Agenda of Council Meeting

TRIM File No. CG-14-1-01304

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

9.00am

A G E N D A

1. Prayer

2. Apologies & Leave of Absence

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.

3. Seal Register

4. 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 General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (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.

5. Confirmation of Minutes – There are no minutes to confirm.

6. Annual Plan Submissions 2019/20 5

7. Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 27 May 2019 9

8. Te Pohue Community Water Supply 19

9. Council Approval to Purchase Three New Reserves. 33

10. Request to Fund Minor Upgrade of Joll Road 43

11. Financial Quarterly Report for the nine months ended 31 March 2019 52

12. Recommendations from Inner City Living Variation 5 hearing on 25 March 2019 for endorsement by Council 65

13. Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes 75

14. Additional Business Items

15. Extraordinary Business Items

16. Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Items 17 and 18 77

17. Summary of Recommendations of the Strategic Planning and Partnerships Committee meeting held 16 May 2019 while the Public were Excluded

18. Waste Services Procurement Strategy

File Ref: 19/439

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT: Annual Plan Submissions 2019/20

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on submissions received to the Draft Annual Plan and to obtain a decision for incorporation into the final plan for Council adoption on 27 June 2019.

1.2 This issue arises from the legislative provisions within the Local Government Act 2002 requiring the Council to have an Annual Plan adopted by 30 June 2019.

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 fulfil the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in regard to consultation and decision making.

1.5 This report concludes by making a number of recommendations to enable the 2019/20 Annual Plan to be completed for final Council adoption on 27 June 2019.

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 support for new initiatives.

2.3 Attached to the agenda are two separate volumes containing the submissions (in submission order) along with the officer comments to those submissions (in submission order, Attachment 1).

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Draft Annual Plan contained two specific proposals for community feedback which are addressed below.

3.2 Formation of Council Controlled Organisation to establish the Hawke’s Bay Disaster Relief Trust – no submissions were received to this proposal and councillors are referred to recommendation C) below, which will enable the next steps to be taken.

3.3 Draft Development Contributions Policy - responses to comments raised in submissions are contained in the separate officer comments attachment.

3.4 Since the release of the Draft Annual Plan a number of items have been referred from Council Committees to the Annual Plan process for consideration. These matters are covered in the Attachments 2 and 3 to this report.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategy Manager titled “Annual Plan Submissions 2019/20” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That the written and verbal submissions and officer comments attached be received.

C) That the Council resolve to proceed with the formation of a Council Controlled Organisation for the formation of a Hawke’s Bay Disaster Relief Trust, subject to the agreement of the other Hawke’s Bay local authorities.

D) That the decisions and amendments made at this meeting be incorporated into the 2019/20 Annual Plan and 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy.

E) That officers forward replies to all submitters that thank them for their submissions, advise of any Council decisions in response to the submissions and offers explanation based on the officer comments as amended by the Council at this meeting.

F) That the issues raised in submissions that require further action by Council through the Committee structure be noted and brought forward by officers as appropriate.

G) That the Council resolves, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such a manner that the Hastings District Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate for the decisions made during the course of this meeting.

Attachments:

1	Officer Comments 2019/2020 Annual Plan	CP-01-02-19-122	Separate Doc
2	Matters Referred from Council/Committee meetings to Annual Plan	CP-01-23-1-19-39	Separate Doc
3	Raureka Reserve Management Plan Spreadsheet	CP-01-23-1-19-41	Separate Doc

Submission No. 1 - Lou Klinkhamer	CP-01-23-1-19-1	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 2 - Don Ryder	CP-01-23-1-19-2	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 3 - Nicola Heads	CP-01-23-1-19-3	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 4 - David Mee (SMC Events) Horse of the Year Show	CP-01-23-1-19-4	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 5 - Rachel French Central City Upgrade	CP-01-23-1-19-5	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 6 - Ryan Fraser Road Noise Camberley	CP-01-23-1-19-6	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 7 - Cat Hancock Softball Hawkes Bay	CP-01-23-1-19-7	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 8 - Jock Mackintosh - Regional Sports Park Trust	CP-01-23-1-19-8	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 9 - Ron Wilkins (Grey Power) Bush Shelter & Public Toilet Russell St	CP-01-23-1-19-9	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 10 - John Roil (Development Contributions Policy)	CP-01-23-1-19-10	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 11 - John Roil (Wastewater) Infrastrcutrue	CP-01-23-1-19-11	Vol 1 of 2
Submission No. 12 - Mark Aspden (Sport Hawkes Bay)	CP-01-23-1-19-12	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 13 - Andrew Norris	CP-01-23-1-19-13	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 14 - Colin Hurst, Heretaunga Croquet Club	CP-01-23-1-19-14	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 15 - HB Mountain Bike Club	CP-01-23-1-19-15	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 16 - Tony Lane (Waimarama Hall Committee)	CP-01-23-1-19-16	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 17 - Nick Richards	CP-01-23-1-19-17	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 18 - Kiri Goodspeed (Littering at Waimarama)	CP-01-23-1-19-18	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 19 - Charles Daugherty (HB Bodiversity Foundation)	CP-01-23-1-19-19	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 20 - Kiri Goodspeed (Community Plans)	CP-01-23-1-19-20	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 21 - Jane Mackersey (Havelock North Business Association)	CP-01-23-1-19-21	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 22 - Vicki Butterworth (Hawke's Bay Regional Council)	CP-01-23-1-19-22	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 23 - Teri Te Whaiti	CP-01-23-1-19-23	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 24 - Lizzie Langley	CP-01-23-1-19-24	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 25 - Dan Bergoff-Howes	CP-01-23-1-19-25	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 26 - John Buck (Cranford Hospice)	CP-01-23-1-19-26	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 27 - Jim Galloway (Federated Farmers)	CP-01-23-1-19-27	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 28 - No submission		Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 29 - Stephen Daysh	CP-01-23-1-19-29	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 30 - John Roil (Consultants, Evaluation)	CP-01-23-1-19-30	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 31 - Wi Huata (Nga Marae o Heretaunga)	CP-01-23-1-19-31	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 32 - Wi Huata (Bridge Pa Community Plan	CP-01-23-1-19-32	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 33 - No submission		Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 34 - No submission		Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 35 - Sharnita Raheke (Community Plan)	CP-01-23-1-19-35	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 36 - No submission		Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 37 - Keith Newman (WOW)	CP-01-23-1-19-37	Vol 2 of 2
Submission No. 38 - Landmarks Trust	CP-01-23-1-19-38	Vol 2 of 2

File Ref: 19/549

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT: Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 27 May 2019

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 28 May 2018 require ratification by Council.

1.2 The relevant Hastings District Rural Community Board recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

A) That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 27 May 2019” be received.

B) The following recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held 28 May 2018 be ratified:

“4. ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSIONS 2019/2020

A) That the report of the Strategy Manager titled “Annual Plan Submissions 2019/2020” dated 27 May 2019 be received.

B) That the officer comments (Attachment 1) on the submissions be received and endorsed.

C) That the following recommendations be forwarded to Council:

· Submission 16 - Tony Lane Waimarama Hall Maintenance That the Hastings District Rural Community Board supports the funding strategy outlined by officers for the Waimarama Hall.

· Submission 18 – Kiri Goodspeed Waipuka 2E That the Hastings District Rural Community Board supports the installation of a double litter bin in Waimarama as outlined by officers.

· Submission 20 – Kiri Goodspeed - Te Pohue and surrounds Community Plan That the Hastings District Rural Community Board support the development of a Te Pohue (wider corridor) Community Plan.

· Submission 22 – Vicki Butterworth, Bayview/Whirinaki cycleway That the Hastings District Rural Community Board support the proposed Bay View to Whirinaki Cycleway Extension.

· Submission 25 – Dan Bergoff-Howes - Esk River Care Group That the Hastings District Rural Community Board supports the allocation of seed funding to the Esk River Care Group.

· That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommend to Council that following the 2019 triennium elections a subcommittee of Councillors be created to bring together Council effort in the biodiversity area.

· Submission 27 – Jim Galloway - Rating System That the Hastings District Rural Community Board support ongoing review of the rating system by the Rating Review Working Party.

· Submission 30 – John Roil) Consultants/Post RMA Work Evaluation That Hastings District Rural Community Board endorses continuous improvement.

C) That the following submissions on rural matters be received:

*Tony Lane (16)*	*Dan Bergoff-Howes (25)*
*Keri Goodspeed (18 and 20)*	*Jim Galloway (27)*

Vicki Butterworth (22)

John Roil (30)

D) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommend to Council a rate increase of no more than 3% for District Rating Area 2 for the 2019/20 financial year.

5. TE POHUE COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY REQUEST

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:

Hastings District Rural Community Board Officer Comments to Submissions - 27 May 2017

19/440

File Ref: 19/405

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT: Te Pohue Community Water Supply

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.

1.4 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 that funding provision is included in the 2019/20 annual plan 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 the farm, and elsewhere in the system when the water 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 raw spring water collected and piped directly to the community through 50mm galvanised pipes (some which have PE pipe installed as liners following leaks). The system includes 2 reservoirs, one relatively new plastic tank, and one old concrete tank in need of renewal. Limited firefighting provision would exist.

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 expectations of 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. The building 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 water rate was discussed as was the fact that council would need to 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 to both operations and 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 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.

6.10 The Rural Community Board heard this item at their meeting on the 27 May 2019 and endorsed the recommendation.

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.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Te Pohue Community Water Supply” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That the Council support the request from the Te Pohue Water Committee for Council to take back the maintenance and management of the supply.

C) The Council includes additional capital funding of up to $1m and $50,000 of operational funding into the 2019/20 Annual plan drinking water budgets to enable improvements to the supply.

i) 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: 19/524

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT: Council Approval to Purchase Three New Reserves.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the proposed purchase of three new open space reserves.

1.2 This request arises from the need for Council to approve all land purchases.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of community infrastructure for recreational arts and cultural opportunity.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the Council adopt Options 1 and 2 and the Chief Executive be delegated authority to enter into sale and purchase agreements for the three reserves.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Hastings District Plan and subsequent Long Term Plans, identified the need and funding streams for parks and reserves in the Lyndhurst and Northwood urban development areas. Officers have worked with the developers on the location of these parks and now that the subdivisions are almost complete, it is time to approve their purchase.

2.2 In 2015, Council was approached by The Property Group acting for NZ Railways asking if Council was interested in the purchase of a small parcel of surplus land at Eskdale. The land has historical significance as it contains the base of the memorial that recognised significant conflict in the area in 1860.

2.3 While the initial discussions were positive, the offer to Council was held back while the Crown undertook its own necessary consultations with potentially affected parties. The offer is now back with Council for consideration.

2.4 Under current policy and delegations, the approval for any sale or purchase of land lies with full Council. Hence this report which now seeks Council’s approval to purchase three reserves.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Lyndhurst Reserve

The approximate size of the major reserve identified for the Lyndhurst area was identified in the Lyndhurst Structure Plan. Officers have worked with the developers to obtain an optimum location, with a good shape factor that will allow for usable open space and for the installation of a local playground. The 4525m2 site is located on Matariki Avenue and has a purchase value of $580,000 excl gst. (Attachment 1). The subdivision that creates this reserve is now complete and the final act is to pass ownership of this land to Council, as per the requirements of the subdivision consent. Council approval is needed to complete the purchase and transfer of titles.

3.2 Northwood Reserve

The location of a last reserve for the Northwood subdivision area was not prescribed by a structure plan but has been provided for in District Plan provisions. In this instance, officers have worked with the developers to get a 1281m2 site with good open frontage and aspect. The site is located on Lockheed Street and has a purchase value of $385,000. (Attachment 2) The subdivision that creates this reserve is now complete and the final act is to pass ownership of this land to Council, as per the requirements of the subdivision consent. Council approval is required to complete the purchase and title transfer.

3.3 Eskdale Reserve

3.4 The block of land offered by NZ Railways in Eskdale is an irregular piece of land located between SH5, Shaw Road and the Railway line. The site covers approximately 4900m2. It is an irregular shaped piece of land that is surplus to railway requirements and has a purchase value of $28,000. (Attachment 3) Its main asset to the community is its historical value. This proposal is not a prescribed acquisition as noted in the two other reserve purchases so Council has to consider the value of the reserve in terms of the community values the land offers and the purchase price, and decide accordingly.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 For ease of assessment and decision making, officers suggest the options available to Council best considered in two distinct groups. This is because there are distinct differences between the purchasing options in in the Hastings urban areas, as opposed to the more clear cut proposition at Eskdale.

4.2 Option 1 – Approve the purchase of the two Hastings City reserves

Option 1a - Do not approve the purchase of the two Hastings City reserves

Option 2 – Approve the purchase of the Eskdale reserve

Option 2b - Do not approve the purchase of the Eskdale Reserve

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 All three reserve offerings have been valued and the purchase price for the three reserves is as follows;

Reserve location	Valuation (excl gst)
Lyndhurst	$580,000
Northwood	$385,000
Eskdale	$ 28,000

5.2 The purchase of these reserves does not trigger any financial thresholds. The two Hastings urban reserves are specifically identified in the Long Term Plan and funded accordingly.

5.3 With the sale of the Waikauo rural reserve some years ago, funds were specifically set aside in order to fund rural area parks and reserves. This fund contains $26,000 and is an appropriate funding source should Council wish to purchase the Eskdale land.

5.4 While the reserves in themselves are not overly large or of “District” significance, they will be of significant recreational and historic benefit to the local communities once they are open to the public.

5.5 The decision to acquire reserves in the urban development areas and what goes on them is consulted upon at different times. The initial rezoning and planning phase involves public consultation and the communities’ aspirations are woven into the District Plan and any related structure plans. To this end Council can be confident that the location and costs are in line with community expectations. Planning on the new playground will also include public consultation.

5.6 The Eskdale purchase has been referred to the Rural Community Board who are in support. Their recommendations are included in Appendix 3. They strongly supported the vesting of the land as a Local Purpose Reserve – Historic, for the obvious heritage values the site holds.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 As discussed earlier, for ease of decision making the assessments are broken into two logical areas.

6.2 Hastings Urban Reserves

6.3 The two reserves are identified for acquisition, are sited in good locations, and there are sufficient funds available to purchase and develop them.

6.4 The funds required to purchase and develop are all collected via development contributions, at no additional cost to the ratepayer.

6.5 The location of the two proposed urban reserves has been negotiated between officers and the land owners. Both sites have good shape factors and an accessible open aspect that means they will offer good recreation opportunities.

6.6 Most importantly, the transfer of the two urban sites are conditions of Council approved resource consents. Council has required the land to be public reserves and to complete the subdivision process, Council needs to purchase the land.

6.7 The two sites have been valued by independent valuers. Officers have compared the land valuations put forward with other land sale data from recent sales in their respective localities. Officers are satisfied that the purchase prices offered are fair and reasonable.

6.8 By adopting Option 1, Council can be satisfied it will be meeting the requirements of the Hastings District Plan and the requirements of the subdivision consents that require the reserves to be acquired in the first case.

6.9 While Council might decline to purchase and adopt Option 1a, it may be;

· failing to provide recreational facilities for Lyndhurst and Northwood urban development areas

· failing to comply with its own the District Plan and resource consent requirements

· out of alignment with the development community who have worked with officers to create well-appointed residential areas in Hastings City.

6.10 As discussed above, the two reserves are funded via development contributions. If Council was to decline these purchases, it would be required to return the funds to all the contributing parties.

6.11 Eskdale Historic Reserve

6.12 The site covers nearly 5000m2 and is of an irregular shape due to existing nearby features including SH5, neighbouring dwellings, the railway line and Shaw Road.

6.13 The site importantly contains the base of the monument that was erected to commemorate the Petane Engagement of 1866. In 1916 the stone monumental obelisk was erected where it stood until 1992 when the needle was damaged in protest action. Successive Councils’ have continued to lease a small portion of monument site land on a small peppercorn rental.

6.14 Officers reported the initial offer to the Rural Community Board in December 2015. The Board was strongly in support of the acquisition of the land and recommended that it be held as a local purpose reserve for heritage purposes.

6.15 The land has been valued at $28,000. This relatively low purchase price reflects the site’s lack of utility due to District Plan and site specific constraints.

6.16 Some years ago the sale of the Waikaou Reserve, funds from the sale were put aside to help fund reserve enhancements in the rural area. If Council was of the mind to Adopt Option 2 and purchase the site as a local purpose reserve, there is $26,000 available in the reserve fund that could legitimately be used to largely fund this purchase. The parks budget can also commit the additional $2,000 to complete the transaction.

6.17 Purchasing this site has the benefit of holding control over the heritage item on site. In recent years there has been communications with interested parties, including local hapu, and there is a growing sentiment supporting the reinstallion the obelisk to the base, while using the site as a vehicle for telling a more balanced history of the cultural landscape. With the site wholly in Council ownership, officers and Council can commit to a shared planning and development process involving tangata whenua and all member s of the community. a more

6.18 Conversely, in adopting Option 2b, Council would walk away from the purchase of this site, and in doing so, a significant community building opportunity in our northern rural area would be lost.

6.19 Check Tangata Whenua

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 The preferred Options are Option 1 for the Hastings urban reserve purchases and Option 2 for the rural reserve purchase.

7.2 By adopting Option 1, Council will be purchasing two substantial new recreation reserves that it has provided for in various planning documents for around twenty years.

7.3 By deciding not to purchase the sites, our community will be denied local reserves and Council will be failing to meet its own conditions of consent. Officers recommend Council delegate authority to agree to purchase the two reserves as per the tendered valuations.

7.4 In adopting Option 2, Council will be purchasing a rural reserve that is supported by the local community primarily due to its heritage values.

7.5 The purchase price is relatively small and can be catered for out of existing budgets.

7.6 No specific plans have been drafted for the Eskdale reserve as these details will need to be discussed with the local community and importantly, local hapu. By acquiring the site, Council will confirming that the wishes of the local community are important and it will ensure that ownership stays in community hands.

7.7 Conversely, by adopting Option 2a, these community-building opportunities will be lost.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parks and Property Services Manager titled “Council Approval to Purchase Three New Reserves.” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That Council adopt Option 1 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive to enter into a sale and purchase agreements for reserves at Lockheed Street (Northwood )at a purchase price of $385,000 (excl gst), and Matariki Avenue (Lyndhurst) at a purchase price of $$580,000 (excl gst)

C) That Council adopt Option 2 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive to enter into a sale and purchase agreement for the purchase of a rural reserve at SH 5 Eskdale, at purchase price of $28,000 (excl gst)

Attachments:

1	Plan No. 1 - Lyndhurst Reserve	CG-14-1-01315
2	Plan 2 - Northwood Reserve	CG-14-1-01317
3	Plan 3 - Eskdale Railway Reserve	CG-14-1-01316

File Ref: 19/525

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT: Request to Fund Minor Upgrade of Joll Road

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on bringing forward funding to advance the proposed upgrade of a section of footpath at Joll Road.

1.2 This proposal arises from a request to upgrade a portion of footpath outside the new commercial development at 15 Joll Road.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of multi-functional urban centres

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that Council adopt Option 1 and agree to bring forward funds to carry out the minor street upgrade.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Council embarked on the progressive upgrade of the Havelock North town centre in 2006. At that time it adopted an individual urban design palette that reflects the natural feel of Havelock North and was able to be replicated as the town centre expanded.

2.2 While the original upgrade of Havelock North was a general rate funded project, a targeted rate was later introduced where the local area contributed to their local area upgrades. This upgrade programme was adopted by Council in February 2017. (Attachment 1)

2.3 Since that time the road and footpaths outside the redeveloped Village Exchange development have been undertaken as per the approved programme.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Over recent months, a substantial commercial development has been constructed on the eastern side of Joll Road. The developer has asked to work with Council on the planned upgrade of the pavement outside the building to ensure that the agreed paving and streetscape look is continued. It is hoped that the requested footpath improvements will be completed to coincide with the completion of the building.

3.2 This report seeks funds for Council to undertake the work.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are three options for Council to consider;

· Option 1 – approve the request footpath upgrade

· Option 2 - Decline the requested footpath upgrade

· Option 3 – Defer the requested footpath upgrade

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The requested upgrade is estimated to cost $30,000. At this quantum, it is within Council’s financial significance thresholds.

5.2 The upgrade of Joll Road was signalled and agreed to in the consultation process carried out in 2017. This consultation included sharing the draft programme with the Havelock North Business Association and it included obtaining their agreement to the more recently completed larger Te Aute – Havelock Road upgrade. As the plan is relatively fresh no additional consultation was deemed necessary.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 1 suggests Council should commence its upgrade of a small portion of Joll Road immediately to coincide with the opening of the new commercial premises that adjoins the street. (Attachment 2)

6.2 The funding of the Havelock North CBD upgrades is achieved via a targeted rate that gathers $100,000 per annum from properties within the specified area.

6.3 The upgrade of Joll Road is signalled in the works programme to occur in 2025/26. The fund went into deficit in order to fund the Village Exchange development on Te Aute and Havelock Roads. Currently insufficient funds are set aside to pay for this upgrade at present. In order to advance the streetscape improvement work to coincide with the completion of the building, Council will need to borrow the funds. The targeted rate itself will need to cover the ongoing financing costs over time as it does for the last major project.

6.4 The financing costs, including loan repayment, for this $30,000 project are estimated at $2,400pa. The improved streetscape will complement the latest architectural commercial building in the Village.

6.5 Council has an adopted programme that seeks to deliver a quality urban landscape in Havelock North. The market has moved quickly and the opportunity to partner with the property owner is now with Council.

6.6 By undertaking this minor upgrade now, Council will be signalling that it is positively responsive to commercial development and creating a vibrant CBD in Havelock North.

6.7 Council could decide to adopt Option 2 and not undertake the work at all. This option fails to respond to Council’s commitment to undertaking work included in an adopted and funded programme. It would send a negative message to the community with regard to our commitment to undertake enhancement works, agreed in a strategy adopted by Council and the community.

6.8 Council could defer the upgrade and more rigorously follow the adopted work programme. This option would also allow time for the fund to recover to be in a positive position.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 1 is the preferred option.

7.2 Council continues to carry out CBD improvement works in Hastings and Havelock North. It has adopted programmes that are funded via targeted rates for the two areas. The adopted strategies have programmed work packages but their delivery has not been rigidly followed, as Council sometimes need to be flexible and have the ability to respond to new priorities.

7.3 The upgrade will continue with the Havelock North design palette and once complete will set the scene for a well-designed commercial development offering additional commercial space in the Village.

7.4 By adopting Option 1, Council will be committing to borrowing up to $30,000 and to the annual servicing cost, including repayment, of the loan of $2,400.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Parks and Property Services Manager titled “Request to Fund Minor Upgrade of Joll Road ” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That Council adopt Option 1 and approve the planned street upgrade of a section of footpath outside 15 Joll Road.

C) That Council approve the borrowing of up to $30,000 to carry out the work and the annual cost of $2,400 in interest and debt servicing.

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 in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) Upgrading a portion of Joll Road footpath in the approved urban design palette to provide a multifunctional urban centre in Havelock North.

Attachments:

1	Draft Havelock North CBD Upgrad Programme 2016-2026	STR-22-8-16-602
2	Havelock North Joll Road Development 100	CG-14-1-01314

File Ref: 19/471

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Financial Controller

Aaron Wilson

SUBJECT: Financial Quarterly Report for the nine months ended 31 March 2019

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the financial result for the nine months ended 31 March 2019.

1.2 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.

1.3 This report concludes by recommending that the report for the 9 Months ended 31 March 2019 be received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The accounting operating financial result is reported on quarterly during the year and at year end a report is prepared on the financial as well as the rating result. The rating result differs from the accounting result in respect of non-cash items such as depreciation, vested assets and development contributions that are not included.

2.2 This financial report is governance focussed and allows significant variances to be highlighted with explanations provided in a way this is easy to read and understand through dashboard analytics and commentary.

2.3 If Councillors require clarification on any points, please contact the writer prior to the meeting to ensure complete answers can be given at the meeting on the detail in these reports.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Set out below is a summary of the operating financial result year to date. The financial results detailed below represent the accounting view and does not reflect the potential rating result for 2018/19:

	$’000	$’000	$’000	Full year Revised Budget*
2018/19	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance	Full year Revised Budget*
Operating Revenue	98,262	98,553	(291)	130,834
Operating Expenditure	95,708	91,430	(4,278)	120,969
Net Surplus/(Deficit)	2,553	7,122	(4,569)	9,865

3.2 The result above is presented against the revised budget. The revised budget includes changes and decisions made during the year on Council budgets which includes carry forwards from 2017/18 and allocations of the 2017/18 rating surplus.

3.3 Council’s overall financial performance is $4.569m behind YTD budget for the quarter ended 31 March 2019. Revenue is unfavourable to budget by $0.291m and expenditure is unfavourable budget by $4.278m.

Revenue

3.4 Subsidies, grants and donations are unfavourable to YTD budget by $0.680m mainly driven by lower transport project grants of $1.59m. This is more to do with budget phasing as to when expected subsidised spend and reimbursement occurs. Offsetting this is community grants that are $334k favourable in social development, along with Opera house grants of $351k.

3.5 Fees and charges revenue across Council are favourable by $1.558m with the main drivers being:

· Parks are $245k favourable with the main driver being funding received from government agency for Haumoana Freedom Camping project of ($190k).

· Water Services revenue is above budget by $425k and is above last year’s actuals at the same time, mainly due to an increase in the per kilolitre charge along with higher connection fees received.

· Planning and Regulatory services are favourable to budget by $561k driven by higher environmental ($122k), and building consents ($136k) revenue along with higher than budgeted parking revenues ($243k).

· One off funding received included $287k for a GIS project along with an initial payment for insurance reimbursement for the Hawkes Bay Opera House fire of $100k.

3.6 Development contributions are unfavourable to YTD budget by $2.2m. Phasing of budgets in relation to when contributions occur is difficult, and creates timing differences as it is not always known in advance in what month a payment will occur when the budget is being set.

3.7 Positive indications continue to be received from developers in the Irongate Industrial development suggesting that significant payments of DC’s could be received between now and year end, making up a large amount of the current budget shortfall.

3.8 Interest Income was $527k favourable for the year to date and includes interest earned on term investments.

Expenditure

3.9 Overall expenditure is tracking unfavourable to year to date budget as at 31 March 2019 by $4.27m or 4.5% of total budgeted expenditure year to date.

3.10 Emergency reinstatement costs are $0.806m unfavourable to budget driven by higher costs for the June and September 2018 floods. There are still further costs to come, with final costs estimated to be in the vicinity of $2m. Funding this cost is through NZTA Subsidies, along with the flood damage reserve and some major reinstatement budget. The net financial impact for Councils Local share on the RA2 flood reserve is expected to be $0.633m. The current balance of the RA2 flood reserve stands at $1.8m, with the forecasted year end closing reserve balance to be $1.2m.

3.11 The negative variance to budget for non-cash entries in terms of Depreciation ($2.01m) are driven by higher asset values due to prior year revaluations in Water, Land and Building and Parks along increased spend on capital projects.

3.12 Finance costs are favourable by $638k which is a reflection of lower levels of debt than phased in the budget and lower actual interest rates compared with those assumed in the budget forecasts. The net interest position including the interest received is favourable to budget by $1.165m.

3.13 Council continues to spend significant sums of money on water supply activity including both Capital and Operational expenditure in line with budget. This activity is funded by way of a separate water account which is designed to either accumulate reserves or run in deficit depending on expenditure needs and Council decision making. This allows Council to spread the impact of “lumpy” expenditure in this activity.

3.14 Drinking water services operational expenditure when split out shows an unfavourable variance to budget of $204k, with the higher strategy and planning costs along with reactive maintenance offset by savings in electricity. Below shows a summary table of spend to budget in this area:

3.15 Te Mata Peak Project:

Council has spent $433k in the current financial year, ($495k in total) on the Craggy Range Te Mata Peak Track with this spend focused on:

- Cultural and landscape impact evaluations

- Development, evaluation and report of suitable track options

- Reinstatement work

In a report to Council in December 2018, it was identified that $100k was to be funded by the District Plan budget. The balance of costs incurred to date is currently being treated as unbudgeted expense.

Capital Spend

3.16 Council’s total capital budget (including carry forwards, renewals, new works, and growth projects) for 2018/19 is $129m. This level of expenditure is a significant increase on what has been delivered previously by Council and there is a real risk associated with the ability of Council to deliver on this programme. Capital spend year to date of $50.6m is significantly behind current year to date budget.

Major projects by segment within the three types of capital spend are shown below:

Renewals

1) The wastewater underspend relates to the Park road system upgrade, rising mains and trunk sewer starting later than budgeted. The Park road project is underway and is due to finish in October 2019. The Trunk Sewer renewal is at tender’s stage and due to finish in December 2019.

2) Transport RA1 is underspent due to the phasing of the programme.

3) Building services - The main drivers for the lower than expected spend year to date are around the delay on Heretaunga House renewals while a decision on whether to sell or keep the property was made. In addition the library renewals program has been delayed due to a proposed joint project involving the Art Gallery upgrade.

New Works

4) Stormwater services projects driving this underspend are the Maraekakaho and Princes/Victoria/Ellison starting later than scheduled. The Maraekakaho project will now commence in September 2019.

5) Water Services – The Drinking water project has been delayed, however there are 2 major capital works projects, (Havelock North booster pump station and the small communities contract) that has had protracted tender processes as staff have worked through the impacts of delays and the challenging contractor market.

6) Transportation underspent due to minor safety proceeding slower than anticipated. Cycleway projects have been delayed waiting for NZTA funding approval.

7) Park projects such as playground upgrades and RMP projects have been delayed due to resourcing constraints.

8) Building services – the underspend to budget in this area is partly due to changes in the scope of the Art Gallery project along with delays in the Heretaunga House due to the decision required on whether to sell or retain the building. Now that this decision has been made work will be underway by December 2019.

Growth

9) Growth projects such as Iona and Howard have been delayed into the 2019/2020 year. Lyndhurst, Irongate and Omahu are underway with completion expected in 2019/2020.

Risks

3.17 Council have spent significant amounts of money in developing infrastructure for industry within the Irongate area. Development contributions revenue offsetting this spend has not been received in line with budgeted expectations. There is always a tension between infrastructural investment spend and developer payment.

3.18 Following a decision by Council to outsource service delivery, Recreation Services successfully tendered for this work and started their contract on the 1^st February 2019. This work was previously carried out by the Maintenance Group (MG), with their financials integrated into Council reporting. MG’s financial position at the end of January 2019 was a $387k deficit, largely driven by lower revenues, with lost productivity with staff preparing for transition to Recreation Services, along with higher maintenance expenditure and some transition costs over to the new contract.

3.19 In addition to the final wash-up of the Maintenance Group position, it is forecasted that there will be some higher than budgeted costs for the new contract for the remainder of the year. The disposal of assets has resulted in proceeds received of $570k well in excess of the $400k anticipated in the business case.

3.20 Capital programme of work including carryfowards – As has been noted in the Capital section of the report, new capital works along with growth projects are behind budget as at 31 March 2019. There will be a number of projects that will not be completed by the end of the financial year, with the total value of carry forwards into 2019/2020 to be requested sitting at $41.4m.

3.21 Cape Kidnappers’ landslide – currently no costs have been invoiced for, but it is likely that there will be significant financial impact in terms of geology assessments and recommendations and the recently authorised quantitative risk assessment.

Forecast:

3.22 The yearend forecast in terms of Council operational funding is expected to be positive, driven by higher than budgeted fees and charges across Council business units, along with grants and subsidies mainly driven by emergency reinstatement funding for flood damage. Total revenue is forecast to be in the vicinity of $3.3m ahead of budget. This is represents a 3% increase on budget.

3.23 Operational spend across Council is forecasted to be $3.7m unfavourable, with the main drivers here being a range of factors including transitional and operating costs for the Recreational services contract, along with the additional emergency reinstatement costs, partly offset by emergency reinstatement funding received.

3.24 Depreciation is forecasted to be unfavourable to budget by $2.7m driven by increased revaluations in water and land & building assets as at the 2017/2018 yearend. Total budget for the current year is $33.5m.

3.25 It must be noted that while the forecasts for both funding and expenditure have been completed, this is not a rating result forecast as there are a number of items that are not included and adjustments that cannot be completed until year end.

3.26 Capital spend is forecasted to be well below total budget of $129m, with all three main areas of capital spend expected to be behind budget (including $37.5m of carry forwards). Total spend in the prior year was $69m.

3.27 Growth projects are forecasted to be $9.7m behind budget, on a total budget of $23m for the year. These projects include Iona, Howard and the Medium density projects along with Irongate.

New works projects are forecasted to be $20.1m behind budget, on a total budget of $55m with the drinking water project not yet completed but underway.

3.28 Capital renewals are forecasted to be $10.7m underspent by year end on a total budget of $51m, within the wastewater, Roading and stormwater areas.

3.29 It is likely a number of the capital projects behind scheduled delivery will need to be carried forward into the new financial year.

3.30 Debt is forecasted to be sitting at $109m by year end, well down on the budgeted $125m due to the slower than expected capital project spend.

Treasury

3.31 Total net external borrowing as at the end of March 2019 is $104.2m with committed borrowing facilities of $114.2m, providing headroom of $10m.

3.32 The following table sets out Council’s overall compliance with the Treasury Management Policy as at 31 March 2019:

Measure	Compliance	Actual	Minimum	Maximum
Liquidity (1)	ü	110%	110%	170%
Fixed debt	ü	68%	55%	95%
Funding profile: 0 – 3 years 3 – 5 years 5 years +	ü ü ü	27% 31% 42%	10% 20% 10%	50% 60% 60%

(1) Liquidity Ratio = (Cash Reserves + Lines of Credit + Drawn Debt) / Drawn Debt

3.33 Council is currently compliant with Treasury Management Policy. The Risk and Audit Subcommittee is responsible for reviewing Council’s treasury performance and policy with advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Current debt forecasts indicate a debt position at 30 June 2019 to be $109m with major capital projects well underway.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSULTATION

4.1 This report does not raise any issues that are significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and engagement Policy that would require consultation.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

That the report of the Financial Controller titled “Financial Quarterly Report for the nine months ended 31 March 2019” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

Attachments:

Quarterly Dashboard report

CG-14-1-01318

File Ref: 19/518

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Team Leader Environmental Policy

Megan Gaffaney

SUBJECT: Recommendations from Inner City Living Variation 5 hearing on 25 March 2019 for endorsement by Council

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the adoption of the Hearings Committee’s recommendations to submissions on Variation 5 Inner City Living and give notice of the decisions.

1.2 It is therefore the responsibility of Council to make the final decisions on submissions to Variation 5.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the performance of a regulatory function through the provision of a district plan which will help to create an attractive and healthy environment for people, which promote the best use of natural resources and which is responsive to community needs.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that Council adopt the recommendations of: the Hearings Committee; and that it notifies its decision on Variation 5 Inner City Living and give notice of the decision.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The purpose of Variation 5 is to improve the vibrancy, growth and identity of Hastings City Centre by having more people living in the heart of the Central Commercial Zone of Hastings. Council has been made aware by property owners and developers that there was an interest in being able to convert the upper levels of buildings in the CBD to residential and found that there were a number of constraints to achieving this.

2.2 To summarise it proposes to make residential activity, comprehensive residential development and mixed use development a Permitted Activity above ground floor level of buildings throughout the Central Commercial Zone, where previously residential activity was only permitted above areas with a Designated Retail Frontage, whilst retaining the ground floor level for commercial uses.

2.3 This variation is a mechanism to achieve the goals of the adopted Hastings City Centre Strategy, the Hastings City Centre Vibrancy Plan and other listed strategies and frameworks referred to in the Section 32 evaluation. It is consistent with the objectives for the Central Commercial Zone and is consistent with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Policy Statement objectives. Inner City Living is an efficient way to provide housing in the District that is able to utilise existing infrastructure, requires no additional land (and thereby protects the District’s versatile land resource), is compact and connected to the urban areas. Having people living in the CBD supports Hastings’ position as a primary urban centre in the region. Furthermore it reduces dependency on the private motor vehicle and therefore reduces energy use as people are able to live and work in the same location.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Variation was publicly notified in November 2018 in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 and received nine (9) submissions to the variation, four (4) of which support the variation with no changes and five (5) that support with amendment and two (2) further submissions.

3.2 The hearings report (Section 42A RMA report) was prepared and circulated to all submitters. The report evaluated the issues raised by the submissions. Each submission was considered in respect to Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3.3 The hearing of submissions is complete and the Hearings Committee has made its recommendations (Attachment 1).

3.4 The process now requires a decision from the Council on the adoption of the Hearings Committee’s recommendations to submissions on Variation 5 Inner City Living and to give notice of the Council decision and resultant amendments to the Proposed Hastings District Plan.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1 - Accept all of the recommendations of the Hearings Committee and amend the Proposed District Plan accordingly to include the variation; or

4.2 Option 2 - Reconsider the recommendations on one or more specifically identified issues, (this would as a minimum require Council to give consideration to all of the relevant documents relevant to the hearing of the issues in question before making any changes, but may require a rehearing of these submissions to ensure that there is no breach of the principles of natural justice).

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 This variation process has been undertaken following best practice public engagement practices and in accordance with the statutory consultation requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991.

5.2 The reason for this report is to complete Council’s statutory responsibilities in the consideration of the submissions and further submissions received on the Variation.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 2 - In terms of financial implications a rehearing by Council may put submitters through additional costs (if they are to pay for representation at the hearing) and time delays. The time delays will apply to all, not just those involved with the matter being reheard.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Given the above assessment, Option 1 is recommended. That is to adopt in full the recommendations of the Hearings Committee which was delegated authority to hear the submissions on Variation 5.

7.2 Adopting the recommended decisions on submissions in full will allow the decisions on submissions on Variation 5 to be publicly notified in accordance with the expectations of the submitters. After the public notification date of the decisions on submissions there will be a 30 working day period during which appeals to the Environment Court can be lodged.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Team Leader Environmental Policy titled “Recommendations from Inner City Living Variation 5 hearing on 25 March 2019 for endorsement by Council” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That pursuant to Clause 10, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

i) For the reasons stated in the Hearings Committee’s recommendation report, that the Committee’s recommendations on submissions to Variation 5 (Inner City Living) to the Proposed Hastings District Plan, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report (CG-14-12-00144) are adopted and publicly notified.

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 the performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) Providing certainty to submitters and further submitters to Variation 5 as to the outcome of their submissions on Variation 5 and by allowing Variation 5, which has been subject to community engagement and consultation, to have legal effect.

Attachments:

Hearings Committee recommendations on Variation 5 - hearing held on 25 March 2019

CG-14-12-00144

File Ref: 19/522

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Tuesday 4 June 2019

FROM: Manager: Democracy and Governance Services

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider amendments to the schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for the 2019 Meeting Calendar which was adopted by Council on 6 December 2018.

1.2 This report recommends that the 2019 Meeting Schedule as amended below be adopted.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 19 states:

(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints”.

(5) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings-

a) The schedule-

i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate, and

ii) may be amended

2.2 Although a local authority must hold the ordinary meetings appointed, it is competent for the authority at a meeting to amend the schedule of dates, times and number of meetings to enable the business of the Council to be managed in an effective way.

2.3 The following meetings are proposed to be included or amended in the 2019 meeting schedule:

Committee	Date	Time	Venue
Appointments	18 June 2019	12.30pm	Guilin Room
Council	27 June 2019	10.30am	Council Chamber
HDC –Tangata Whenua Joint Wastewater	28 June 2019	9.00am	Council Chamber

2.4 Councillors will be kept informed of specific changes on a day to day basis through the centralised calendar system.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Manager: Democracy and Governance Services titled “Updated 2019 Meeting Schedule Changes” dated 4/06/2019 be received.

B) That the 2019 Meeting Schedule be amended as follows:-

Committee

Date

Time

Venue

Appointments

18 June 2019

12.30pm

Guilin Room

Council

27 June 2019

10.30am

Council Chamber

HDC –Tangata Whenua Joint Wastewater

28 June 2019

9.00am

Council Chamber

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings