storm event, the Mohaka River eroded a large portion of Pakaututu Road away. A diversion has been in place since.

3.2 Beca consultants have undertaken a survey and design of a permanent repair to this area. A copy of the design drawings is found in Attachment 1.

3.3 The estimate to build this repair is $2.1m and consists of building 9,000m3 of groynes. There is additional subsidy available for this activity from NZTA and the local share can be funded from the emergency reserve fund. The table below shows the effect of this work on the Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve.

Activity	Total Cost	Local Share	Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve Balance
Balance as at September 2018			$1,817,871
September Event and June 2018 carry over costs	$2,175,000	$633,000	$1,184,871.00
Pakaututu, Mohaka River Groynes	$1,950,000*	$426,000	$758,871.00

*Cost excludes $150,000 diversion allocation within original September event costings

3.4 The work is extensive and cannot be undertaken during fish spawning (July-September).

3.5 Council officers are working with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to undertake preliminary works in June that may lessen the risk on the diversion road over the winter period.

3.6 A peer review of the design will also be undertaken to ensure the preferred option is the most cost effective for the community prior to initiating any procurement process. The outcome of this peer review will be presented to the Rural Community Board.

4.0 RISK REGISTER

4.1 During Q1 of 2019, Council officers and Fulton Hogan developed a risk register for CON2017086 – Rural Pavement and Corridor Management Contract.

4.2 The risk register was created using Council’s risk assessment criteria and scoring/weighting system.

4.3 This risk register is reviewed at monthly meetings, with new risks added as and when they arise. The register is a live document and provides Council assurance that the high level risks on this Contract are understood and treatments are in place to mitigate their effects.

4.4 This register was endorsed by the Contract Management Team in April 2019. A copy of this register is found in Attachment 2.

5.0 BRIDGE UPDATE

5.1 The works on the bridge strengthening programme is ongoing. Avery’s (Ohurakura Road) bridge strengthening works is underway while Ohara (Big Hill Road) strengthening works is being procured. Riggirs (Maraetotara Road) bridge design is complete and will progress onto construction in the next financial year. Moeangiangi (Waikare Road), Berry (Berry Road), Mangatahi low level (Mangatahi Road) are under design.

5.2 Investigations for bridges on Ohurakura Road, Napier Road and Mutiny Roads for the High Productivity Motor Vehicle (HPMV) programme is also underway and we are ahead of schedule.

5.3 The “settlement” at Blacks Bridge approach on Taihape Road has been repaired.

5.4 Hastings District Council has applied for the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) to support local share of the bridge strengthening programme. Other Hawkes Bay Councils (Wairoa, Central Hawkes Bay) have proposed similar intentioned work to PGF, and the application is currently being worked through as a combined regional application. A Government announcement is expected in June.

5.5 Regardless of the timing of PGF, work is underway to prepare for the next 3 years of bridge strengthening work.

5.6 Turamoe No. 2 bridge at the end of Turamoe Road is currently undergoing design and a resource consent is being sought to implement construction.

6.0 MIDDLE ROAD CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1 Eynon Phillips will present the Draft Middle Road Corridor Management Plan for comment.

7.0 WORKS UPDATE

7.1 Attachment 3 provides an update of works across DRA2

7.2 Attachment 4 provides the Rural Community Board with a snapshot of activities undertaken between March 2019 and May 2019.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Transportation Operations Manager titled “Rural Transportation Activities Report” dated 27/05/2019 be received.

Attachments:

1	Design Drawings Pakaututu Road - Mohaka River	TR-8-19-9671
2	RCB May 2019 Report - Risk Register	TR-8-19-9658
3	Status Report	TR-8-19-9659
4	Photos May 2019	TR-8-19-9660

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference