Description: COAT-ARM Hastings District Council

 

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100

WWW.hastingsdc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Open

 

A G E N D A

 

 

Council MEETING

 

 

 

Meeting Date:

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

Time:

1.00pm

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

Council Members

Chair: Mayor Hazlehurst

Councillors Barber, Corban, Dixon, Harvey, Kerr, Lawson, Nixon, O’Keefe, Oli, Redstone, Schollum, Siers, Travers and Watkins

 

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive – Mr N Bickle

Manager: Democracy & Governance

Mrs J Evans (Extn 5018)

 


 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

COUNCIL MEETING

 

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.         Prayer

2.         Apologies & Leave of Absence

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

Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Travers

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 Manager: Democracy and Governance (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

Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday 3 December 2019.

(Previously circulated)

6.         Youth Council Report for 2019                                                                                5

7.         Hawke's Bay Airport Limited - Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019                                                                                                                                         7

8.         Hawke's Bay Regional Sports Park Trust Annual Report to 30 June 2019 13

9.         Cranford Hospice Redevelopment                                                                      17

10.       Hawke's Bay Food Innovation Hub                                                                     27

11.       Municipal Building Update and Contract extension                                       37

12.       Proposed Reserve Realignment within Waingakau Village Development - Flaxmere                                                                                                                     45

13.       Lowes Pit - A Strategy for Managing Stormwater and Minimising Risk     55

14.       Summary of Recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019                                                          69

15.       Bridge Projects Funding                                                                                        73

16.       Request to Remove Trees in Windsor Drainage Reserve                             81

17.       Parking Controls                                                                                                    109

18.       Health and Safety Quarterly Report                                                                   117

19.       Council Delegations and Appointments to Committees, Subcommittees, Joint Committees and External Organisations                                                         135

20.       Elected Members' Remuneration Update and Expenses and Allowances Policy                                                                                                                         143

21.       External Appointments to Committees                                                             151

22.       Schedule of Meetings for 2020                                                                           157

23.       Requests Received Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update                                                          161

24.       Items Under Action                                                                                                167

25.       2019-22 Draft Triennial Agreement for feedback from Councils                169

26.       Additional and Extraordinary Business Items

27.       Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Item 28                                 189

28.       Flaxmere Landholdings

 

     


File Ref: 19/1237

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Social & Youth Development Manager

Dennise Elers

SUBJECT:                    Youth Council Report for 2019        

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this covering report is to inform Council of the activities undertaken by the 2019 Hastings Youth Council.

1.2       Kate Allen, Chair of the Youth Council will be presenting to Council on the achievements and work undertaken by the Youth Council over the past year.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Youth Council Report for 2019.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/882

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager Strategic Finance

Brent Chamberlain

SUBJECT:                    Hawke's Bay Airport Limited - Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on the financial results of Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited (HBAL) for the year ended 30 June 2019.

1.2       This issue arises from the receipt of the 2019 Annual Report from HBAL.

1.3       This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic and social wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing an accessible range of safe transport options, providing for efficient movement of goods, and providing infrastructure that supports economic growth.

1.4       HBAL’s operating profit (before revaluations) was $1.496m which was similar to last year’s result of $1.445m.

1.5       This is despite an increase in revenues of 16% to $7.686m from $6.649m in the prior year.

1.6       Total debt as at the 30 June 2019 was $11.1m (2018: $4.0m). In addition HBAL has capital commitments of $9.8m relating to the terminal and car park expansion (2018: $11.6m).

1.7       As at the 30 June 2019 the land and buildings owned by the airport were revalued by independent valuers, which resulted in an increase of $2.944m in their recorded value.

1.8       Post balance date, Jet Star has announced it will be pulling out of regional routes including the Auckland-Napier route.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Hawke's Bay Airport Limited - Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       Hawke’s Bay Airport was officially opened on 15 February 1964, although there had been flying from the airfield for many years prior to this.

3.2       The HBAL company was formed in July 2009 following the acquisition of the assets of the Hawke's Bay Airport Authority. The company is owned 50% Crown, 26% Napier City Council (NCC) and 24% Hastings District Council (HDC).

3.3       The board of HBAL consists of four directors, two appointed by Hastings and Napier Councils, and two by the Crown.

3.4       The current Directors are Tony Porter (Chairman), Sarah Park (Chair of Audit and Finance Committee), Wendie Harvey and Taine Randell. Tony Porter who is a joint HDC / NCC appointed director will retire from the board in June 2020 and Taine Randell’s (Crown appointee) term will also come up for renewal at that time. Council has previously signalled to the Board about the need for the board to be considering succession planning with the required replacement of Mr Tony Porter in 2020. The Mayors of HDC & NCC will consider the process for appointing a replacement for Mr Porter in early 2020.

3.5       The Statement of Intent requires that an Annual Report including audited financial statements be provided to shareholders. A six monthly report is also required to be delivered to shareholders.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       The HBAL annual report shows a comprehensive income for the year of $4.536m. $3.04m of this relates to revaluations, meaning the underlying operating profit (after financing, depreciation, and tax) was $1.496m (2018: $1.445m).

4.2       This result was on the back of increased revenues which totalled $7.686m compared to $6.649m in the prior year. $876k of this increase relates to aviation income, and $173k to car parking. Passenger numbers for the year were $750k, compared to $700k the previous year (7% increase).

4.3       Operating Costs increased to $3.752m compared to $3.042m in the previous year. $373k of this increase relates to staffing costs.

4.4       HBAL’s Property, Plant, and Equipment increased by $12.4m during the year ($9.8m of this was additions – primarily the terminal extension, and $3.9m was revaluations). The additions of $9.8m were funded by new debt of $7.0m, with the balance being paid by operating cash flows.

4.5       Total debt as at the 30 June 2019 was $11.1m (2018: $4.0m). In addition HBAL has capital commitments of $9.8m relating to the terminal and car park expansion (2018: $11.6m).

4.6       The table below reports how HBAL has performed against its Statement of Intent (SOI).

4.7       Post balance date, Jet Star has announced it will be pulling out of regional routes including the Auckland-Napier route. Air New Zealand will continue to service this route and is likely to pick up Jet Star’s passengers (depending on what they do with ticket pricing given this will return them to a position of monopoly).

4.8       Officers believe that HBAL has delivered on its SOI, and has performed well in trying circumstances with the voluntary liquidation of Arrow Construction in the middle of their termination redevelopment project.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       The Council can receive the HBAL’s Annual Report.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       No further steps are required.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

HBAL Letter Accompaning Annual Report

EXT-10-9-1-19-66

 

2

HBAL Annual Report 2019

EXT-10-9-1-19-65

Under Separate Cover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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

 

 

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the Social and Economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future. HBAL has approximately 700,000 passenger movements per annum, and contributes to the wider Hawkes Bay economy by an estimated $215m (taking in account both business and tourism spends).

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A:

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

HBAL continues to grow its business (as evidenced by growth in passenger numbers, terminal expansion, runway extensions, growing business park) with the view of maximising the use of their land whilst safeguarding the airport, and optimising the returns to and increasing the value of shareholders.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

T

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

Risks are controlled by the board of Hawke’s Bay Airport Ltd

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Community Boards.

 

 

 


HBAL Letter Accompaning Annual Report

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/888

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager Strategic Finance

Brent Chamberlain

SUBJECT:                    Hawke's Bay Regional Sports Park Trust Annual Report to 30 June 2019        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee on the financial results of Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park Trust (HBRSP) trading as the Mitre10 Park for the year ended 30 June 2019.

1.2       This issue arises from the receipt of the 2019 Annual Report from HBRSP.

1.3       This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social and cultural wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing places and spaces for recreation and cultural activities.

1.4       The Mitre 10 Park has generated an operating surplus of $175,923 (2018: $109,310) before depreciation (a non-cash accounting entry) and capital income.

1.5       The $400,000 received in capital grants relates to the creation of additional car parking to service existing sporting codes and the new Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) Institute of Sport & Health.

1.6       Park users totalled 309,000 for the year.

1.7       The EIT Institute of Sport and Health opened at the end of the current financial year. Planned for next year is an Outdoor Aquatic Facility and additional lighting for the netball and sports fields.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Hawke's Bay Regional Sports Park Trust Annual Report to 30 June 2019.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       In 2007 the Hastings District Council sold Nelson Park in Hastings for $18m. Hastings District Council used $11m of the sales proceeds to part fund the HBRSP. In subsequent years the HBRSP has continued to expand with funding from the Council, along with significant amounts being provided from the regions corporate citizens such as Pak ’n Save, Higgins, and Unison. The Trust now has assets worth over $15m under its control.

3.2       The HBRSP’s vision is to provide a stunning sporting and recreational hub that is a catalyst in improving the region’s social, cultural and economic outcomes and promotes sporting excellence.

3.3       The HBRSP’s vision is to create an environment that contributes strongly to the wellbeing of the people of Hawke’s Bay and drives outstanding performances from our sportspeople.

3.4       The Trustees of the HBRSP are:

·    Rex Graham (Chair) – HB Regional Council Chairman

·    Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair) – Deputy Mayor Hastings District Council

·    Mark Aspden – CEO Sports Hawkes Bay

·    Ngahiwi Tomoana – Chair Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc

 

3.5       There is currently a process being undertaken to appoint new Trustees to replace Meka Whaitiri who has resigned and to succession plan for Rex Graham’s term expiring in 2020. The Appointments Panel are hoping to have decisions made by Christmas.

3.6       Hastings District Council provides $305,800 of operational grants per annum to the HBRSP. This represents approximately 40% of the Trust’s annual revenue, with the remainder coming from sponsorship, philanthropic sources, and charges to the Park’s users.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       The Trust made a significant announcement post balance date, announcing Mitre 10 as the new naming rights sponsor for the whole park and the renaming of the Park to Mitre 10 Park.

4.2       The Mitre 10 Park has generated an operating surplus of $175,923 (2018: $109,310) before depreciation (a non-cash accounting entry) and capital income. This improvement year on year is on the back of increased venue hire (driven by a combination of increased participation and additional events on the back of hiring an event manager), and lower maintenance costs (the previous year had a $46,752 one off cost for cleaning and repairing the athletics track).

4.3       The $400,000 received in capital grants relates to the creation of additional car parking to service existing sporting codes and the new EIT Institute of Sport & Health.

4.4       In addition to this $65,000 was received towards the building of the outdoor aquatic facility (additional sums have been pledged but not received at balance date). This has been treated as deferred income as the facility will be built in the next financial year.

4.5       The Trustees are aware that the original facilities at the park are now 10 years old, and in the next 5 years the Park will begin to face a significant renewal program for items such as the athletics track and the hockey turf. The Trustees have made a deliberate decision to begin setting aside some surpluses to create a fund for these renewals, and this is evidenced by the creation of a $99,000 term deposit. This renewal program will also be greatly helped by the recent announcement of a naming right sponsor in Mitre 10.  

4.6       Park users totalled 309,000 for the year. This is expected to grow again next year with the EIT Institute of Sport and Health having opened at the end of the current financial year. The proposed Outdoor Aquatic Facility should also be open in 2020, along with the proposed additional lighting for the netball and sports fields which should also add to the park’s ultilisation.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       The Council can receive the Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park Trust Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2019.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       No further steps are required.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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

 

 

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social and cultural wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing places and spaces for recreation and cultural activities.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the Social and Cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future through providing places and spaces for recreation and cultural activities.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The Mitre10 Park provides sporting and recreational facilities which will benefit present and future communities. It funds these facilities through a combination of Council funding, sponsorship, philanthropic sources, and charges to the Park’s users.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are no financial implications for this report.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

There are no legal or health and safety risks associated with this report.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Community Boards arising from this report.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1192

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT:                    Cranford Hospice Redevelopment        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on the rebuild of the Cranford Hospice at the new location at Chesterhope Station and the status of the Council’s current funding commitment to that project.  Representatives of the Cranford Hospice Foundation will attend the meeting to provide a brief update on the project.

1.2       The Cranford Hospice Foundation made a submission to the 2019/20 Annual Plan for $2.0m towards the build of the new Cranford Hospice to be spread over 4 years. Council agreed to include $500,000 in the 2019/20 Annual Plan budget and for the new Council to reconsider further allocations at the start of the new triennium.

1.3       The update from the Cranford Hospice Foundation will further inform Council on the project prior to it deliberating on the impending budget for the 2020/21 financial year.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Cranford Hospice Redevelopment.

B)      That the Council notes that this funding application will be considered along with other funding requests for funding as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan process.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       Attached as Attachment 1 is the submission received from Mr John Buck on behalf of the Cranford Hospice to the 2019-20 Annual Plan.

3.2       The following are the minutes and resolution from the Council meeting of 4 June 2019 following consideration of submissions made to the 2019/20 Annual Plan:

3.3       “Submission No. 26 – Cranford Hospice It was noted that there was no commitment for funding this project from the Napier City Council or Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and that the Hospice did not meet the criteria for funding through the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

3.4       The Chief Financial Officer, Mr Allan displayed a powerpoint slide recommendation for Cranford Hospice (CP-01-23-2-19-10).

1)      That the Council provide the Cranford Hospice Trust with a letter of support.

2)      That the Council include $500,000 as a financial contribution to the Cranford Hospice rebuild in the 2019/20 Annual Plan to be loan funded with a funding agreement to be negotiated and approved by the Chief Executive subject to understanding HBDHB commitments to Cranford Hospice and fundraising targets being met.

3)      That Council commit officers to placing the matter of future financial commitment ($1.5m over 3 years) and community consultation before the incoming Council for consideration.”

3.5       The second resolution above identified two conditions for which the Chief Executive needed to be satisfied of before entering into a funding agreement. Those conditions were satisfied and the following was reported to the Chief Executive prior to the execution of the funding agreement:

1)   Hawkes Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) commitments – The Cranford Foundation has confirmed that the HBDHB has committed to fund the Cranford Hospice operations with $3.4m per annum for the next three years. This represents 50% of the Hospice’s revenue, based on the 2019 result.

2)   Fundraising targets – The Cranford Foundation provided copies of their fundraising plan. The fundraising plan has identified $18.485m of funds to be applied for. The total estimated cost of the project is $15m, and the Foundation has targeted to have $10m of the required funding confirmed by May 2020. This target is their required funding before they will commit to pushing go on the project and undertaking the detailed design work.

3.6       Based on this information from the Foundation, Council has subsequently entered into a funding agreement with the Cranford Hospice Foundation acknowledging the $500,000 financial contribution. The funding agreement is premised on the following:

1)   An initial contribution of $500,000 which will be payable once the Foundation has achieved the target of $10m of fundraising confirmed. Council’s funds will be available to meet the detailed design costs and any other planning elements of the project.

2)   A secondary contribution of $1.5m will be considered by the new Council for inclusion in the 2020/21 Annual Plan for consultation. If this process results in Council granting further funds to the Foundation, then those funds will be provided to meet key construction milestones and the Foundation’s cashflow requirements.

3.7       In respect of the third resolution above, the update from the Cranford Hospice Foundation will provide Council with the latest information on the project prior to deliberating on the Council’s impending budget process.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Submission No.26 John Buck (Cranford Hospice)

CP-01-23-1-19-26

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the Local Public Services Outcome and Social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

The financial considerations will be considered as part of the Councils Annual Plan budget process.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

 

This is an update report with no decision being sought.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

This is an update report which does not trigger any consultative requirements.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

N/A

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A

 

 

 


Submission No.26 John Buck (Cranford Hospice)

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/1225

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Economic Development Manager

Lee Neville

SUBJECT:                    Hawke's Bay Food Innovation Hub        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       This report contributes to the purpose of local government by promoting economic development and more specifically to the Hastings District Council (Council) strategic objective of building a resilient and job rich economy.

 

1.2       Sapere Research completed a feasibility study and business case in 2018 on the benefits of delivering a Food Innovation Hub (FIH) to Hawke’s Bay. This report estimates the FIH will deliver $100m additional gross regional domestic product gains and over 500 skilled full time jobs in the Hawke’s Bay region over a 10 year period. It will also provide investment opportunities for iwi.

 

1.3       Sapere Research have estimated the cost to construct the FIH (including land purchase) is $15.4m. Additional funding required to support operating costs for 15 years is estimated to be $2.6m. This means a total estimated project budget of $18m. The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) has approved $12m of funding for the FIH, subject to the $6m balance being sourced from businesses, agencies and local authorities.

 

 

1.4       The PGF is managed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Council officers are negotiating a Funding Agreement (FA) with MBIE to deliver the FIH. This is a pre-requisite to releasing the PGF funding of $12m. An assignment clause in the FA will enable the Council to transfer the construction and operation of the FIH to a separate entity once the $6m from other investors is secured.

 

1.5       Council passed a recommendation on the 10th October 2019 to delegate to the Chief Executive (CE) authority to enter a delivery agreement with the Ministry of Business Immigration and Employment for the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub subject to the CE being satisfied that Council is not exposed to any unbudgeted financial risk or future contingent liabilities.

 

1.6       The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

 

1    A financial investment to facilitate the establishment phase of the Hawke’s Bay FIH.

2    A financial investment into to the regional funding of the FIH and include this in the 2021 draft Annual Plan for consultation with the community.

 

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Hawke's Bay Food Innovation Hub.

B)      That the Council approve the investment of up to $200,000 as unbudgeted expenditure (loan funded) in the 2019/20 financial year (subject to regional funding of $600,000) to fund establishment costs for the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub.

C)     That the Council approve for inclusion in the draft 2021 Annual Plan an investment of $800,000 (if required) to meet the regional funding contribution of $6.0m in the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub.

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       In August 2017 a Discovery Project identified that a FIH in Hawke’s Bay is strategically relevant to contribute to Māori and Hawke’s Bay economic and business growth.

3.2       The MBIE funded business case study was completed by Sapere Research in early 2019.

3.3       The Sapere Research Group under the guidance of a stakeholder led Project Control Group and Governance Group completed the Feasibility and Business Case which was accepted by MBIE as recognised by the granting of PGF funding. The Economic Impact Assessment  identified that the Hub was expected to generate over 10 years $100m of additional regional gross domestic product and 500 plus full time skilled jobs. It would open up opportunities for investors and in particular iwi investors.

3.4       The FIH project has representatives from Councils, Iwi, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), Waikato University, Plant & Food Research and the business community.

3.5       The PGF announced a $12m grant towards the estimated $18m cost of the FIH on the 23rd September 2019 subject to the balance of $6m coming from other investors.

3.6       Application of FIH funding:

·    PGF $12m grant - capital expenditure, (excluding land).

·    Regional funding $6m - land purchase, operating losses, establishment costs over a 2 year period.

3.7       MBIE are requesting Council sign a Funding Agreement to deliver the FIH as a pre-requisite to releasing the $12m PGF funding. Council are proposing to assign the PGF $12m and regional contributions of $6m to a new entity to (subject to MBIE consent) to deliver:

·    Phase 1 Establishment and Physical presence.

·    Phase 2 Food-safe manufacturing facility.

·    Phase 3 Future opportunities

Kensington Swann (Law firm) who are providing advice to Council on the Funding Agreement have confirmed that the document reflects this.

3.8       Funding contributions


 

 

PGF Funding

Regional

Funding

Deliverable

$400,000

 

Funding Agreement signed and the conditions precedent met.

$100,000

$600,000

March 2020, providing $600,000 of regional funding is secured.

 

$5,400,000

June 30 2020, balance regional funding

 

Should the regional funding of $600,000 not be secured by March 2020, the project stops, there is no liability to HDC to repay the $400,000 from the PGF.

Regional funding of $6m is to be confirmed by the 30th June 2020. If this is not delivered the contract terminates and there is no liability to HDC repay the PGF the $500,000 they advanced.

·    Establishment costs of $1.1m are forecast to be incurred over a 2 year period so it is unlikely that $600,000 of regional funding will be spent prior to 30 June 2020 providing little risk to regional funders.

·    PGF grant of $12m grant is on a sliding scale over a 12 year period and should the hub not continue operating as a food innovation hub after a 12 year period the grant would not be repayable.

·    The business model adopted with operating losses funded up front will reduce the financial risk of the venture. The regional investors can either make their contributions by way a grant or as an equity investor which we believe will be the case for larger investors who will be involved at the Governance level.

3.9       It is proposed that a Limited Partnership be established which will make the investment tax effective for tax paying entities.

Investor’s potential financial returns:

·    Utilising tax losses.

·    Taking a stronger commercial approach

·    Generating greater returns from soft services and in particular from the development and implementation of a portal to facilitate the supply of services and facilities and receiving a commission for those services.

·    An expected increase in value over a 12 year period of a fully owned multi- purpose land and building could potentially be available to investors.

·    The model used limits the liability of its partners to their contribution and is financially sustainable and capable of bringing substantial social and economic benefits to the entire East Coast and New Zealand, whilst at the same time capable of producing direct financial returns to investors.

3.10    Officers have approached around 30 organisations for regional funding commitments and or tenancies. There is some strong interest from a number of parties to contribute capital and/or be a tenant at the hub. These organisations are still working through their internal processes. We are approaching all Hawke’s Bay Councils for an investment as this is a project that benefits the entire region and is a high priority Mataraki project.  A further update on regional fund raising will be orally reported at the Council meeting.

3.11    Forecast cost of FIH:

Phase 1 Establishment and Physical presence

The forecast cost of the project as identified by the Sapere Research Group were

Activity

$m

 

 

Construction & Establishment (including land purchase)

15.4

 

 

Net operating costs (15 years)

2.6

Total cost

18

Funding Sources

 

Regional value

6

PGF-grant 12years

12

Total funding (15 years)

18

 

All funding would be secured up front and spread over at least 2 years.

Phase 2- Food-safe manufacturing facility

Phase 3- Future opportunities

Phases 2 and 3 are expected to evolve overtime as the need is clearly identified. It is expected that these phases will be commercially funded.

3.11 Council received a report on the 10th October recommending that the Council delegate to the Chief Executive authority to enter a delivery agreement with the Ministry of Business Immigration and Employment for the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub subject to the Chief Executive being satisfied that Council is not exposed to any unbudgeted financial risk or future contingent liabilities. The recommendation was passed by Council at the October 10th meeting.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       The FIH is a unique opportunity to help unlock the future potential of the Agriculture and Horticulture industries in the east coast region. Examples of the key possible deliverables are:

·    Centre of excellence in food processing skills-training to meet the shortages in skills needed to grow our food processing industries-led by Kraft-Heinz, supported by EIT and delivered at the Food Hub.

·    Sustainable food and beverage innovations, commercialisation, production and packaging.

·    Excellence in food processing equipment and systems. Regional businesses will display technology and equipment developed locally and delivered to international businesses.

 

·    Key support services from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Callaghan Innovation and the Food Innovation Network.

·    Support services provided to facilitate the commercialisation of ideas and the utilisation of surplus capacity in the east coast and through New Zealand. An on-line portal will be pivotal to growing these services.

·    Research coordinators from Food HQ, Food Pilot, Massey University and Waikato University.

·    Centre of entrepreneurship in food business with classrooms and meeting rooms.

·    Meeting rooms, hot desking and co-working spaces with an on-site café.

Space to be leased to local food businesses so their teams are situated in a centre of excellence enabling faster business innovation and growth.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       That a $800,000 investment in the Hawkes Bay Food Innovation Hub is included in the 2021 draft Annual Plan if necessary to meet the required  regional funding investment of $6.0m and a further $200,000 investment as unbudgeted expenditure in 2020 to fund establishment costs.

 

Advantages

5.2       Demonstrates clear support for the FIH and will facilitate attracting other regional investors.

5.3       The Limited Partnership model limits the liability of partners to their investment.

5.4       Facilitates the achievement of significant economic and social outcomes and in particular the creation of 500 skilled full time jobs and $100m of additional gross regional product over 10 years.

5.5       Provides the potential opportunity to participate at a governance level if desired to facilitate the successful implementation of the FIH and delivery of the substantial benefits to Hawke’s Bay. This governance representation need not be direct and an independent could be appointed possibly with other Councils.

5.6       Provides an opportunity for significant direct financial benefit.

 

  Disadvantages

5.7       There may be a perception/expectation that Council will provide funding over

and above its agreed contribution. There is clearly no legal obligation to contribute any additional monies.

5.8       Being an investor and partner could expose Council to future liabilities.

5.9      Potential reputational damage if the FIH fails to achieve its objectives.

 

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.10    That a $800,000 investment to the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub is included in the draft 2021 Annual Plan if required to meet the required regional funding commitment and a $200,000 grant in 2020 as unbudgeted expenditure to fund establishment costs.

 

Advantages

5.11    Helps facilitate the removal/expectation that Council will provide funding over its initial contribution.

5.12    Removes the potential to expose Council to future liabilities.

5.13    Demonstrates support for the FIH but not as strong as an investment.

5.14    Facilitates the raising of funds from regional investors.

5.15    Facilitates the achievement of significant regional economic and social benefits by providing over 10 year 500 skilled full time jobs and $100m of additional regional gross domestic product.

 

Disadvantages

5.16    Council has no influence over the direction and operations of the FIH and the achievement or otherwise of the significant regional social and economic benefits.

5.17    Council still has the potential to suffer reputational damage should the FIH fail and not achieve its outcomes.

Option Three

5.18    That no funding be provided in the draft 2021 Annual Plan for the Hawke’s Bay   Food Innovation Hub.

Advantages

5.19    No cost to Council.

5.20    No potential future liabilities to Council.

5.21    No further resource commitment to the Hub

Disadvantages

5.22    Significant reputational damage as Council has supported this project over the last 2.5-3.0 years.

5.23    Lack of Council funding support is likely to adversely impact on our ability to secure the $6m regional funding package.

5.24   Will put the project in jeopardy meaning that the $12m PGF grant cannot be up lifted and the 500 skilled full time jobs and $100m of additional regional gross domestic profit will not be realised.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       Officers recommend the adoption of Option 1 and include in the 2021 draft Annual Plan an investment of up to $800,000 in the Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub and approve a $200,000 investment as unbudgeted expenditure in 2020 to fund establishment costs. The unbudgeted $200,000 investment in 2020 would only be drawn down if and when the required $600,000 regional contribution had been secured. We expect that this funding will come from local councils. The funding could be spread over approximately 2 years.

                   This investment is provided for in Council’s Financial Policies under Policy 3.2.1 Acquisition of new Investments.

“New investments will be acquired to meet the Council’s long term objectives including the diversification of Council income streams. This may include the purchase of land or equity investments that the Council considers appropriate to meet an identified current or future need. Subject to the limits in the Council’s significance policy the Council may invest in a new investment that is identified and is not in the Long Term Plan (LTP). When purchasing an investment that is not provided for in the LTP the Council will identify the risks and benefits associated with the purchase.”

6.2       The risks to Council have been largely mitigated. The project will not proceed unless it is fully funded including 15 years of operating losses and the Limited Partnership limits the liability of Limited Partners to their investment. The $200,000 unbudgeted investment are to partly fund establishment costs in 2020 there is potentially a risk that this money is spent and the project does not proceed to the construction phase. Construction and operational risk is minimised as investors who will have governors will largely comprise of experienced business leaders and industry experts who will engage appropriate professional expertise as required. There are potentially significant financial benefits to HDC arising from utilisation of tax losses, improved financial performance and from the potential sale of the facility.

6.3       This proposal will not only facilitate the achievement of Council’s long term objectives but also provide the opportunity to directly receive financial benefits. It provides significant economic and social benefits to the region. The investment is not included in the Long Term Plan as the opportunity had not been developed and the risks are outlined earlier in this paper.

6.4       The Hawke’s Bay Food Innovation Hub is expected on implementation to be a strategic asset for Hawke’s Bay.

6.4       Funding for this investment would be loan funded having an annual rating impact of $80,000 per annum.

6.5       Sourcing of regional funding ($6m) from potential investors will continue.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic development to build a resilient job rich economy.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the Council objective of providing employment for the community with an estimated 500+ full time skilled jobs over 15 years.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

An Iwi representative has participated in the FIH governance group and project team and several post treaty settlement groups have been briefed on progress to date.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The FIH will enable sustainable food business practices and sustainable packaging and waste stream processing opportunities.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

The FIH will only proceed when the $6m funding from local investors is completed. Any Council contributions will be subject to the annual plan process.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

 

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as not being significant as the FIH will only proceed when the $6m funding from local investors is achieved.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

The FIH governance group have met with a wide range of organisations, agencies and business during the business case development and currently during engagement with an extensive range of potential investors.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

There may be a perception/expectation that Council will provide funding over and above its agreed contribution. Kensington Swan (Legal Advisors) have been engaged to provide legal advice through the process.There is clearly no legal obligation to contribute any additional monies.

Being an investor and partner could potentially expose Council to future liabilities.

Council Reputational Risk

 Potential reputational damage if the hub fails to achieve its objectives

These risks are partly mitigated by the business model being adopted which limits the liability of investors to their contribution. The model facilitates the attraction of capital and governance skills to the FIH thereby enhancing the chances of success. Council has the option to appoint independent representation jointly with other Councils who chose to invest or alone to represent their interests.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

Many of the FIH benefits will also flow to the rural sector which is represented by the Rural Community Board.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1197

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT:                    Municipal Building Update and Contract extension        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on development works at the Municipal Building and obtain the necessary approvals from Council for the implementation of some additional Stage 2 works.

1.2       This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting the Cultural Wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing local public services which will meet the needs of young and old. The Municipal Building as part of Toitoi – Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre will work to meet Council’s objectives through fostering recreation participation, assisting youth in education and fostering the arts and cultural experiences.

1.3       Council approved the strengthening of the earthquake-prone Municipal Building in September 2018 and engaged Gemco Construction Limited to do this work through the Early Contractor Involvement contract already in place to the value of $8.78m. This represented Stage 1 of the Municipal Building strengthening and redevelopment project.

1.4       It has now been over 12 months since this work commenced and the Project Team have made decisions to incorporate elements of what would be considered Stage 2 works into Stage 1 to reduce rework into the future and expedite the project’s progress.

1.5       Those decisions had been made with funding available within the Stage 1 contingency. However, with still a year to go with Stage 1 works, that contingency is required to be available for issues that may arise from Stage 1. This report seeks approval from Council to formally release funding currently available for Stage 2 for the works already approved.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Municipal Building Update and Contract extension.

B)      That the Council approves the release of $619,000 from the Municipal Building Stage 2 funding for the following items:

i.   $450,000 to upgrade the Stage 1 emergency escape to the circulation stairs as specified in the Stage 2 laneway concept.

ii.  $169,000 to install ducting, piping and sleeves during the construction of the new foundations for Stage 1 to enable the outcomes envisaged for Stage 2, and removing the need to dig up the foundations again for a significant additional cost.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       The Municipal project consist of two stages. Stage 1 is the strengthening of the building and Stage 2 is the implementation of the Mathews and Mathews Architects (MMA) concepts including the laneways and circulation stairs.

3.2       Council resolved on 27 September 2018 to strengthen the Municipal Building and engaged Gemco Construction Limited through the already established Early Contractor Involvement arrangement to do that work. The Council resolution is as follows:

“That Council approve the strengthening works required for the Municipal Building.

That Gemco Construction Limited under the Early Contractor Involvement contract be awarded the strengthening contract at a value of $8.7m excluding GST.

That Council advise the community of the decision to strengthen the Municipal Building and the reasons why.

That Council commit to consult on the future use and design options for the Municipal Building including financial considerations by March 2019.”

3.3       That resolution was subsequently amended on 20 November 2018 to acknowledge a correction to the contract value of $8.78m.

3.4       This resolution represented the start of Stage 1 (Earthquake strengthening) of the Municipal Strengthening and Redevelopment Project, with Stage 2 being the redevelopment and contingent on the success of external fundraising.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       While Council is yet to decide on the extent of the Municipal Building redevelopment (Stage 2) there have been and are continuing to be opportunities to implement elements of what would have been considered Stage 2 works while Stage 1 is being worked on and approval is required from Council for the project team to utilise opportunities to make decisions that are ultimately in the best interests of the project.

4.2       The construction works for Stage 1 have been underway for 12 months now and, at the time of writing, the progress is on time and on budget. A contingency amount of $500,000 has been allowed for in Stage 1, of which $35,000 has been spent to date for Stage 1 works.

4.3       A very recent development has been the discovery of asbestos in the original roof of the Municipal Building above the Assembly Room. This original roof was unknown to the design team as a replacement roof was built over it in circa 1927, leaving the tar and asbestos roof in situ and hiding it away. The asbestos is required to be removed as diaphragms linking the northern and southern walls are required to be installed in this area. The current estimated cost to remove this asbestos is $150,000. This recent discovery is a good example of why contingencies are held.

4.4       There have, however, been opportunities to include elements of the Stage 2 design into the Stage 1 works and, at the time of those decisions being made, it was decided by the project team to utilise the Stage 1 contingency for the following works.

1.    The contract for Stage 1 included a very simple external emergency escape stair. An allowance of $155,000 was included in the Stage 1 works for this stairway, as the completion of the stairs is required to enable the Theatre to be re-opened to the public.

The design for Stage 2 includes the circulation stairs which are much more extensive than the allowance in Stage 1 caters for. To be able to implement the circulation stairs for the Stage 2 laneway concept, future proofing was required and 80% of the construction of the decorative stairs is required to obtain Code of Compliance or Certificate of Public Use for the Opera House Theatre. The Theatre is scheduled to open at the end of February 2020.

The additional cost not covered in the Stage 1 allocation for the circulation stairs is $450,000.

2.    During the construction of the new foundations for Stage 1, ducting, piping and sleeves through the foundations required to enable the outcomes envisaged for Stage 2 were installed at a cost of $169,000 (excl GST). This removes the need to dig up the foundations again for a significant additional cost.

4.5       The additional costs detailed above amounting to $619,000 were initially funded through the Stage 1 contingency. However, as the project progresses it is not sustainable for Stage 1 to wear these costs and a request is now presented to Council for Stage 2 funding to be released for this work.

4.6       The overall project financial position is detailed below and, as had been previously reported to Council, the project currently has $4.48m available for Stage 2 and an estimated overall funding shortfall of $2.52m based on current Stage 2 estimates.

 

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       Approve Stage 2 funding to be released for variations to the Municipal Building Stage 1 strengthening works to include the variations approved by the project team to-date.

 

Advantages

 

·    The Stage 2 Municipal Building designs provided for elements that are best incorporated while the strengthening works of Stage 1 are being undertaken. The two opportunities presented above have been approved, were pragmatic decisions to eliminate rework and deliver the proposed outcomes in the most cost-effective manner.

·    While the Stage 2 design elements are yet to be approved, the two opportunities are integral to the overall design of the laneways and the desired outcomes of enhancing the users experience with the inclusion of hospitality offerings on the ground floor of the Municipal Building.

·    While initially envisaged that these variations could be accommodated within the Stage 1 contingency, it is apparent now that this is not possible and the Stage 1 contingency should be released for Stage 1 works, with the asbestos discovery in the Municipal Building ceiling an example of what can happen in construction projects of this nature.

·    There is sufficient funding available to do these works.

Disadvantages

 

·    While it could be considered inappropriate for Council to agree to this work, Officers have already committed Council to these additions, this request is a funding request asking for Stage 2 funding to be released for what is essentially Stage 2 works.

 

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

·    This work is already underway and the purpose of this report has been to formalise the funding allocations for the Stage 2 works that have been approved.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

This proposal contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting the cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future, more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing local public services which will meet the needs of young and old.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

The Municipal Building, as part of Toitoi – Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre, will work to meet Council’s objectives through fostering recreation participation, assisting youth in education and fostering the arts and cultural experiences.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There are no known impacts for Tanagata Whenua.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Refer paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 for details.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of medium significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

N/A

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

The risks associated with the project have been documented as part of the project management of the Toitoi – Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre work

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/936

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

Project Manager - Strategic

Sam Faulknor

SUBJECT:                    Proposed Reserve Realignment within Waingakau Village Development - Flaxmere        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend initiating a formal reserve land swap  process between Council and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (TToH), within the West Flaxmere, Waingakau Village Development.

1.2       This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by promoting primarily social well-being, and more specifically, through the Council’s strategic objective stated in Council’s Community Outcomes:

·    Diversity in housing choice.

·    Residential development opportunities.

·    Places and spaces for recreation.

·    Effective working relationships with Mana Whenua.

1.3       The proposed reserve realignment, under the Reserves Act 1977, seeks to achieve the following benefits:

·    Provide a planted buffer zone between industrial/ primary industries and residential land uses.

·    Utilise the realigned reserve land for community garden/food forest purposes. Officers are in active discussion with TToH around options.

·    Provide a dedicated new recreation reserve to provide a playscape for residents of the Waingakau Village development and the wider Flaxmere community.

1.4       This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social well-being and more specifically through the strategic objective stated in Council’s Community Outcomes:

·    Planning for a more compact urban form.

·    Effective working relationships with mana whenua.

·    Services to meet recreational needs.

·    Responsive Council planning services.

·    Sustainable use of land and water resources.

1.5       The main points of the report concern:

·    To consider the benefits of a land swap that better utilises existing reserve parcels for this developing West Flaxmere neighbourhood. 

·    To consider the multiple benefits of a collaborative approach to reserve development in the Waingakau Village development.

·    A recommendation that Council agree in principle to the proposed land swap so that TToH can complete their overall design for the village in the knowledge that Council supports the proposal and will enable the statutory land swap process to be initiated early in 2020.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Proposed Reserve Realignment within Waingakau Village Development – Flaxmere.

B)     That Council approve in principle initiating the formal reserve realignment process within the West Flaxmere Waingakau Village Development owned by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga.

C)     That the Chief Executive be given approval to initiate and publish a public notice to inform people of the potential land exchange and calling for any objections, as per the provisions of the  Reserves Act 1977.

 

 

·        3.0  BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       Council has worked with community groups over several years to prepare a 10-year plan for the future of the community. The Flaxmere Community Plan outlines a framework of actions to achieve the community vision stating: “Flaxmere will be a beautiful, vibrant place of opportunity with people working together”.

3.2       In 2018 Hastings District Council sold a 46,820m2 piece of land in West Flaxmere to TToH. This land, now called Waingakau Village, will be a mix of co-housing and conventional housing from 1 to 4 bedrooms. The development offers multiple pathways into home ownership and quality homes.

3.3       The current alignment of Waingakau Village’s northern boundary, which interfaces with Council’s reserve, is fragmented.  The owners of the Waingakau Village seek to regularise the northern boundary whereby portions of the existing plantation reserve will be utilised for residential developments and a specific area of land offered as a public reserve to provide additional recreation opportunities.

3.4       Importantly, TToH also seek to partner with Council in developing both the existing and proposed reserves to provide a diverse offering of playscapes, open space and food forest development.  This development offers a new and diverse living environment to meet the residential challenges in West Flaxmere.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       The proposal before Council is to consider the land swap request and with Council’s approval, agree to commence the land swap process under the relevant requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2       If Council agrees to the land swap proposal as requested, and as the land vested as a Plantation Recreation Reserve, under the Reserves Act 1977, Council will need to follow the required procedures for the exchange of a part of a reserve. 

4.3       This will require, amongst other actions, public notification and with that the right for public submission or objection.  Any objections or submissions will need to be heard by a commissioner.  This process will provide the public with the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposal.  Assuming this process proceeds without issue, the Minister of Conservations assent is then required.

4.4       In considering the land swap proposal, Council needs to be satisfied that the values of the reserve offering in the locality are not reduced and ideally are enhanced. 

4.5       The area of reserve land to be swapped is approximately 3578m2.  (See Attachment 1 – Areas 1 and 3.)   It is proposed Council will be receiving an equal or larger area as two new reserve parcels.  One parcel will regularise the existing “jagged” boundary (See Attachment 1 - Area 2) and a new recreation reserve of a minimum area of 3288m2 (see Attachment 1 – Area 4).

4.6       In terms of land value, the existing Council reserve is low quality with minimal reserve utility.  It has a current land value of $5.33m2.  Conversely the land that is being offered by TToH as the land swap offers an improved central location for a proposed new playground and open space.  Its current land value is $12.99m2. 

4.7       In terms of overall urban design objectives, the proposed land swap also allows TToH to better align their residential offering while straightening the current irregular boundary.  By straightening this boundary a clearer and clean reserve edge is created that also delivers a more efficient use of both Council’s reserve land and TToH utilisation of their land holdings by enabling an improved housing yield. 

4.8       Officers believe the value of the land swap would not be disadvantageous to Council and at worst, would be neutral.  The value of land to be vested to Council is currently more valuable and additional utility granted to TToH is relatively minor.  The overall aim of creating more dwellings and a usable reserve offering offers a win-win situation.  The proposed land swap will see Council obtaining a more valuable reserve for recreation purposes and likewise give comparable value to TToH for their residential housing aspirations.  On balance it would seem the exchange to be as minimum fair and reasonable to the ratepayer.

4.9       The proposed reserve realignment aligns with the Flaxmere West Community Plan strategic framework:

·    “Development of more and better quality housing, including through the Waingakau Village Project.”

4.10    In addition, the existing reserve stays largely unchanged and will continue providing a planted buffer zone between the more intensive industrial & primary industries and proposed residential land uses through the reserve realignment. 

4.11    The plans before Council of the reserves are relatively undeveloped and do not give a detailed plan of future development.  However it is worth noting that the applicant has undertaken to seek alternative funding streams to help develop a food forest in the existing plantation reserve and a new playscape on the new reserve that will adjoin Te Aranga Marae. This will see opportunities for the development of community gardens to provide a range of edible fruits.  Officers are in active discussion with TToH development team around suitable options which will be reported back to Council in the future.

4.12    It is recognised that there are many reserves in Flaxmere however this offering is seen as a specific response to a unique residential development.  It is important to create recreational opportunities for residential developments.  This location is no different to other residential subdivisions where a recreation reserve is developed to enhance the wellbeing of the local community. 

4.13    Council through its Long Term Planning and Annual Planning processes will need to consider funding streams for any recreation enhancements and maintenance.  The fact that TToH are already looking at alternative funding sources for future reserve development could provide a value proposition for ratepayers, but ultimately the new home owners will also pay rates to support the recreation opportunities in their neighbourhood. 

4.14    Finally, should the proposed land swap proposal proceed unhindered through the Reserve Act processes, the applicant will still need to meet the respective obligations of the Resource Management Act and any other relevant resource consenting or regulatory obligations for the residential development.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       The recommended option is for Council to approve the land swap in principle and that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to initiate a formal reserve land swap process under the Reserves Act 1977.

5.2       Advantages of the land swap are:

 

·    Maintain a planted buffer strip (plantation reserve) between industrial/ primary industries and residential land uses.

·    Better utilisation of reserve land for recreation, play scape and community garden/food forest purposes.

·    Provide improved development usage of TToH land for the Waingakau Village development, including the provision of four additional residential building sites

·    Potential future use of reserve area in centre of Waingakau Village for local neighbourhood recreation and wellbeing.

5.3       The disadvantages of realigning the reserve area are:

 

·    Minor reduction in the plantation reserve.

 

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.4       Maintaining the status quo or existing reserve alignment would have the following effects.

5.5       Advantages of maintaining the status quo:

·    No additional project time spent by officers on a land swap proposal.

5.6       Disadvantages of maintaining the status quo:

·    TToH would be required to redesign their co-housing area to allow for a non-linear land alignment.

·    An additional ~3 month timeframe required for redesign work, and additional design costs.

·    There will be a reduction sites for co-housing homes in the Waingakau Village, that will offer multiple pathways into home ownership (co-housing).

·    The opportunity for a more efficient land use would be lost.

·    The opportunity for additional improved recreation areas will be lost.

·    There are likely to be indirect effects concerning the inability to fully deliver the Flaxmere West Community Plan, insofar as the framework states that the Waingakau Village project aims to develop more and better quality homes.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       The next steps proposed are as follows:

1.   Approval in principle to realign reserve area (resolution) – Council

2.   Notice calling for objections (one month) – Officers

3.   Consider objections (if any) – Council

4.   Resolve to pursue reserve realignment – Council

5.   Documents to Minister of Conservation – Officers

6.   Ministers notice in Gazette – Council as per Minister delegation

7.   Subdivision and land transfers

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Waingakau Village - Draft Reserve Areas

STR-15-3-19-144

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

 

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the provision of local infrastructure for well-being of communities and for local public services in the present and for the future. These community outcomes will be met through:

·    Diversity in housing choice.

·    Residential development opportunities.

·    Community infrastructure for recreational opportunity

·    Effective working relationships with mana whenua

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There has been comprehensive communication and collaboration between Council officers and the development team of TToH. The proposed reserve realignment forms part of the Waingakau Village development and aims to deliver place making principles listed below:

·    Grow the center of Waingakau as the walkable ‘heart’ or ‘ngakau’ of the community bring greater community, buzz and activity to the centre.

·    Work with the local community to encourage community creativity, lively places and spaces that reflect whakapapa, environment and culture.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The reserve realignment within Waingakau Village seeks to address social and environmental well-being through:

·    Promoting intergenerational close knit communities that support each other.

·    No or low crime due to natural surveillance through good community design and support systems.

·    Higher rates of positive health outcomes.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

The applicant is aware that they may be required to meet the costs associated with the reserve realignment.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

TToH has initiated the reserve realignment within their Waingakau Village development area.

Council has been included in robust communication with TToH concerning development options.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

While there are no more than minor risks surrounding the proposal, should there be submissions in opposition to the land swap the planning process will need to consider other potential viewpoints.  Regardless, Council will need to follow the proper legal process.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

 

 

 


Waingakau Village - Draft Reserve Areas

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator



File Ref: 19/1211

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           3 Waters Manager

Brett Chapman

Stormwater Manager

Matthew Kneebone

SUBJECT:                    Lowes Pit - A Strategy for Managing Stormwater and Minimising Risk        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain an ‘in principle’ decision from Council to adopt the recommendation to proceed with stormwater treatment at Lowes Pit in combination with a catchment management framework.

1.2       Concerns about the interaction between the pit water quality and the unconfined ground water aquifer beneath have been raised recently in regard to risks to the Hastings drinking water supply.

1.3       An independently obtained assessment by Tonkin & Taylor has determined that the risk to the Hastings drinking water supply from Lowes Pit is very low, specifically:

·    ‘This assessment has indicated that the Frimley borefield is not threatened by the E coli levels measured in the Lowes Pit to date. Overall, the pit is viewed as a very low contamination risk to the Frimley borefield.’

1.4       From a stormwater quality perspective the legacy use of the Pit does not met current, let alone future, expectations for the management of stormwater in an industrial area. 

1.5       The proposed way forward includes:

·    A continued focus of ‘on property controls’ within the catchment to manage risks as far as practical on individual sites.

·    The addition of stormwater end of pipe treatment devices as part of the Council stormwater system to contain and remove contaminants that might otherwise enter the receiving environment.

·    The consideration of filling in of the historic excavation that created Lowes Pit.

·    An initial budget allowance of $2M included in the draft 2020/21 plan to complete the works highlighted in 1.5.2 and 1.5.3.

·    Continue working in collaboration with Hawkes Bay Regional Council to jointly resolve these legacy stormwater situations.

1.6       This approach will ensure that a suite of stormwater controls are in place to protect the environment and further minimise risk to groundwater.

1.7       The work underway is reviewing the extent of stormwater treatment and the type of treatment devices and solutions. This is part of the catchment wide investigation into the types of pollutants, where they exist and how they make their way into the stormwater system.

1.8       The completion of these investigations will inform the 2020/21 Annual plan decision making during the first half of next year by providing additional detail in regards to the treatment solution(s), how they need to be implemented, and further refine the likely to cost.

1.9       This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social and environmental outcomes and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objectives to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater on the receiving environment.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Lowes Pit - A Strategy for Managing Stormwater and Minimising Risk.

B)      That the Council ‘in principle’ adopt a combined Management and Stormwater Treatment approach that brings together an improved management framework and a stormwater treatment solution prior to discharge into Lowes Pit. This is set out in detail  in Option 4 of the report at A above, and is the recommended strategy for managing stormwater within the Lowes Pit catchment.

C)     That the Council direct officers to report back on final stormwater treatment solution(s) as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan deliberations.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       Lowes Pit is located along Omahu Rd in Hastings and was originally a quarry for rock/gravel extraction. Aerial photography dating back to the 1940s shows that this quarry was in existence at that time but it is unsure when these operations ceased. The pit which sits within Council owned land at the end of Hazelwood St in the Omahu industrial area, intercepts the shallow groundwater table and currently receives stormwater runoff from a largely industrialised catchment (including roadway runoff).

3.2       The quality of stormwater discharges to the pit are typical for this type of developed catchment. Bacteriological contamination has also been recorded from stormwater samples taken; the source of this contamination is unknown but thought to be a combination of onsite sources, wastewater and wildfowl that reside in Lowes Pit. A source tracking study is about to commence to more specifically determine the bacteriological source or sources.

3.3       Concerns about the interaction between the pit water quality and the unconfined ground water aquifer beneath have been raised recently in regard to risks to the Hastings drinking water supply.

3.4       An investigation to quantify those risks, in particular the potential for bacteriological contamination from stormwater into Lowes Pit, was undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor who are Council’s key advisors on source protection and drinking water risks.

3.5       Their report concluded that the risk to the Hastings drinking water supply from Lowes Pit was very low:

·    ‘This assessment has indicated that the Frimley borefield is not threatened by the E coli levels measured in the Lowes Pit to date. Overall, the pit is viewed as a very low contamination risk to the Frimley borefield.’

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       HDC holds a resource consent for the discharge of stormwater to Lowes Pit. The consent has conditions that require specific monitoring of contaminants including E.coli so that a body of stormwater quality information can be gathered to understand how activities within the catchment are generating pollutants and to what extent.

4.2       The sampling of stormwater is event based and requires sufficient rainfall to enable samples to be collected that are representative of the stormwater runoff that discharges to Lowes Pit. In addition to the HDC stormwater network, there are several other discharges into the pit that are separately consented by the HB Regional Council. In addition, one property owner that is adjacent to the pit, has a consent to extract water for their operations.

4.3       Stormwater pipes and Overland Flowpaths (OLFP)

Map of Stormwater Flows in Lowes Pit Catchment

4.4       The body of water that sits within the pit is not covered by any of the above consents.

4.5       It is unclear how the various discharges impact on Lowes Pit.

4.6       HDC and HBRC have overlapping duties and roles in respect to the management of stormwater across the area. HDC as a consent holder within the Lowes Pit catchment (which includes a number of properties and road drainage) and HBRC as the consent authority for the granting of consents and managing overall stormwater quality.

4.7       HDC and HBRC are currently working together to resolve these legacy issues, with a shared goal to improve the environmental outcomes.

4.8       In 2010, the first rudimentary stormwater devices (Humesceptors) were installed in locations within the catchment in combination with a first flush bypass to the wastewater network in James Rochfort Place.

4.9       Since 2012, HDC has been undertaking detailed studies on the stormwater catchment, the types of activities that operate within it and the types of contaminants that enter into the stormwater system during rain events. This information has culminated in a risk assessment report that identifies activities and onsite practices that are contributing to stormwater contamination.

4.10    The approach to date has been to work with property and business owners to improve stormwater controls in an attempt to reduce their impacts on stormwater.

4.11    While a management approach that focuses on prevention at source is important and even with the best of intentions by everyone, Lowes Pit remains vulnerable to contamination as there are no protection systems in place (such as end of pipe treatment) to protect the receiving environment.

4.12    Some financial provision is already available within the stormwater budget to progress stormwater quality improvements over the next few years. These budgets include: 

·    2019/20      $120,000 ($40,000 spent to date on Lowes Pit)

·    2020/21      $20,000

·    2021/22      $510,000

·    2022/23      $1,050,000

4.13    A significant proportion of the capital budgets earmarked between 2021 and 2023 are for stormwater improvements in the Ruahapia catchment and for works in Caroline Road at the showgrounds.

4.14    Capital funding of up to $2.0M has been submitted into the 2020/21 Annual Plan budget bid to fund the stormwater quality improvements in Lowes Pit.

4.15    Officers have committed most of this year’s budget on the current investigations and the refinement of options and estimates to ensure it can be provided to Council for consideration in during its 2020/21 Annual Plan deliberations. 

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One – Status Quo -

5.1       This option assumes that the current management regime and resource consents are adequate to control the discharge of contaminants to Lowes Pit.

5.2       The current management regime and resource consents are perceived to be inadequate by a number of people who are increasingly concerned about risks from stormwater contamination and the potential to impact on groundwater and drinking water supplies. From a drinking water perspective, although the risks have been quantified as very low, one of the key principles of drinking water safety is about source protection as the first barrier in a multi-barrier approach.

5.3       Lowes Pit is situated within the source protection zone (SPZ) for the Frimley bores. A key function of an SPZ is to prohibit or at least minimise the impacts of activities on drinking water sources. These activities include wastewater and stormwater discharges and the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment which could potentially end up in our drinking water.

Example of potential contaminant sources within surrounding industrial sites

 

5.4       Council’s approach to drinking water safety adopts a high threshold to ensure that we are doing everything we can at all points of the system to protect public health.

5.5       A best practice approach to stormwater management that eliminates or minimises the impacts of stormwater on drinking water aligns with Council’s Drinking Water Policy. The current approach could be enhanced by the provision of additional on property and downstream controls.

5.6       Advantages

 

·    There is no financial impact from this option and existing stormwater budgets are in place to undertake consent monitoring and reactive works.

·    The current programme of monitoring and investigations do not need to be revised or altered.

Disadvantages

 

·    Those people who are concerned about Lowes Pit will be unhappy that nothing has changed.

·    Maintaining compliance against the resource consent does not necessarily manage the risk of contaminants in stormwater.

·    No improvement made to this legacy situation.

5.7       For these reasons the status quo approach is not recommended.

 

Option Two -– Investigate and Impose Stricter Controls

5.8       This option focuses on properties and activities that have the potential to impact on stormwater quality.

5.9       Property investigations have been completed and are separately detailed in a report of those findings. A range of management controls are available to direct how properties and businesses can improve their onsite systems and practices to reduce the potential for contaminants to enter stormwater.

5.10    Of concern is the impact of overland flows generated by more significant rain events that can overwhelm these systems, pick up additional contaminants that are present on the ground and wash them into roadways. Likewise, wastewater overflows from heavy rain are a source of bacteriological contaminants that can occur within private property and within the public sewer network.

5.11    The overland stormwater component can be a more significant contributor to the contaminant load but is often more difficult to control unless property owners are prepared to implement more robust solutions that require changes to their systems and practices and introduces additional costs for compliance.

5.12    For example, the covering in of hardstand areas is a practical measure but can be quite expensive. Similarly, the separation of contaminants from rain through bunding and containment is an effective solution but is often met with opposition due to the changes required and the cost to undertake the necessary modifications.

Examples of chemicals stored inside a purpose built shed and chemical drums left outside

 

5.13    The current Regional Resource Management Plan rules for stormwater (Rule 42) allow industrial and trade activities on land that is less than 2 hectares in size to discharge stormwater as a permitted activity with very few conditions with respect to stormwater quality.

5.14    The draft HBRC TANK Plan Change includes a suite of new stormwater conditions that will strengthen the controls for stormwater discharges once the new plan is adopted and will reinforce HDCs bylaws for controlling discharges from properties that lie within HDCs consented area. However, the timeframe for these changes to come into effect is some way off.  

5.15    Without a different regulatory regime in place, we are reliant on the goodwill of dischargers who understand the need for separation. At the other end of the scale, we have several activities in operation that are known to generate contaminants to ground which are discharged uncontrolled via overland flow.

5.16    If we are to follow our policy in regard to source protection, we need to consider how to deal with activities that present the greatest risk or in fact whether they should continue to operate within our SPZ. Without a change in the current regulatory regime, we are unlikely to have the tools to address these issues.

 

Advantages

 

·    Stronger rules supported by improved legislation (via the TANK Plan Change) will be an important tool in managing stormwater in our urban networks.

·    Collaboration with HB Regional Council is expected to provide a more consistent approach between agencies.

·    Private consented discharges come under a consistent stormwater management regime.

Disadvantages

 

·    HDC bylaws are not applicable across the whole catchment and we are unable to influence those owners and businesses that have Permitted Activity status or are separately consented via HB Regional Council.

·    The timeframe for changes to move through the RMA process is lengthy and therefore they will be unable to enforce immediate changes required at a local level.

·    HDC and HBRC will need to agree on a future regulatory regime that ensures the best outcome for managing stormwater quality. The implementation of these changes and the impact on properties will take several years to embed.

·    Focusing on treatment at source does not entirely remove the risk from overland flow or from accidents and spills that can occur in the carriageway.

 

Option Three – Install End of Pipe (EoP) Treatment

5.17    This option involves the installation of a stormwater treatment solution at the end of the stormwater pipe but prior to discharge into Lowes Pit.

5.18    Stormwater treatment devices are designed to address a range of common contaminants (zinc, copper and hydrocarbons) that are often present in stormwater but can also accommodate bacteriological treatment where necessary.

5.19    These treatment devices require ongoing maintenance to ensure that they continue to operate effectively so there would an associated increased maintenance cost. The benefits of such systems include higher quality stormwater that can comply with the current standards and provide a barrier against spills and/or illegal discharges.

5.20    Within the range of stormwater treatment options being investigated there are two additional approaches that can contribute to improving stormwater quality further. These involve the discharge of treated stormwater to:

·    a land based polishing system and;

·    the redirection of first flush stormwater to the wastewater network

5.21    A land based polishing system involves the filling in of Lowes Pit with selected materials that will then act as a final treatment process for treated stormwater that can be discharged via a soakage system. This is a proven method that increases the level of treatment achieved from the upstream treatment device alone.

5.22    The second benefit from filling in the pond is the removal of the water body so that there is no longer any interaction between water in the pit and the groundwater beneath and it removes wildfowl contamination from the equation.

5.23    Redirection of first flush is being promoted as an interim step to discharge contaminants via the wastewater system. This involves the installation of collection and pumping chambers to capture, contain and redirect at an appropriate location. Preliminary work is underway on where these may be installed and the associated work and costs for implementation.

5.24    Rough order estimates for a dedicated EoP treatment device range from $800k to $1.2M.

5.25    A rough order of cost for filling in of Lowes Pit is $800k

5.26    The redirection to wastewater as an interim option is estimated at $200k

 

Advantages

 

·    Provides a high level of stormwater treatment and an enhanced disposal process.

·    Provides protection in the event of an illegal discharge or the accidental spill of contaminants

·    Redirection of first flush can reduce the requirements for any downstream stormwater treatment processes and captures the bulk of gross solids

Disadvantages

 

·    Treatment at the end of pipe puts all of the reliance for protection at the end of the stormwater system.

·    Stormwater treatment devices require significant ongoing maintenance.

·    The capital and operational costs for infrastructure based solutions are far greater than is currently applied to the management of stormwater.

·    Discharge into the water body within Lowes Pit requires a higher level of treatment as there is no attenuation (other than dilution).

·    If the Pit is not filled, then the water within Lowes Pit is still susceptible to contamination from other sources such as overland flows and wildfowl

·    If the Pit is filled, then a consent will be required and the current private consent holders are likely to be affected parties and their existing use will require consideration.

 

Option Four - Recommended Option – A Combined Management and Stormwater Treatment Strategy

5.27    The combination of a management regime as described in Option 2 and proceeding with stormwater treatment and/or redirection of stormwater as in Option 3 is recommended.

5.28    This option brings together the advantages of a stronger regulatory approach coupled with measurable improvements in stormwater quality and protection of the environment and any potential risks to groundwater.

 

Advantages

 

·    Emphasis remains on managing risks at source

·    Improvements in regulation and enforcement via bylaws and RRMP rules

·    A whole of catchment approach enables a range of solutions to be assessed, prioritised and implemented.

·    Stormwater quality is enhanced and the final disposal becomes part of the treatment train

·    Filling in Lowes Pit removes the potential for contamination from uncontrolled overland flow and wildfowl contamination is eliminated. 

Disadvantages

 

·    There is a significant capital cost and ongoing operational costs to maintain stormwater treatment systems

·    Other private discharges need to be included in the catchment solution which will entail additional costs for treatment and disposal.

·    Some may perceive the costs for stormwater treatment (Council and private) as prohibitive.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       Subject to Council adopting this ‘in principle’ recommendation, the next steps involve:

·    Commencement of the source tracking investigations for e.coli

·    Continue on property assessments and overland flow modelling

·    Continue with the development and detailing of the options for re-direction and EoP treatment

·    Investigate the filling in of Lowes Pit including quantities and suitable material supply.

·    Continue to undertake further Source Protection Zone risk assessments to the wider Omahu Industrial area and in the unconfined aquifer zone

6.2       This information will be used to develop the current concepts into a final proposal for consideration by Council as part of the 2020/21 Annual plan deliberations. 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

There are concerns about Lowes Pit in regard to the potential risks to drinking water from contaminated stormwater. An independent assessment has concluded that the risk to the HDC drinking water supply is very low.

The pit itself remains vulnerable to stormwater contamination without some form of upstream stormwater treatment.

Management initiatives to prevent contamination at source are ongoing but are unlikely to provide sufficient risk mitigation on their own.

Options to implement stormwater treatment in combination with a stronger management regime are seen as beneficial to improve the quality of stormwater from the surrounding catchment. 

This ‘in principle decision’ sets a direction for officers to investigate the matter fully and to report back to Council.

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social and environmental outcomes and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objectives to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater on the receiving environment.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

Council’s strategic objectives include minimising impacts to the environment and a high standard of protection for drinking water. This proposal promotes the safety and well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No specific consultation has been undertaken with Māori to inform this report.

This report supports Tangata Whenua’s principles in respect of the protection of the natural environment and the sustainable use of resources from activities that occur on the land.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Stormwater improvements include better managing the impacts of rainfall across our urban communities to minimise flooding and the protection of households and businesses.

Impacts from activities on the land can result in the deterioration of urban stormwater that can contributes to environmental degradation of our waterways.

Stormwater solutions that encompass a combination of treatment and a management framework will deliver more sustainable and long lasting outcome.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

A rough order estimate to provide a robust stormwater treatment solution and to fill in the excavation is $2.0M.

This capital outlay is currently unbudgeted but has been included in the revised annual plan budgets for 2020/21.

Existing funding is being used to progress the current investigations and preliminary concept development so that a final solution and more accurate cost estimates can be reported to Council in time for the annual plan deliberations.  

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

 

This decision has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

 

Adopting the recommendation ‘in principle’ does not commit Council to any solution or additional investment at this stage but supports the investigations that are required to develop the proposed option to the extent that a final decision to proceed or not can be considered.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

Council officers have met with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council senior management and consent team to discuss the principles of the proposal with them and to receive feedback on the options for stormwater treatment and management of the Lowes Pit catchment.

Informal discussions suggest that they are supportive of our approach and agree that there is a need to work collaboratively on the solutions to this legacy issue.

There may be a need to update the community on Council’s approach to Lowes Pit as concerns continue to be raised with HDC and HBRC.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

Drinking water safety is identified as one of Council’s top priorities and Lowes Pit is included in the Water Safety Plan improvement programme requiring further investigation.

Of importance is the need to ensure that the potential risk from Lowes Pit to HDC’s drinking water source is contextualised alongside other potential risks and that decisions are based on quantified risk as opposed to perceptions of risk.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board`.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1215

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019        

 

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that recommendations from the Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019 require ratification by Council. 

1.2       Due to the short timeframe between the Rural Community Board meeting on 9 December and the Council meeting on 10 December, the draft recommendations from the report/s have been set out below.  If any changes are made by the Rural Community Board to the wording of these recommendations, the amended wording to be ratified will be tabled at the council meeting.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)     That the Council receives the report titledSummary of Recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019”.

 

B)     That the following recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held 9 December 2019 be ratified:

 

“4RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES REPORT

 

A)     That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receives the report titled Summary of Recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019 dated 9 December 2019.

B)    That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommend to Council that $290,000 from the Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve be put towards funding storm damage remediation work arising from the October 2019 storm event.

 

 

5.    BRIDGE PROJECTS FUNDING

 

A)  That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receives the report titled Bridge Projects Funding.

 

B)   That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommend that Council approve advancement of the budgeted local share funding of $322,000 for the bridge strengthening programme from 2020/21 to 2019/20 in order to complete the Moeangiangi Bridge upgrade.

 

6.    HOWARD ESTATE ACT 1978 – ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT

 

A)   That the Council/Committee receives the report titled Summary of Recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held on 9 December 2019.

B)   That the Board recommend to Council the re-appointment of Michelle Monteith as a member of the Howard Estate Advisory Board for the period 23 August 2020 to 23 August 2023 pursuant to Section 19 (1)(d) of the Howard Estate Act 1978.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1183

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Bridge Engineer

Anu Ileperuma

SUBJECT:                    Bridge Projects Funding        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council that the bridge strengthening programme funding to be advanced from 2020/2021 to 2019/2020.

1.2       This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objectives of efficient movement of goods and infrastructure supporting economic growth.

1.3       The bridge strengthening programme is already approved in the current Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28 and is ahead of schedule.

1.4       In order to advance Moeangiangi bridge project, funding needs to be advanced from 2020/2021 financial year to 2019/2020 financial year.

1.5       The programme’s local share is loan funded.

1.6       Officers require Council’s approval to advance the local share of the funding from next financial year to this financial year to carry out Moeangiangi project.

1.7       Key implications of advancing the funding are:

·    Minimal financial impact as to complete the project, the loan will be drawn earlier but overall bridge programme budget is to remain the same.

·    The weight restriction on the bridge will be removed a year earlier than programmed, allowing users to unlock benefits earlier.

1.8       This report has also been presented at Rural Community Board on the 9th December and the recommendation from the Board is to be tabled at the meeting.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Bridge Projects Funding.

B)     That the Council approve the advancement of the budgeted local share funding of $322,000 for the bridge strengthening programme from 2020/21 to 2019/20 in order to complete Moeangiangi Bridge upgrade.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       The bridge strengthening programme identified under capacity/restrictive bridges and routes which have high transport demand for heavy vehicles.

3.2       These would see benefit from being strengthened to allow local road users to increase their productivity by reducing transport costs.

3.3       The bridge strengthening programme was included and approved by the Council in the current Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28.

3.4       A business case was prepared, consulted with appropriate stakeholders and was approved by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to acquire subsidy.

3.5       Since the commencement of the project, bridges along Taihape, Kereru, Ohurakura, Napier, Pakowhai (except two bridges along these routes) and individual previously restricted bridges (Willowford, Red and Berry bridge) have been evaluated and required strengthening works have been completed.

3.6       The bridge programme is ahead of predicted schedule at the moment.

3.7       Moeangiangi project is included in the business case due to the current bridge restriction and strengthening works are programmed to be constructed next financial year.

3.8       The programme budget for this financial year cannot accommodate Moeangiangi project.

3.9       The project has been tendered subject to funding approval.

3.10    NZTA cash flow adjustment to advance funding have been applied for and approved.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       Moeangiangi Bridge has been weight restricted due to capacity issues since December 2017 and it serves a large stock farming station and stock farming land without any alternative routes available to them.

4.2       There have been few attempts to lessen the restriction on its users, at their request, to carry out their operations without the restriction having any adverse effect on their transportation needs.

4.3       The interim measures could only improve the situation slightly and a permanent solution to improve the bridge’s capacity is proposed.

4.4       The bridge strengthening programme budget for this financial year cannot accommodate the construction work required to upgrade the bridge capacity and remove the restriction.

4.5       In order to carry out the project this year, total amount of $699,000 (46%, local share of $322,000) needed to be advanced from next year’s programme to this year’s programme.

4.6       A cash flow adjustment with NZTA has been arranged and has been approved for their share of 54%.

4.7       The bridge programme’s local share is loan funded. Hence the financial implications of advancing the project are minor. Such that:

·    The loan is not drawn until the project is constructed – construction to start in late January to May 2020

·    Only the loan repayment is local share funded. This amounts to approximately $11,000 for the year.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       The funding is advanced from 2020/2021 financial year to 2019/2020 financial year:

 

Advantages

 

·    The Moeangiangi Bridge restriction can be removed a year in advance

·    Allows the users to optimise their truck movements by using high productivity motor vehicle (HPMV) trucks following the upgrade

Disadvantages

 

·    Minor financial implication of the loan funded local share is drawn earlier in this financial year instead of next financial year

 

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2       Do not advance funding from 2020/2021 financial year to 2019/2020 financial year:

Advantages

·    The loan is drawn down as programmed in the next financial year

Disadvantages

·    The Moeangiangi Bridge restriction is kept as is until next financial year

·    Users are restricted in their movements until the upgrade works are constructed until June 2021

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       Once the funding advancement has been approved:

·    Tender can be awarded to undertake the upgrade works

·    Construction is planned to commence late January 2020 to end of April 2020

·    Restriction will be removed following the completion of works

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Bridge Strengthening Programme Map with Programmed Timing as of 2019 for LTP

TR-2-3-19-54

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

The bridge strengthening programme is already approved in the current Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28 and is ahead of schedule.

In order to advance Moeangiangi bridge project, funding needs to be advanced from 2020/2021 financial year to 2019/2020 financial year.

The programme’s local share is loan funded.

Officers require Council’s approval to advance the local share of the funding from next financial year to this financial year to carry out Moeangiangi project.

Key implications of advancing the funding are:

-     Minimal financial impact as to complete the project, the loan will be drawn earlier but overall bridge programme budget is to remain the same.

-     The weight restriction on the bridge will be removed a year earlier than programmed, allowing users to unlock benefits earlier.

This report has also been presented at Rural Community Board on the 9th December and the recommendation from the Board is to be tabled at the meeting.

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objectives of efficient movement of goods and infrastructure supporting economic growth.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future through the Council’s strategic objectives of efficient movement of goods and infrastructure supporting economic growth.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There are no known impacts for the Tangata Whenua.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

There are no known impacts on the sustainability.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are minor financial implications ($11,000) due to advancing drawing down on loan funded local share. However these impacts are minor and the portion of loan funded local share does not change for the overall programme.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of no significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

The bridge strengthening programme has been thoroughly consulted with stakeholders and community through Council initiated workshops and through the annual plan.

Furthermore, the road users of Moeangiangi bridge have been consulted regarding the project and interim measures.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

Health and Safety risks identified in this project are:

·    Traffic – working on or near live lanes: Mitigated by working in accordance with Traffic Management Plan

·    Working at height – scaffolding: Mitigated by working in accordance with WorkSafe guidelines

·    Working above water: Mitigated by working in accordance with WorkSafe guidelines

·    Moving machinery – Crane: Mitigated by working in accordance with WorkSafe guidelines

·    Weather – Mitigated by working to contractor approved Health and Safety Plan. Anticipated on-site works programme December 2019; then January 2020.

·    Manual Handling: Mitigated by working in accordance with WorkSafe guidelines

·    Safe Work Practices for - Hazardous material, Water Blasting, Welding and Painting: Mitigated by undertaking to industry accepted Best Practice.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

The information have been presented at the Rural Community Board on 9th December 2019, and the recommendation is to be tabled at the meeting. 

 

 

 


Bridge Strengthening Programme Map with Programmed Timing as of 2019 for LTP

Attachment 1

 



File Ref: 19/982

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Parks Landscape and Projects Officer

Bart Leslie

SUBJECT:                    Request to Remove Trees in Windsor Drainage Reserve        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider a request by residents to remove four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees located in the Windsor Drainage Reserve between Ada Street and Louie Street.

1.2       This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting environmental and social wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of providing safe, fit for purpose services both now and into the future and good quality local infrastructure.

1.3       Council received a request on 2 September 2019 from five residents requesting the removal of four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees located in the Windsor Drainage Reserve. The report presents an analysis of the request against the adopted Tree Removal Policy, and includes assessments from two independent arborists. 

1.4       The reports recommends that Council resolves to remove the four coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) identified in the Windsor Drainage Reserve.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Request to Remove Trees in Windsor Drainage Reserve.

B)      That the Council approve the request of five residents adjoining the Windsor Drainage Reserve to remove four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees located in the Windsor Drainage Reserve and identified on the Location Plan in Attachment 2.

C)     That the removal of the four trees be carried out within the next 12 months.

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       On 2 September 2019 Council received a request from five residents whose dwellings adjoin the Windsor Drainage Reserve that lies between Louie and Ada Streets, seeking the removal of four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees (Attachment 1). A plan of the Drainage Reserve and location of the trees is included in Attachment 2.

3.2       The request for removal is due to their concerns over ‘continual rubbish on their roofs and gutters, absolute shade, restricted drying of laundry and worry regarding the safety of the trees’.  

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       Council receives a number of requests to remove trees in reserves, streets and public places, typically due to concerns over shading, litter drop, impact on infrastructure such as footpaths, buildings and public safety concerns. 

4.2       Under Council’s adopted tree removal policy, where a tree is dead, dying or dangerous, the decision to remove is straightforward and officers are delegated authority to undertake the necessary actions.  However, when the tree is deemed healthy, officers take a conservative approach and look to remedy any nuisance issue in the first instance, therefore avoiding removal in most cases.

4.3       Typically officers deal with tree removals as operational matters using Council’s Tree Policy to guide removal decision making (Attachment 3).

4.4       The Tree Removal Policy states as follows:

1.   No tree shall be removed from any Council owned land, or any land for which Council is the administering authority under the Reserves Act 1977, unless:

a.   The reason for removal is anticipated by the Tree Removal Flowchart; or

b.   Approved by a Council resolution.

 

4.5       The request for the removal of a healthy tree needs to be carefully considered under the Tree Removal Policy, as requests for pruning and tree removal of healthy trees are reasonably frequent.  Council needs to be sure that its decision making is robust, so that any action will not set an unwelcome precedent, but also ensure that public safety and nuisance issues are appropriately considered.

4.6       With an increased public awareness of climate change and sustainability, the removal of trees in public places is currently a widely debated topic and public criticism can be swift.   Officers are therefore currently taking an extremely cautious approach to requests for tree removal requests that do not clearly meet the Tree Removal Policy.

4.7       The four trees range in size from approximately 15 to 22 metres with an estimated age of approximately 30 - 40 years and are generally in good health.

 

Arborists’ Assessments

4.8       Two independent arborist reports have been received with relation to the trees.

4.9       Arborists Superior Exterior recommend that the trees be removed, before damage to neighbouring properties occurs.

4.10    Their report, (Attachment 4) states that all four trees appear to be in good health, with no signs of dieback, major deadwood or fungal brackets.  The edge of the bank is intact, with no large obvious roots exposure.  They also note that one of the trees has lost its upper crown and as a result has co-dominant stems regrowth.

4.11    Importantly, Superior Exterior also state that the coast redwood is one of the tallest trees and is very long lived.  The four trees in question are in their infancy, and in New Zealand are expected to have a life expectancy of 200+ years.  They state that the site suitability of this species is a note of concern.  There is limited area for the trees’ trunk diameter to increase before it effects neighbouring properties and therefore, as they get larger, the harder and more expensive it will become to remove them.  Removal will not affect bank/drain stability although the stumps may need to be poisoned to prevent regrowth.

4.12    The report by arborists Proarbore (Attachment 5) states that all four trees have good structure without any major visible defects and are located on the stream bank which does not look undermined structurally by the water course.   Due to the nature of the growth habit of Redwood trees, there are only small scaffolding branches and any limb failure is likely to be minimal, and due to the limited target area, they suggest they pose no risk.

4.13    Proarbore also identified one of the trees as having a co-dominant leader which is a common growth defect habit in Redwood.  They recommends that this trunk could be monitored on a bi-annual basis; or be removed to alleviate any future issue.

Assessment against Tree Removal Policy

4.14    The residents request the removal on the grounds of the nuisance factors of; litter fall with the continual depositing rubbish on their roofs and gutters, adverse shading, restricted drying of laundry and worry regarding the safety of the trees in regard to risks to persons and property.  

4.15    All trees create some nuisance factors but these alone are not necessarily grounds for the removal of healthy trees.

4.16    However, as stated by the Superior Exterior arborist, it is the site suitability of these specimens that is of more concern.  There is limited area for their trunks to increase in diameter before they have greater effects on neighbouring properties.  In addition, as they get larger, the harder and more expensive it will become to remove the trees.  This species can live to over 200 years old, and these trees are currently only around 30-40 years old.

4.17    Given the above, officers believe that the unsuitability of these trees to the site is a valid reason to consider removal.  On the basis of accepting “other valid reasons for removal,’ the Tree Removal Policy requires approval by a Council resolution. 

4.18    Officers presented the residents’ request for the removal of these four trees to the Landmarks Advisory Group at their meeting on 18 September 2019.   While concerned at the removal of mature trees, the Group acknowledged that they were an inappropriate species for the site in relation to residential properties and understood the concerns of the residents.

4.19    It is also noted that Council has numerous other requests for tree removals that under the Tree Removal policy require Council consideration and approval.  Officers will be reporting these requests to Council in 2020with a view to gaining approval for tree removal where deemed appropriate.   Officer will also seek to review the Tree Removal policy to help streamline the policy to more speedily deal with some of these requests where they are materially affecting or damaging property and infrastructure.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One – Remove the four trees - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       Option 1, being the option recommended by officers, is to remove the four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees located in the Windsor Drainage Reserve as requested by the residents.

 

Advantages

 

·    The removal of the four trees will acknowledge the concerns of the residents of the impact that these large trees have on their wellbeing; and in doing so avoid future complaints and ongoing maintenance requirements.

·    The removal of a species of tree that is inappropriate to the site location, in close proximity to residential properties, given the size they can grow to. 

·    As noted by an independent arborist, the growth of the trees will have further adverse effects on the neighbouring properties and the cost to remove will become more expensive as they get larger.

·    Removal will not affect the stability of the drain or bank where they are located.

Disadvantages

 

·    The removal will result in the loss of four healthy trees

 

Option Two – The Status Quo – Retain the four trees - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2       Option Two is to retain and maintain the four Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) trees located in the Windsor Drainage Reserve

 

Advantages

 

·    Retention of four healthy trees

Disadvantages

 

·    Retention will not acknowledge the concerns of the residents of the impact that these large trees have on their wellbeing

·    Council will continue to receive future complaints and have to carry out ongoing maintenance and tree inspections

·    There is limited area for trunk diameter to increase before it materially effects neighbouring properties and as they get larger, the harder and more expensive they become to either maintain or remove

·    The trees will continue to grow and will increasingly shade the nearby houses and create increased litter fall

·    Council will continue to receive requests to remove the trees

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       Once Council has made a recommendation with regard to the removal of these four trees, officers will programme any tree removal or maintenance work accordingly.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Request to Remove Redwood Trees Louie Street

CFM-15-1-5-19-423

 

2

Location Plan Windsor Drainage Reserve

CFM-15-1-5-19-425

 

3

Tree Removal Policy Nov 2009

CFM-15-2-09-283

 

4

Arborist Assessment (Superior Exterior)  Louie Street Tree Removal Request

CFM-15-1-5-19-422

 

5

Arborist Assessment (Pro Arbor)  Louie Street Tree Removal Request

CFM-15-1-5-19-421

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily protecting and enhancing the wellbeing of the community.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This requests promotes the local public service objective of creating safe communities.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The prudent maintenance of trees within the District helps ensure the sustainable management of these natural resources.  There are a number of trees within this drainage reserve, and the removal of these four trees can enable easily their replacement with more suitable riparian margin plantings. Therefore there are considered to be no major implications for sustainability.

It is also noted that the loss of four trees is relatively insignificant given Council’s tree planting programmes that occur annually.  For example in excess of 300 new trees were planted last year’s planting season.  Council is certainly responding to increasing tree stock across the District for positive environmental impact and sustainability.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Short term:  It is estimated that the cost to remove all four trees is $20,000.  Officers will look to redirect funds from the storm water budget area to undertake tree removal or maintenance work this financial year.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance in terms of financial thresholds.   The $20,000 cost of removal does not trigger any of Council’s financial significance thresholds.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

All five directly adjoining residential properties have written to Council requesting the removal of the four trees.  Officers and some Councillors have also met the residents to discuss their concerns over the future of the trees.

Officers presented the removal of these four trees to the Landmarks Advisory Group at their meeting on 18 September 2019, along with other requests that have been received.   While having concern at the removal of mature trees, members acknowledged that they were an inappropriate species for the site in relation to residential properties and that understood the concerns of the residents.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

Council has a requirement to meet the requirements identified in the adopted Tree Removal Policy.   The request for removal of a healthy tree needs to be carefully considered under the Tree Removal Policy, as requests for pruning and tree removal of healthy trees are frequent.  Council needs to be sure that its decision making is robust so that any action will not set an unwelcome precedent, but also ensure that public safety and nuisance issues are appropriately considered.

This report recommends a course of action that will see Council meeting their requirements in accordance with the Tree Removal Policy by the removal of the risks that the trees pose to persons and property.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

 

 

 


Request to Remove Redwood Trees Louie Street

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Location Plan Windsor Drainage Reserve

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Tree Removal Policy Nov 2009

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator



Arborist Assessment (Superior Exterior)  Louie Street Tree Removal Request

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Arborist Assessment (Pro Arbor)  Louie Street Tree Removal Request

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/1213

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Parking Transportation Officer

Mel England

SUBJECT:                    Parking Controls        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on changes to parking controls on Eastbourne Street West.

1.2       This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic wellbeing and more specifically through Council’s strategic objectives of Moving people and goods around safely and efficiently

1.3       This proposal arises from the construction of the new police station and the refurbishment of the parking area, and concludes by recommending a number of changes in parking controls and time limits.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Parking Controls.

B)     That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(i) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016, that the 2 existing P60 parking spaces on the southern side of Eastbourne Street West commencing 15 metres from the intersecting line with Railway Road be revoked.

C)     That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(i) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016, that the 2 existing parking spaces on the southern side of Eastbourne Street West commencing 15 metres from the intersecting line with Railway Road extending 11.4 meters West be resolved to have a P30 time limit as set out in Attachment 1 (REG-22-03-12-19-491).

D)     That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(iii) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016, that the 2 existing parking spaces on the southern side of Eastbourne Street West commencing 26.4 metres from the intersecting line with Railway Road extending 14 metres West be resolved to be 2 mobility carparks as set out in Attachment 1 (REG-22-03-12-19-491).

E)      That Council resolve pursuant to Clause 5.3.1(a)(i) of Chapter 5 (Parking and Traffic) of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016, that the remaining parking spaces on the southern side of Eastbourne Street West commencing 30.4 metres from the intersecting line with Railway Road extending 47 metres West be resolved to have P60 time limit as set out in Attachment 1 (REG-22-03-12-19-491).

 

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       From time to time it is necessary to introduce parking controls and or amend those that are already in place.

3.2       A formal resolution of the Council is a legal requirement to make changes and enforce the use of parking spaces under the provisions of the Hastings District Consolidated Bylaw 2016.

3.3       The following information provides the background and current situation relevant to the change being proposed.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       Eastbourne Street - Justice Precinct

Following completion of the redeveloped police station on at 205 Railway Road, (the Justice Precinct) the footpath and parking area outside the police station and courthouse on the Eastbourne Street Road frontage has been redesigned.

Stewart Fleming the Change Implementation Manager for the redevelopment of the Police station has been consulted on the proposed plan changes and welcomes the new design.

The new design takes into account the need for mobility parking and short stay car parking for visitors to the precinct area. The new design allows for the inclusion of 2 mobility parks and 2 P30 time limited bays and 7 P 60 time limited bays. Previously there were 12 P60 time limited bays (see plan below).

The proposed parking bays are in line with the Council’s parking policy for the management and enforcement of parking in the precinct area.

 

 

OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGAOption One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga 5.1        Eastbourne Street West - Justice Precinct

This change is required to meet the new requirements for the justice precinct and will make it easier for the public visiting the area to access short term and mobility parking.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       If the changes are approved the bylaws will be amended to enable the changes to be made to the parking limits as set out above:

 

Attachments:

 

1

Justice Precinct Parking

REG-22-03-12-19-491

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

·    Moving people and goods around safely and efficiently

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

No Financial implications

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision does not trigger the threshold of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

Consultation was carried out with the Police and they endorse the proposed changes.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

N/A

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A

 

 

 


Justice Precinct Parking

Attachment 1

 


File Ref: 19/980

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Health and Safety Manager

Jennie Kuzman

SUBJECT:                    Health and Safety Quarterly Report        

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform and update Council about Health and Safety at Hastings District Council.

1.2       The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) requires HSWA Officers (Elected members and the Chief Executive) to exercise due diligence by taking reasonable steps to understand the organisation’s operations and Health and Safety risks, and to ensure that they are managed so that Council meets its legal obligations.

1.3       The attached report for the first quarter of the 2019/2020 financial year (Attachment 1) provides information to enable Elected Members to undertake due diligence, by providing leading and lagging statistical information in relation to Health and Safety for the fourth quarter of the 2019/2020 financial year. This quarterly report also incorporates the monthly report information for the period 1-30 September 2019.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Health and Safety Quarterly Report.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Human Resources (NO PERSONAL INFORMATION) - Health and Safety - Injury Reporting & Recording - Information - HDC Quarterly Health and Safety Report  - Quarter 1- 2019-2020

HR-03-8-2-19-156

 

 

 

 

 



Human Resources (NO PERSONAL INFORMATION) - Health and Safety - Injury Reporting & Recording - Information - HDC Quarterly Health and Safety Report  - Quarter 1- 2019-2020

Attachment 1

 

 

Hastings District Council

Quarterly Health and Safety Report:  Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

1 July – 30 September 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

colored rectangle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report contains information that was reported during the period 1 July to 30 September 2019 and is current as at 15 November 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary of Terms

Leading Indicators

·    Hazards Reported – reports of newly identified hazards (in HDC facilities/worksites).

·    Health and Safety Risk Assessments – documented risk assessments for HDC tasks/projects.

·    Health and Safety Observations - documented conversations/ or task observations undertaken by Managers/Supervisors with HDC employees or Contractors.

·    Health and Safety Inspections - documented inspections (usually a check of a site or facility using set criteria) undertaken by Managers/Supervisors with HDC employees or Contractors.

·    Health and Safety Audits - documented health and safety system or contract audits undertaken by Managers/Supervisors with HDC employees or Contractors.

·    Health and Safety Discussions – documented meetings in which health and safety matters are discussed with HDC employees in attendance (e.g. Monthly team meetings).

·    Health and Safety Training   - documented records of employees who have undertaken safety training for the month (both internal and external training).

·    Health and Safety Recognition - documented recognition of excellence by HDC in regards Health and Safety.

·    Toolbox Briefings – job planning / start-up meetings held daily or weekly at a job site before work begins where health and safety hazards and control measures are discussed.

 

Lagging Indicators

·    Near Misses - Close call events - i.e. no injury or property damage sustained.

·    Property Damages – reported damage to HDC property/plant/equipment.

·    First Aid Injuries - Injuries treated onsite by HDC Employees and no further treatment required.

·    Medical Treatment Injuries - Injuries treated by Registered Medical Professionals e.g. nurse, doctor, physiotherapist, dentist.

·    Lost Time Injuries - Injuries resulting in time off work.

·    WorkSafe Notifiable Events - Any incidents which were legally required to be reported to WorkSafe NZ.


 

A.  executive SUMMARY

 

Organisational Health and Safety objectives were set at the beginning of 2019 and carry through until the end of the 2019/2020 financial year. These objectives have a strong focus on the promotion of Health and Safety through greater active leadership and engaging with contractors to further develop a Health and Safety culture that encompasses all workers whom undertake work for Council. These objectives provide useful measures for reporting of leading indicators. Good progress has been made towards these objectives as indicated on page four and progress to completion will continue to be tracked through the quarterly reports in 2019/2020.

 

In comparison to the fourth quarter of 2018/2019, leading indicators numbers remain fairly stable, however there was a decrease in toolbox meetings and hazards reported. It is expected that these indicators will increase in the second quarter with the increase in staff due to the opening of seasonal facilities.

 

This is the third quarterly report which provides information on the tracking of Health and Safety observations by target and group (see pages 7-8) . As a whole Council achieved the target for Health and Safety Observations in this quarter with three groups (Asset Management, Human Resources and Planning & Regulatory Services) achieving their individual group targets. This is a good indication that the objectives set for Managers and Team Leaders to drive safety leadership within their teams are well underway. Additionally, of those observations completed, it is pleasing to see that 91% of employees and 85% of contractors were observed undertaking tasks to a Good or Excellent standard.

 

In regards to lagging indicators reported during this quarter, results remain steady, with similar numbers to the previous quarter. Interactions with the public continue to remain the most prolific hazard type reported by employees, however manual handling was the cause of the majority of injuries. Open wounds (cuts, lacerations, & grazes) are the most common type of injury reported, followed by bruising and strains and sprains.

 

Contractor incident reporting remains lower than expected, however as part of the organisational Health and Safety objectives there is a targeted campaign underway to increase safety engagement with these workers.

 

In regards to incidents relating to public, results remain steady, with similar numbers to the previous quarter. The vast majority of incidents were minor in nature, treated with first aid on-site. All in all, when considering that there were approximately 213,912 visitors to Council’s community facilities during quarter four, the public injury frequency rates remain very low (less than 0.1%).    


B.  Organisational Objectives

Organisational Objectives for the period 1 January 2019 – 30 June 2020 are as follows:

 

1.  


1.   Promote Health & Safety through active leadership

·    Develop a Health & Safety orientation programme for Team Leaders and Managers aimed at ensuring people in leadership roles have sufficient knowledge and resources to lead Health and Safety within their teams.

·    Set targets for staff engagement activities (observations, conversations, inspections) and track the % of Managers meeting these targets.

·    Utilising the recognition reward system, track the number of recognition awards given to staff by Senior Managers (LMT & Third Tier) for excellence in Health and Safety.

 

2.   Continue to drive a culture of early reporting in order to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses

·    Track non-injury incident (hazard Identification, near miss and property damage) rates across the year.

·    Report on the % of non-injury incidents compared to total incidents reported.

·    Analyse non-injury incidents by hazard category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

3.   Establish a wellbeing programme for Council staff in order to proactively manage the Mental Health and wellbeing risks associated with work tasks, activities and pressures.

·    Develop a Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy and Guidance material for staff.

·    Develop a Wellbeing Programme that has a monthly focus topic.

·    Undertake staff engagement surveys at 6 months and 12 months to gauge effectiveness of the programme.

 

4.   Engage with contractors to development a Health and Safety culture that encompasses all workers whom undertake work for Council

·    Identify ten term contracts (minimum 6 months duration) which have significant health and safety risk to council (i.e. those involving critical health and safety risks), and track the Health and Safety Performance on these contracts.

·    Set targets for contractor engagement activities (observations, inspections, audits)  and track the % of Staff completing these targets 

·    Track the % of corrective actions arising from contractor observations, inspections and audits that are completed on time.

·    Provide a 6 monthly newsletter for contractors


 

 

C. leading indicators

 

1.  Indicator Measures – Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

Leading Indicator

July 2019

August 2019

September 2019

Quarter 1

(2019/2020)

 Total

Quarter 4 (2018/2019)

Total

Hazards reported

35

20

20

75

90

Health and Safety Discussions held

16

23

18

57

59

Toolbox Health and Safety Briefings held

62

66

55

183

589

Health and Safety Risk Assessments undertaken

236

259

168

663

483

Health and Safety Observations completed

229

219

147

595

470

Number of staff attending Health and Safety training

152

75

71

298

127

Health and Safety subcommittee/committee meetings held

1

2

1

4

7

Health and Safety Recognition

5

6

4

15

10

 

 

2. 
Visitor Numbers at Community Facilities - Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

Facility

Visitor Numbers – Quarter 1

1 July – 30 September 2019

Visitor Numbers – Quarter 4

1 April – 30 June 2019

Camberley Community Centre

6,642

6,149

Clive Pool

Estimate: 15,000

19,359

Flaxmere Community Centre

23,051

15,693

Flaxmere Waterworld

Estimate: 7,000

6,743

Frimley Pool

Closed

Closed

Hastings City Art Gallery

6,485

3,107

Hastings District Libraries:

·    Flaxmere

·    Hastings

·    Havelock North

     Total

·    25,233

·    84,807

·    31,589

Total 141,629

·    27,130

·    87,417

·    30,004

Total 144,551

Hastings Sports Centre

14,125

Estimate: 13,000

Havelock North Village Pool

Closed

Closed

Splash Planet

Closed

Closed

TOTAL

Approx. 213,932

Approx. 208,602


3.          Hazard Identification Analysis

 

4.  Health & Safety Observation Analysis

Health & Safety Observations Completed - Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

Group

Target

Number

Completed

% Target Completed

Asset Management (AM)

347

393

113%

Community Facilities & Programmes (CF&P)

65

53

82%

Economic Growth & Organisation Improvement (EGOI)

98

64

65%

Human Resources (HR)

21

38

180%

Office of Chief Executive and Other (CE)

4

2

50%

Planning & Regulatory Services (P&R)

46

45

98%

Organisation Total

581

595

102%

 

 

 

      

 

 

RESULTS CRITERIA

·    Excellent (All work being performed safely and safety leadership being demonstrated)

·    Good (Work generally being performed safely. Only minor improvement opportunities identified)

·    Fair (A couple of unsafe practices and/or conditions were observed)

·    Poor (Many unsafe practices and/or conditions were observed)

D.  lagging indicators

1.  Reported Incidents – Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

1.1 Employee Incidents

Lagging Indicator

July 2019

August 2019

September 2019

Quarter 1 Total

Near Miss

20

18

17

55

Property Damage

5

2

6

13

Injuries

7

4

8

19

·    First Aid Treatment

4

4

3

11

·    Medical Treatment

3

0

4

7

·    Lost Time

0

0

1

1

WorkSafe Notifiable Events

0

0

0

0

1.2 Contractor Incidents

Lagging Indicator

July 2019

August 2019

September 2019

Quarter 1 Total

Near Miss

13

19

3

35

Property Damage

0

0

1

1

Injuries

2

2

0

4

·    First Aid Treatment

1

2

0

3

·    Medical Treatment

1

0

0

1

·    Lost Time

0

0

0

0

WorkSafe Notifiable Events

0

0

0

0

1.3 Public Incidents

Lagging Indicator

July 2019

August 2019

September 2019

Quarter 1 Total

Near Miss

11

10

6

27

Property Damage

0

1

0

1

Injuries

14

11

3

28

·    First Aid Treatment

12

11

10

33

·    Medical Treatment

2

0

0

2

WorkSafe Notifiable Events

0

0

0

0

 


1.4 Significant Incident Summary – Quarter 1 2019/2020

‘Significant Incidents’ refer to any incidents which required medical treatment or resulted in significant property damage or WorkSafe notifiable events.

Below is a summary of incidents which were reported during Quarter 1 – 1 July to 30 September 2019

 

Incident Month

Type

Relationship

  Incident Description

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee backed up into the side of a display shelf, catching the edge on their lower back, causing bruising. The injury was self-treated with first aid and then later the employee received medical treatment. The incident has been investigated and corrective actions implemented.

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

Employee was setting up for exercise class, whilst connecting rope to the sand bag they injured their back. The employee received medical treatment. The incident has been investigated and corrective actions implemented.

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

Employee was lifting tables for upcoming meeting, and strained their back. The employee received medical treatment. The incident has been investigated and corrective actions implemented.

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Contractor

Contractor worker was loading the truck with traffic cones and strained their back. The worker received medical treatment. The incident has been investigated by the Contractor and corrective actions implemented.

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Public

A member of public was unloading his rubbish when he cut his left hand on a broken glass jar, the cut was very deep.  Staff applied first aid on-site and the person received medical treatment.

July

Medical Treatment Injury

Public

A young boy tried to do a trick on his scooter at the skate park, he fell and hit his chin on the ground causing a laceration injury. Staff applied first aid on-site and the boy also received medical treatment.

September

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee injured their shoulder while digging graves. The employee received medical treatment for their injury.

September

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee sustained a laceration to their finger whilst cutting with scissors.  The injury was treated with first aid and then later the employee received medical treatment.

September

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee was undertaking an inspection and needed to gain access into the back area of a mobile shop, whilst climbing through they strained their back. The employee received medical treatment for their injury.

September

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee strained their back whilst lifting a child out of water. The employee received medical treatment for their injury.

September

Medical Treatment Injury

Employee

An employee slipped on stairs, fell and injured their neck and knee. The employee received medical treatment for their injury.

September

Lost Time Injury

Employee

An employee was undertaking work with gas pipes and became unwell. The employee received medical treatment and had time off work to recover.  The incident is currently being investigated.

 

2.    Incident Analysis

2.1 Incident Analysis by Hazard Source – Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

Note: ‘No Consequence’ refers to no physical injury occurring as a result of the incident

2.1.1 Employee Incidents – Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

2.1.2 Contractor Incidents – Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

 

2.1.2 Public Incidents – Quarter 1 – 2019/2020

2.2    Location of Incidents – Quarter 1– 2019/2020

Number of Incidents

 

 

 

2.3  Injury Analysis - Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

 

2.3.1 Injury Analysis by Type - Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

 

Number of Incidents

2.3.2 Injury Analysis by Mechanism - Quarter 1 - 2019/2020

Number of Incidents

 

 

2.4  Injury Frequency Rates – All Injuries (Employee & Non-Employee)

 


File Ref: 19/1022

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Council Delegations and Appointments to Committees, Subcommittees, Joint Committees and External Organisations        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision on the makeup of the Council in respect of its Committees, which includes Subcommittees and Joint Committees, and the Council appointments to external organisations.

1.2       This report concludes by recommending that the recommendations of Her Worship the Mayor in respect of these matters are adopted.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Council Delegations and Appointments to Committees, Subcommittees, Joint Committees and External Organisations.

B)     The Delegation Scheme (Attachment 1) be adopted.

 

C)     That the recommendations of Her Worship the Mayor in respect of the appointments to Committees, of Chairs, Deputy Chairs of the Committees and District Champions be adopted.

 

D)     That the recommendations of Her Worship the Mayor in respect of the appointments to outside organisations be adopted.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       The legislation provides that all existing elected members vacate their positions when the members elected at the triennial election come into office, which is the day after the public notice officially declaring the result of the election is published. Thus even if a member is re-elected they actually leave and then come back into office as a new member.

3.2       In addition any existing committee is deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members elected at that election.

3.3       As a result all these provisions all Committees and appointments need to be re-made.

3.4       Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the role and powers of the mayor.

3.5       For the purposes of this exercise the relevant part of section 41A is sub-section (3) which states:

 

A Mayor has the following powers:

 

(a)     To appoint the deputy mayor;

 

(b)     To establish committees of the territorial authority;

 

(c)     To appoint the chairperson of each committee established under paragraph (b) and, for that purpose, a mayor:

 

i)       May make the appointment before the other members of the committee are determined; and

ii)      May appoint himself or herself.

 

3.6       Section 41A also provides that a mayor is a member of all committees of a local authority, apart from the District Licensing Committee whose members are appointed under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, and the Hearings Committee, as hearings under Resource Management Act require that all members have “Making Good Decisions” certification.

3.7       While the Mayor may establish a committee and determine its terms of reference she can only recommend the delegations for that committee as only the Council itself can delegate any powers or authorities to its subsidiary bodies.

3.8       The Mayor also cannot formally appoint the deputy chairperson of any Committee or the Council representative on an outside organisation.

 

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       Her Worship the Mayor challenged the Chief Executive to develop an effective and accountable decision making structure which would enable this Council to achieve its vision and priorities for the 2019 - 22 triennium and beyond. The Council’s committee structure had not been reviewed for at least 10 years and required a fundamental overhaul to support the future direction of the Council, enable effective governance, decision making, and the involvement and engagement of the diverse communities that make up Hastings District.

4.2       Her Worship, through the Chief Executive charged officers to research options for a governance structure which supported the following principles:

·    Quality Decision Making

·    Accountability

·    Effective Strategic Thinking

·    Scrutiny and Management of Performance

·    Community Leadership and Engagement

·    Maintaining a Financially Sustainable Organisation

·    Setting appropriate levels of service.

4.3       It should be noted that the Council does not assume that effective governance relies solely on the governance structure. Effective information flows and people performing well their roles and responsibilities (elected members and officers) in the governance process are also essential. Of prime importance is a strong “Trust and Confidence” relationship between elected members and officers of the Council. The committee structure and roles will be supported by a greater emphasis on the building of team relationships and skills development to support effective decision making at the executive and governance level. A guiding principle will also be to ensure that Council decisions are informed by the views of the community at each phase of the decision making process.

4.4       A Decentralised Model

4.5       Hastings District Council has operated a decentralised governance model where a range of decisions have been delegated to its committees and rural community board. It is proposed to continue with this model for the following reasons:

·    It provides meaningful opportunities for Councillors to be more involved with decision making;

·    It enables more Councillors to build experience of chairing meetings

·    It spreads around experience of chairing meetings

·    It enables meaningful engagement between citizens and Councillors

·    It enables better scrutiny of budgets and officials’ advice

Governance Structure

4.6       The proposed governance structure is attached (Attachment 1).

4.7       The governance structure has 2 standing “committees of the whole” (All elected members are members of these committees). Strategy and Policy Committee can be considered to be the “thinking” committee – with responsibility to develop all strategic policy and planning frameworks for Council.  The Operations and Monitoring is the “doing” committee with responsibility for accountability, scrutiny and performance management.

4.8       The Strategy and Policy Committee will be supported by three subcommittees which reflect the three pillars of the Council’s ambitions for the community:

·    Growing the economy and sound infrastructure (District Development)

·    Climate change adaptation, conserving the environment and the region’s natural resources. (Eco District)

·    Enriching our communities through access for all to health services quality housing and employment and access to sport, culture and education (Great Communities)

4.9       These subcommittees will provide guidance and effective community engagement to develop strategies and policies and make recommendations to the Strategy and Policy Committee.

The District Planning and By-Laws Subcommittee will have primary responsibility for reviewing the district plan and aligning it to the Council’s vision for the future.

4.10    Operations and Monitoring Committee will be responsible for ensuring consolidated and complete reporting and monitoring of all financial and non-financial information and performance measures against the Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and strategic goals and priorities.

4.11    Reporting to Operations and Monitoring Committee is the Civics and Administration Committee which has responsibility for a wide range of civic and administrative functions which require governance oversight and includes tenders, and procurement, appointments to Council Controlled organisations, community grants and civic honours.

Scheme of Delegation

4.12    The full range of delegation arrangements and the Committee structure is appended as Attachment 2 and the Council is asked to approve the delegation arrangements contained therein.

4.13    The Scheme of Delegation also sets out other Committees and Joint Committees which are required either by legislation, best practice or regional engagement.

4.14    The full list of all Committee appointments and appointments to outside bodies will be tabled at the meeting following consultation with elected members.

4.15    Although Her Worship the Mayor has the power to make certain appointments she has decided that while she has put forward her recommendations as to these matters, the final decision should remain with the Council.

Appointments to Committees and External Organisations

4.16    A list of the recommendations of the Mayor for all appointments to Committees, Chairs, Deputy Chairs, Champions and appointments to external organisations will also be tabled at the meeting.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

5.1       Adopt the recommendations put forward by Her Worship the Mayor, bearing in mind that the arrangements can be reviewed or changed at any time.

 

Advantages

 

·    A committee can generally be a more effective decision making body as it operates in a less formal environment, can have a lesser number of elected members.

·    A committee can make better use of the elected members who have the experience and abilities relative to the committee’s functions.

·    An elected members’ function, whether it be in a committee or the Council, is governance, which includes the setting of policy and monitoring performance. Matters which are clearly management issues or the application of those policies are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.

Disadvantages

 

5.2       Reject the decisions and recommendations of Her Worship the Mayor with or without immediately adopting any alternatives.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       If the recommended structure, delegations and appointments are agreed the next steps are to approve the schedule of meetings, remuneration arrangements and external appointments so that the business of Council can be transacted through this structure.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

- Committee and Rural Community Board Register of Delegations 2019-2022

PMD-01-06-19-325

Under Separate Cover

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

 

N/A

 

 

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

N/A

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A:

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A:

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

N/A:

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

The matter is not significant in terms of the Council’s policy nor is any consultation required.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

N/A

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

N/A:

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A:

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/799

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Elected Members' Remuneration Update and Expenses and Allowances Policy        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on the 2019/20 payment arrangements set by the Remuneration Authority, and to:

·    Make recommendations to the Remuneration Authority on the allocation of the ‘Remuneration Pool’ for elected members; and

·    adopt a new policy on elected members’ allowances and expenses for 2019/22

1.2       This report informs the Council of the implications of a major review undertaken by the Remuneration Authority to change the way in which payment for elected members is set.

1.3       From the 2019/22 triennium, the Council will have much greater discretion over the payment of additional responsibility allowances, and the report explains how the new arrangements will operate.

1.4       This report sets out proposals for the allocation of the total remuneration pool determined by the Remuneration Authority and set aside for the payment of Councillors to undertake their democratically elected role and special responsibilities for the governance of the Council.

1.5       Allowance payments are at the discretion of each Council to a limit set by the Remuneration Authority. A draft policy on Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses is appended to the report for consideration (Attachment 1).

1.6       The significant change to the allowances policy is to decide on the inclusion of a childcare allowance for members who have responsibility for caring for children under the age of 14.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled Elected Members' Remuneration Update and Expenses and Allowances Policy.

B)     That the schedule of payments to be tabled at the meeting be approved and sent to the Remuneration Authority for determination.

C)     That the Council adopts the Policy on Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses (CG-01-04-19-429) for the 2019 - 22 triennium and attached to the report in (A) above.

 

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       The Local Government Act 2002 (clause 7 of Schedule 7) mandated the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration of all elected members nationally. This is undertaken annually.

3.2       Over the past two years, the Remuneration Authority has conducted a major review of the local government sector remuneration which included major consultation. As a result of the review, from the beginning of this triennium the Remuneration Authority has made two significant changes to the way in which remuneration is set by:

·    Adopting updated council size indices (one each for territorial authorities, unitary authorities and regional councils). The level of remuneration of the Mayor is set separately and reflects each council’s ranking on the relative size index.

·    Introducing a more locally responsive way of setting elected member remuneration

3.3       Travel and other allowance payments are at the discretion of the Council, however these are reviewed annually by the Remuneration Authority and the Council has adopted the rates to the maximum set by the Authority. This year a childcare allowance has been introduced and the Council must decide if it wishes to adopt it. 

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

Revised and updated Council size indices:

4.1       Through the review process, a number of new demographics were taken into account in the allocation of council size indices. This resulted in changes to the relative rankings of councils for the Remuneration Authority’s size indices. The size rankings are not related to the number of councillors on any council. As well as the size indices, a local government pay scale has also been introduced using parliamentary remuneration as a comparison.

4.2       The transition to the index rankings commenced in the 2018/19 Remuneration Authority Determination came fully into effect from October 2019.

How the Remuneration Authority sets Elected Member Remuneration

4.3       Under the new approach, a “total governance pool” has been created for each Council, reflecting the ranking of that council on the index rather than the number of councillors on a Council. The Council is invited to make recommendations to the Remuneration Authority on how its pool will be distributed.

·     Council may choose to allocate the pool in whatever way it thinks fit, but the following requirements must be met:

·      The whole “pool” must be utilised

·      Councillors must not be paid less than the minimum base rate set by the Authority

·      A base level of remuneration for all councillors must be decided by Council (which must be at least the minimum).

·     Council will decide the governance structure and document any positions of additional responsibility to be recognised by remuneration

·      The annual dollar value of the remuneration (in addition to the base level).

4.4       For this triennium, the Council will have much greater freedom in setting the level of remuneration and special responsibility allowances than before. The notable difference is that the size of the “pool” is not dependant on the number of councillors. If, at a subsequent representation review a decision is made to increase or decrease the number of councillors, the amount of money in the pool will not change. The pool will either be shared amongst a smaller, or larger number of elected members.

4.5       Currently, the remuneration of community board members is separate from the total remuneration pool. However, if there is a decision to increase the number of community boards at a subsequent representation review, the Remuneration Authority has indicated that payments for these additional roles may come from the “pool” because the constituency workload on elected members will decrease.

4.6       The total governance pool that applies to Hastings District Council following the 2019 election members $790,733. The minimum base rate that can be paid annually to each member is $43,332. This is the rate that has been applied from the 19 October 2019; the date that elected members came into office. The ‘pool’ allocations agreed at this meeting will be backdated to take effect from the day following the day that the Council makes a formal decision on those roles.

Proposed Pool Allocation for 2019

4.7       Following the approval of the Council Committee structure the allocation of the remuneration pool will be tabled at the meeting.

4.8       The allocation set out above totals $790.733 which equals the total amount of the remuneration pool allocation.

4.9       The remuneration for the Mayor is set at $153,500 including car and mileage and this payment is in addition to the ‘pool’ as are community board payments, payments for attendance at meetings by external appointed members of committees and all allowances.

Allowances

4.10    The payment of allowances is at the discretion of the Council up to a limit set by the Remuneration Authority. Previous Council policy has been to pay the allowances to the maximum set by the Authority. A policy for the payment of allowances for travel etc is attached for your approval (Attachment 1)

Allowances – Childcare

4.11    The Remuneration Authority outlines certain allowances which an elected member may claim if the criteria of the Determination are met and the expense is incurred in the undertaking of Council business.

4.12    There have only been minor amendments to mileage, communications and other allowances which in the past have been paid up to the maximum level set by the Remuneration Authority.

4.13    This year the Authority has introduced permission for local authorities to consider a childcare allowance for members who have responsibility for caring for children under the age of 14 years. The childcare allowance is intended as a potential contribution towards expenses incurred by the member for the provision of childcare while the member is engaged on local authority business.

·     The allowance is capped at $6,000 per eligible member per annum, and is subject to certain conditions. 

·     The member must be the parent or guardian of the child, or a person who usually has responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child (other than on a temporary basis).

·     The child must be under 14 years of age.

·     The childcare must be provided by someone who is not family member of the elected member and who does not ordinarily reside with the elected member.

·     The elected member must provide satisfactory evidence to the local authority of the amount paid for childcare.

·     Family member for the purposes of this regulation means a spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner, or a relative connected with the elected member within two degrees of relationship whether by blood relationship or adoption.

4.14    Payment of all allowances is at the discretion of an individual council.

4.15    It is important to note that elected members are not treated as employees but as self-employed and as such are responsible for making their own arrangements for insurance, and pension arrangements etc

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       Following the adoption of the new committee structure the Council is recommended to approve the allocation of the remuneration pool as set out above.

5.2       The payment of any or all allowances is at the discretion of each local authority. The Council provides for elected member allowances through the Policy on Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses. It is standard practice to review the policy to provide for any new or changed allowances introduced by the Authority. Therefore, an amended policy on Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses has been compiled and includes a Childcare Allowance which sets out the terms for payment in compliance with the terms set by the Remuneration Authority and capped to a maximum $6,000 per child.

 

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       The recommendations for the allocation of the Hastings District Council total remuneration pool will be sent to the Remuneration Authority for determination through primary legislation in the new year. Any increases will be backdated to the day after the Council meeting at which the decision to allocate the remuneration pool is made. If Council resolves to approve the allocation of the remuneration pool at today’s meeting, payments will be backdated to 11 December. 2019.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Policy on Elected Members' Allowances and Expenses - July 2019

CG-01-04-19-429

Under Separate Cover

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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

 

N/A

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

N/A

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A:

 

 

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Addressed in the report:

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report does not trigger the thresholds in the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

The Remuneration Authority has consulted extensively with the sector in the development of these proposals.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

No known risks.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

The Rural Community Board have been advised of the proposals for remuneration of elected members of the board.

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1094

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Pou Ahurea Matua - Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage

Dr James Graham

Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    External Appointments to Committees        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider the appointment of external appointments to the Council’s Committees and Subcommittees and to set an appropriate level of remuneration for attendance at meetings.

1.2       This report concludedby recommending

·    the appointment of named individuals to the various vacancies for external appointments to the Council’s committees and subcommittees.

·    The rates of pay for externally appointed members

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council/Committee receives the report titled  External Appointments to Committees.

B)      To approve the schedule of payments as follows for external appointments to committees and subcommittees:-

C)     To approve the following [names] as external appointments to the following committees.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

Appointments – Legal Framework

3.1       S31 (3) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 allows for a local authority to appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the local authority if , in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.

3.2       Also under the Local Government Act 2002, externally appoint be members can be accorded voting or non-voting rights on committees or subcommittees. Only elected members have voting rights on governing body meetings. (in the case of the Hastings District Council the governing bodies are Council and the Rural Community Board).

3.3       Section 83 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 also  makes specific reference to contributions by Māori to decision making processes:-

A local authority must—

(a) establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and

(b) consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and

(c) provide relevant information to Māori for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).

3.4       In previous years the Council has appointed non-elected members, with voting rights to bring external expertise and community knowledge to the table. In 2016-19, externally appointed members have been appointed to the following committees:-

·    Risk and Audit Committee (external chair)

·    HDC: Māori Joint Committee (Tangata whnuea external chair and 5 members)

·    One tangata whenua member of HDC;MJC appointed to each of the 4 standing committees.

·    Te Tira Toitu te Whenua: 4 tangata whenua members of HDC:MJC.

·    External rural appointee to Hearings Committee

·    5 tangata whenua members to the HDC:Tangata Whenua Wastewater Joint Committee

3.5       In addition, local volunteers sit on a range of Advisory Groups such as the Landmarks Advisory and International Advisory Groups.

Risk and Audit Committee

3.6       On 17 September 2019 Finance and Risk Committee recommended  to Council the following arrangements for its successor body for the 2019 -2022 term:

 

That the Committee recommend to the incoming Council following the 2019 triennial elections that:

Mr Jon Nichols be reappointed as the independent chair of the Risk & Audit Subcommittee for a further three years.

A second independent member of the Risk & Audit Subcommittee be appointed for a period of three years with a preference for that member to have asset management experience.

HDC: Māori Joint Committee

3.7       At its final meeting of the 2016-19 HDC Maori Joint Committee made the following recommendation to the incoming Council with regard to arrangements for externally appointed members:-

 

          That the HDC: Māori Joint Committee recommends to the new 2019-2022 Council that the HDC : Māori Joint Committee or its successor be set up as follows:

·    That expressions of interest be sought for six tangata whenua appointees who represent the Post Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs) and other groups, including mātaawaka from within the Hastings district to be considered for appointment to the HDC : Māori Joint Committee or its successor.

·    That six elected members be appointed by Council to the HDC : Maori Joint Committee or its successor.

·    That the appended Terms of reference (CG-14-14-00096) be adopted by the HDC: Māori Joint Committee or its successor.

·        That the Chief Executive be delegated authority and given responsibility to set up and administer an Appointments Panel comprising the incoming Mayor, the current chairman of the HDC: Māori Joint Committee (Robin Hape), Council kaumātua, and Chief Executive to recommend to Council suitable Tangata Whenua candidates for appointment to the HDC: Māori Joint Committee or its successor.

That the Decision of the current Council to make appointments of members of the HDC : Māori Joint Committee with full voting rights to Council Standing Committees be strongly recommended to be continued by the incoming Council for the 2019 - 2022 triennium.

Hearings Committee

3.8       In 2016-19 one external appointment was made to the Hearings Committee. Following the decision of Councillor George Lyons not to stand for election this term, there are currently no councillors with the necessary qualification to chair Hearings meetings. Making Good Decisions Chairing certification training has been arranged for Councillors Baydon Barber, Eileen Lawson and Wendy Schollum in May 2020.  As a result the Council will have no elected members qualified to chair hearings until June 2020. It will therefore be necessary to appoint at least external appointee with the necessary Making Good Decisions Chairing certificate.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       The 2019 - 2022 Scheme of Delegation if approved at this meeting, allows for the following external appointments:

·    Risk and Assurance Committee (1 Chair, 1 member)

·    Heretaunga Takota Noa: Maori Standing Committee (1 Chair, 5 tangata whenua members)

·    Hearings Committee (up to 3 externally appointed members, with making good decisions certification, or which 1 will be a commissioner to act as Chair with the Making Good Decisions Chair certification)

·    District Planning and By-laws Subcommittee (3 Heretaunga Takota Noa: Maori Standing Committee members and 1 member with making good decisions certification)

·    HDC: Tangata Whenua Wastewater Joint Committee (5 tangata whenua appointees)

·    1 Heretaunga Takota Noa: Māori Standing Committee to each Standing Committee and Subcommittee (6 in total)

·    1 Rural Community Board member to each Standing Committee (2 in total)

4.2       The following names have been put forward:-

Remuneration

4.3       It is proposed to pay the following rates to external appointments:

·    Externally appointed chair/hearings commissioner chair to be pegged at the same rate as the Chair of the Rural Community which set by the Local Government members (2019/20) Determination 2019 and reviewed annually in July. The current rate is $15,036 per annum plus travel expenses as set out in the elected member expenses policy.

·    The role of the Chair involves a great deal more time and input than that of a Committee member. A Committee Chair will be expected to liaise with officers and mayor to set the agenda, have oversight of reports prior to the meeting, and oversight of progress on decisions taken following the meeting.

·    For all other externally appointed members it is proposed to pay an attendance allowance based on the rates set by the remuneration authority  for hearings (a notional 3 hours meeting time plus 2 hours reading time at $80 per hour) of $400 per meeting attended (plus travel expenses as set out in the elected member expenses policy). Attendance at workshops site visits etc will be paid at $80 per hour (or part hour thereof).

4.4       Remuneration for Kaumatua

The Kaumatua, currently Jerry Hapuku, fulfils a cultural and leadership role for the Council at an increasing number of ceremonies and other events. [James to add wording.] This role fulfils the Council’s responsibilities under the treaty of Waitangi and …. It is therefore proposed to pay the role of Kaumatua at the same rate as the Rural Community Board and externally appointed chairs ($15.036 pa plus travel expenses).

Financial Implications

4.5       The remuneration rates can be met from existing budgets set aside for this purpose.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       To approve the recommendations as set out for the filling of the external appointments to Committees and Subcommittees as set out in the Scheme of Delegation

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

N/A

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

The appointments assist the Council to fulfil its obligations under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi:

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A:

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Cover in report??:

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minoir significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

N/A:

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

 

N/A:

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A:

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1222

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Schedule of Meetings for 2020        

 

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the proposed schedule of Council and Committee meetings for 2020.

1.2       This report concludes by recommending that the schedule of meetings for 2020which is attachment 1 to this report be adopted

1.3       Although staff attempt to meet the needs of the Council it is inevitable that the schedule will need to be amended from time to time and these amendments will be notified to elected members as they arise.

1.4       While the schedule serves to give elected members notice of the upcoming meetings there is still a requirement under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the public to be advised on a regular basis of the meetings scheduled for the next month.

1.5       The schedule includes the meetings of all committees not only so that members can plan ahead, but also to ensure that meetings days are in fact available and not later taken up by other meetings. Where scheduled meetings are not required cancellations will be advised to members as early as possible.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council/Committee receives the report titled Schedule of Meetings for 2020.

B)      That the Council adopt the schedule of meetings for 2020.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Meeting Schedules - Draft proposed 2020 meeting schedule

CG-14-1-01623

 

 

 

 

 



Meeting Schedules - Draft proposed 2020 meeting schedule

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/1221

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Requests Received Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the number of requests under the Local Government Official Information Act (LGOIMA) 1987 received in November 2019.

1.2       This issue arises from the provision of accurate reporting information to enable effective governance.

1.3       This is an administrative report to ensure that the Council is aware of the number and types of information requests received and to provide assurance the Council meeting its legislative obligations in relation to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).

1.4       This report concludes by recommending that the report be noted.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council receives the report titled  Requests Received Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update.

B)     That the LGOIMA requests received in November 2019 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-19-1812) of the report be noted.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       The LGOIMA allows people to request official information held by local government agencies.  It contains rules for how such requests should be handled, and provides a right to complain to the Ombudsman in certain situations.  The LGOIMA also has provisions governing the conduct of meetings.

Principle of Availability

3.2       The principle of whether any official information is to be made available shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

3.3       Purpose of the Act

3.4       The key purposes of the LGOIMA are to:

·     Progressively increase the availability of official information held by agencies, and promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings, in order to:

·     enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

·     promote the accountability of members and officials; and

·     so enhance respect for the law and promote good local government; and

·     protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

·     City, district and regional councils, council controlled organisations and community boards are subject to LGOIMA and official information means any information held by an agency subject to the LGOIMA.

·     It is not limited to documentary material, and includes material held in any format such as:

·     written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents;

·     non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including databases, video or tape recordings;

·     information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise (including knowledge of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their official capacity);

·     documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an agency;

·     the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.

3.5       It does not matter where the information originated, or where it is currently located, as long as it is held by the agency.  For example, the information could have been created by a third party and sent to the agency.  The information could be held in the memory of an employee of the agency.

3.6       What does a LGOIMA request look like?

3.7       There is no set way in which a request must be made.  A LGOIMA request is made in any case when a person asks an agency for access to specified official information.  In particular:

·     a request can be made in any form and communicated by any means, including orally;

·      the requester does not need to refer to the LGOIMA; and

·      the request can be made to any person in the agency.

3.8       The Council deals with in excess of 14,000 service requests on average each month from written requests, telephone calls and face to face contact.  The LGOIMA requests dealt with in this report are specific requests for information logged under formal LGOIMA procedure, which sometimes require collation of information from different sources and/or assessment about the release of the information requested.

Key Timeframes

3.9       An agency must make a decision and communicate it to the requester ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.

3.10    The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and without undue delay.  The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the maximum unless it is extended appropriately in accordance with the Act.  Failure to comply with time limit may be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman.

3.11    The Act provides for timeframes and extensions as there is a recognition that organisations have their own work programmes and that official information requests should not unduly interfere with that programme.

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

Current Situation

4.1       Council has requested that official information requests be notified via a monthly report.

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Not applicable

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Information Mgmt & Reporting - Information Requests - LGOIMA - Monthly Report to Council - November 2019

IRB-2-01-19-1812

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

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.

N/A

 

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

N/A

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

N/A

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

N/A

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

N/A

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

N/A

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A

 

 


Information Mgmt & Reporting - Information Requests - LGOIMA - Monthly Report to Council - November 2019

Attachment 1

 

LGOIMA – Monthly Report to Council – November 2019

 

 

Requests Received

 

 

 

Responses to requests

Responses with information fully released

 

Responses with information partially withheld

Responses with information fully withheld

Average number of working days to respond

Requests resulting in a complaint to Ombudsman

November 2019

5

2

2

0

0

7

0

 

Requests - received since those last reported to Council

Completed

 

 

Outstanding

 

 

Month

From

Subject

Total

November

A Doak

Documentation regarding Blast in the Park – Anderson Park

 

 

Stuff

Recycling Information

 

 

K Whitfield

Elected member information 1989 - 2001

 

 

NZ Taxpayers Union

Domestic Flights & International Travel Expenses 2018/19

 

 

Radio NZ

Council spend on election promotion and voter engagement

5

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/1247

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Items Under Action        

 

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on actions raise at previous meetings.

1.2       The Council requested that officers report back at each meeting with progress that has been made on actions that have arisen from Council meetings. Attached as Attachment 1 is the status of items under action as at 4 December 2019.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council/Committee receives the report titled Items Under Action.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Council  - Items Under Action

CG-08-9-19-328

 

 

 

 

 


Council  - Items Under Action

Attachment 1

 

 

Items Under Action

 

 

 

Date Raised

Due Date

Description and Action

Lead Officer

1

27 November – Council

 

March 2020

The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust Chair, Richard Grant, be invited to update the Council on the work being undertaken by the Trust.

Brent Chamberlain

2

27 November – Council

 

Action Completed

To include the ‘Individuals’ names in the LGOIMA report attachment.

Jackie Evans

3

27 November – Council

Action Completed

Copies of the Financial Incentive Policy to new councilors

Raoul Oosterkamp

4

27 November - Council

March 2020

To review the Financial Incentive Policy

Raoul Osterkamp

 

 


File Ref: 19/1261

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Tuesday 10 December 2019

FROM:                           Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    2019-22 Draft Triennial Agreement for feedback from Councils        

 

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain feedback from the Council on the draft triennial agreement.

1.2       Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that no later than 1 March in the year following the triennial elections all local authorities within each region must enter into an agreement containing protocols for communication and co-ordination among them during the period until the next triennial general election of members.

1.3       Each agreement must also include a statement of the process for consultation on proposals for new regional council activities.

1.4       This is an opportunity for Council to provide feedback on the content of the draft agreement before it goes to all Council for approval no later than 1 March 2020.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Council/Committee receives the report titled 2019-22 Draft Triennial Agreement for feedback from Councils.

B)     That the Council provides feedback on the draft triennial agreement prior to its adoption by 1 March 2020.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Attachment for 2019-22 Draft Triennial Agreement

CG-14-1-01624

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment for 2019-22 Draft Triennial Agreement

Attachment 1

 

 

Hawke's Bay Region

Triennial Agreement

For the Triennium October 2019 – 2022

version 11 October 2019


 

           Contents

1.      Parties. 1

2.      Purpose. 1

3.      Principles. 2

4.      Strategic Priorities. 2

5.      Protocols for communication and coordination. 3

6.      Benefits Realisation. 3

7.      Significant New Activities Proposed By Hawke's Bay Regional Council 4

8.      Consultation in Relation to the Regional Policy Statement 5

9.      Dispute Resolution. 6

10.   Revision of the Agreement 6

11.   Parties - Signatures. 6

Appendix One:  Reporting. 9

Appendix Two:  Meetings. 10

Appendix Three:  Legislative Context 11

Resource Management Act 1991. 13

Schedule 1 Preparation, change, and review of policy statements and plans. 13

 

 

 


1.    Parties

The parties to this Triennial Agreement (the Agreement) are:

1.1       Primary Parties

(those local authorities whose boundaries are completely encompassed within the Hawke's Bay Region)

•    Central Hawke's Bay District Council

•    Hastings District Council

•    Hawke's Bay Regional Council

•    Napier City Council

•    Wairoa District Council

 

1.2       Non-Primary Parties

(those local authorities whose boundaries bisect the Hawke's Bay Region and whose principal identification is with another Region)

•    Rangitikei District Council

•    Taupo District Council

 

This Agreement applies to all local authorities in the Hawke's Bay Region. However, it is recognised that for Non-Primary Parties the degree of involvement in various aspects of the Agreement will be in proportion to the degree to which these parties assess how they will benefit or be affected by decisions, issues, proposals or other matters.

 

2.    Purpose

The Triennial Agreement provides the framework for local government in the Hawke's Bay region to:

2.1        work collaboratively

2.2        improve communication and coordination at all levels

2.3        maximise effectiveness and efficiency

in order to meet the purposes of Local Government to:

2.4        enable democratic local decision-making by and on behalf of communities

2.5        promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This agreement is deemed to duly constitute fulfilment of the requirements of section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002.

It should be noted that as well as the encouragement towards collaboration, the Local Government Act 2002, and other legislation including the Resource Management Act 1991, recognises that regional councils and territorial authorities have different responsibilities. These differences provide an important context for collaboration between the Councils. The requirements contained in legislation for collaboration between Local Authorities are contained in Appendix Two to this Agreement.

 


 

3.    Principles

Parties to this Agreement agree to work together in good faith for the good governance of their local communities and the Region; to develop our collective strategic capacity from available resources and achieve our strategies by working together, through co-design and partnership so every whānau and every household is actively engaged in growing a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy to support inclusive and connected communities and sustainable and resilient environments. In doing so, we:

3.1       acknowledge that the communities within the Region are diverse and encompass a range of desired outcomes and objectives

3.2       support the establishment of processes for communication and collaboration at both governance and management levels in ways that will enhance the overall performance and reputation of local government in the region

3.3       recognise that collaboration and co-operation between local authorities of the Region can bring efficiencies in terms of planning, administration costs and decision-making and consultation. There is also the potential to increase available resources and promote co-operative approaches in making strategic choices

3.4       will investigate further opportunities for collaboration, co-operation, regional funding and shared services between local authorities of the Region in addition to those prescribed by statute or already being undertaken

3.5       agree that collaborative or shared services opportunities may occur between two or more parties to this Agreement, but not in every case between all parties to this Agreement.   Although collaboration and co-operation are outcomes that should be strived for, each local authority has the legislative mandate to govern their own area as appropriate

3.6       will make every effort to accommodate, acknowledge, or at least fairly represent the dissenting view where some parties to this Agreement have a significant disagreement with the position of other parties to the Agreement

3.7       will show leadership to ensure the implementation of this Agreement makes a positive difference for Hawke’s Bay.

 

4.    Strategic Priorities

Awaiting final version of diagram é from Business HB

4.1       Local Government priority areas for the 2019-22 triennium, aligned to the five pou of Matariki (above) and agreed by the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum on 25 November 2019, are (in no particular order):

·    Water – safety, security and planning

·    Climate Change adaptation and mitigation

·    Social Inclusion a thriving society where everyone can participate and make a significant contribution

·    Housing regionally focussed housing strategy

·    Economic Development and Tourism

·    Transport.

4.2       Priority areas where cooperative approaches exist include:

·    Water – Drinking Water safety and security response to Havelock North contamination Inquiry recommendations through Joint Working Group and HB Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee comprising elected representatives of the five local authorities, the District Health Board and Ngati Kahungunu

·    Water – Regional Three Waters review of the provision of drinking, waste and storm water services

·    Climate Change Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy development through the Joint Committee comprising representatives of NCC, HDC, HBRC and Tangata Whenua

·    Transport – Regional transport planning through the Regional Transport Committee comprising representatives of the five local authorities and the NZ Transport Agency

4.3       Priority areas to develop, or further develop, cooperative approaches include:

·    Water – freshwater management issues, including Three Waters infrastructure and service delivery to meet requirements of Central Government reform

·    Climate change – the development of a coordinated regional response to a changing climate, including integration with regional transport and hazard management planning

·    Information sharing and strategy development  – regional Elected Representatives’ fora (workshops) on topics of regional priority held at least twice per year.

4.4       Any new priorities or services of significance to more than one district will be communicated to the Chief Executives by the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum for further development in accordance with the protocols in section 5 following.

 

5.       Protocols for communication and coordination

It is recognised that a significant level of formal and informal cooperation already exists between Hawke’s Bay’s local authorities. Further to this existing cooperation, parties to this Agreement will:

5.1       Hold monthly meetings of the Mayors of the primary parties and the Regional Chairman (aligned to the other Committee meetings as appropriate) to formally communicate and coordinate on matters of mutual interest, in accordance with arrangements detailed in Appendix Two.

5.2       Invite the Chief Executives of the primary parties to attend every Forum for a period of time.

5.3       At the first meeting following the local body elections, elect a Chair of the Forum from among the attendees. The Council whom the elected Chair represents will provide the administrative support for the Forum for that triennium.

5.4       Share resources where feasible for the purposes of preparing information on the various communities in the region. These resources may include information on demographics, survey data, scientific studies and the analysis of social, economic, environmental and cultural trends.

5.5       Develop joint approaches, where appropriate, to engage Central Government, iwi governance bodies and tribal entities, national agencies and community organisations.

5.6       Provide early for notification of, and participation in, decisions that may affect other local authorities in the region.

5.7       Make draft strategies, policies, and plans available to other local authorities in the region for discussion and development, where they may have regional implications or implications beyond the boundaries of the decision-making council.

5.8       Apply a “no surprises” policy whereby early notice will be given over disagreements between local authorities concerning policy or programmes before the matter is put out to the public.

5.9       Review the performance of the Triennial Agreement and benefits realised in the priority areas at least quarterly, as outlined in section 6 following.

5.10     Establish, as necessary, other forums at both political and operational levels that will help enhance and achieve the purpose of this Agreement.

5.11     Provide a process for initiating reviews of regional forums that are not working optimally in the view of one or more parties. 

 


 

6.       Benefits Realisation

Achievements in each of the priority areas will be reported to the HB Leaders Forum quarterly, in a format to be agreed by the Forum.

 

7.    Significant New Activities Proposed By Hawke's Bay Regional Council

If the Regional Council or a Regional Council controlled organisation proposes to undertake a significant new activity, and these activities are already undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by one or more territorial authorities within the region, Section 16 of the Local Government Act applies.

However, in the spirit of this Agreement, the parties agree to an expanded consultation and communication process which includes discussion of the issues involved at the first available monthly meeting (see 5.1 above), and to provide drafts of proposals to affected Councils for early comment in accordance with the requirements of sections 77-87 of the Local Government Act (decision-making and consultation).

The parties also agree that prior to implementing the formal provisions of section 16[1]:

7.1       the Regional Council will inform all territorial authorities within the region of

7.1.1    the nature of the activity proposed to be undertaken

7.1.2    the scope of the proposal (including size, districts covered, and why)

and

7.1.3    the reasons for the proposal.

7.2       territorial authorities will be given a reasonable period of time, but no less than 40 working days, to respond to any such proposal. The Regional Council agrees to fully consider any submissions and representations on the proposal made by territorial authorities within the region.

 

8.    Consultation in Relation to the Regional Policy Statement

The following consultation process will apply to any change, variation, or review of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Policy Statement, and the preparation of any future Regional Policy Statement:

8.1       The Regional Council will seek the input of territorial authorities into the review of the Regional Policy Statement

8.2       The Regional Council will make available to all local authorities, for discussion and development, draft copies of:

8.2.1   any change or variation of to the Regional Policy Statement

8.2.2   any proposed Regional Policy Statement.

8.3       Territorial authorities will be given a reasonable period of time, but no less than [20] working days, to respond to any such proposal. The Regional Council agrees to consider fully any submissions and representations on the proposal made by territorial authorities within the Region.

8.4       The parties to this agreement acknowledge their obligation to act in accordance with the principles of collaboration set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

Nothing in this Agreement shall interfere with the rights, functions or duties given by statute to any party.

 

9.    Dispute Resolution

In the event of a disagreement between the Councils as to the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement, and/ or that disagreement between the Councils as to the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement to vary the terms of this Agreement, then the matter in dispute will be referred to mediation.

If the Councils cannot agree on the appointment of a mediator, the President of the Hawke's Bay District Law Society will be requested to appoint the mediator. The costs of the mediation shall be borne by the Councils in equal shares.

 

10.  Revision of the Agreement

10.1     The Agreement is effective from the date of signing until such time as the Agreement is either amended by the agreement of all parties or is renewed following the 2022 local authority elections (by 1 March 2023).

10.2     If a party to the Agreement requests a review of its terms within the triennium, such a review will begin within four weeks of the request being lodged. Otherwise the Agreement will be renewed following the local body elections as outlined in 10.1 above.

10.3     Hawke's Bay Regional Council will be the first Council responsible for servicing this Agreement.

 

11. Parties - Signatures

This Agreement is signed on this day        of                     2020 by the following on behalf of their respective authorities.

Primary Parties:

 

Central Hawke's Bay District                                                  Hastings District Council

 

............................................................................   ............................................................................. 

Mayor Alex Walker                                                                     Mayor Sandra Hazelhurst

 

 ............................................................................   ............................................................................. 

Chief Executive Monique Davidson                                       Chief Executive Nigel Bickle

 

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Napier City Council

 

 ............................................................................

 

 ............................................................................ 

Chairman Rex Graham

Mayor Kirsten Wise

 

 ............................................................................

 

 ............................................................................ 

Chief Executive James Pamer

 

Wairoa District Council

 

 ............................................................................ 

Mayor Craig Little

 

 ............................................................................ 

Chief Executive Steven May

 

 

Non-Primary Parties:

Chief Executive Wayne Jack

Rangitikei District Council

Taupo District Council

 

 ............................................................................ 

 

 ............................................................................  

Mayor

 

Mayor

 

 ............................................................................ 

 

 ............................................................................  

Chief Executive 

Chief Executive


 

Appendix One:  Reporting

Joint Committees

·    Mayor/Chair ex-officio on all joint committees – to receive meeting invitations and copy of Agenda

·    Meeting minutes and a Meeting Summary (prepared by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) lead) will be provided to the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum Chair’s executive assistant within 10 days of the meeting having been held for presentation to the next monthly meeting.

·    A diagram of the current committee structure across Hawke’s Bay is below.

8.3.1  

8.3.2      cid:image008.png@01D5A503.5E5E9740

 

Achievements

·    A work programme for each of the priority areas will be developed and agreed, to enable strategic level reporting against milestones and projects (examples following).

8.3.3       

Priority:  Water – safety, security and planning

Activity

Lead

Achievements

Due for Completion

Regional Water Security Program (supported by PGF)

Tom Skerman
(HBRC)

1.  

 

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM)

Tom Skerman (HBRC)

 

 

Three waters review

 

 

 

 

Priority:  Climate Change adaptation and mitigation

Activity

Lead

Achievements

Due for Completion

Regional Climate Response Strategy

Tom Skerman, Gavin Ide

(HBRC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Appendix Two:  Meetings

Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum

Meetings will be arranged and minutes kept by the appointed Chair - elected each three-year term - and minutes distributed to all parties to the Agreement. This does not preclude meetings being arranged, on request, by Councils other than that of the appointed Chair. 

Given the importance accorded to this Agreement each Council will be represented by its Mayor/ Chairperson and Chief Executive.

Where appropriate, and agreed, the Chief Executive of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) may attend an item related to that CCO’s activities.

Media and communications contact (including the provision of information to the public on request) in relation to matters covered in the Agreement shall be shared on a rotating basis.

All public communications from these meetings shall be approved by all participants prior to their release.

Where a significant decision or issue affects a particular Council, or its community, it should, in partnership with the other Councils of the region, have the lead role in formulating the collective response of the region’s local authorities to this issue or decision.

Responsibility for servicing, and making media comment on behalf of, existing specific regional and sub-regional forums, will lie within those specific forums.

 


 

Appendix Three:  Legislative Context

Local Government Act

Section 15 Triennial agreement

(1)       Not later than 1 March after each triennial general election of members, all local authorities within each region must enter into an agreement under this section covering the period until the next triennial general election of members.

(2)       An agreement under this section must include—

(a)       protocols for communication and co-ordination among the local authorities; and

(b)       a statement of the process by which the local authorities will comply with section 16 in respect of proposals for new regional council activities; and

(c)       processes and protocols through which all local authorities can participate in identifying, delivering, and funding facilities and services of significance to more than 1 district.

(3)       An agreement under this section may also include—

(a)       commitments by local authorities within the region to establish or continue 1 or more joint committees or other joint governance arrangements to give better effect to 1 or more of the matters referred to in subsection (2); and

(b)       the matters to be included in the terms of reference for any such committees or arrangements, including any delegations.

(4)       An agreement under this section may be varied by agreement between all the local authorities within the region.

(5)       An agreement under this section remains in force until it is replaced by another agreement.

(6)       If a decision of a local authority is significantly inconsistent with, or is expected to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with, the agreement under this section that is currently in force within the region, the local authority must, when making the decision, clearly identify—

(a)       the inconsistency; and

(b)       the reasons for the inconsistency; and

(c)       any intention of the local authority to seek an amendment to the agreement under subsection (4).

(7)       As soon as practicable after making any decision to which subsection (6) applies, the local authority must give to each of the other local authorities within the region notice of the decision and of the matters specified in that subsection.

 

Section 14 Principles relating to local authorities

(1)       in performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

(e)       a local authority should actively seek to collaborate and cooperate with other local authorities and bodies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency with which it achieves its identified priorities and desired outcomes.

 

Section 16 Significant new activities proposed by regional council

(1)       This section applies if,—

(a)       in the exercise of its powers under section 12(2), a regional council proposes to undertake a significant new activity; or

(b)       a regional council-controlled organisation proposes to undertake a significant new activity; and

(c)       in either case, 1 or more territorial authorities in the region of the regional council—

(i)        are already undertaking the significant new activity; or

(ii)       have notified their intention to do so in their long-term plans or their annual plans.

(2)       When this section applies, the regional council—

(a)       must advise all the territorial authorities within its region and the Minister of the proposal and the reasons for it; and

(b)       must include the proposal in the consultation document referred to in section 93A.

(3)       A proposal included in the consultation document referred to in section 93A must include—

(a)       the reasons for the proposal; and

(b)       the expected effects of the proposal on the activities of the territorial authorities within the region; and

(c)       the objections raised by those territorial authorities, if any.

(4)       If, after complying with subsection (2), the regional council indicates that it intends to continue with the proposal, but agreement is not reached on the proposal among the regional council and all of the affected territorial authorities, either the regional council or 1 or more of the affected territorial authorities may submit the matter to mediation.

(5)       Mediation must be by a mediator or a mediation process—

(a)       agreed to by the relevant local authorities; or

(b)       in the absence of an agreement, as specified by the Minister.

(6)       If mediation is unsuccessful, either the regional council or 1 or more affected territorial authorities may ask the Minister to make a binding decision on the proposal.

(7)       Before making a binding decision, the Minister must—

(a)       seek and consider the advice of the Commission; and

(b)       consult with other Ministers whose responsibilities may be affected by the proposal.

(8)       This section does not apply to—

(a)       a proposal by a regional council to establish, own, or operate a park for the benefit of its region; or

(b)       a proposal to transfer responsibilities; or

(c)       a proposal to transfer bylaw-making powers; or

(d)       a reorganisation application under Schedule 3; or

(e)       a proposal to undertake an activity or enter into an undertaking jointly with the Crown.

(9)       For the purposes of this section,—

affected territorial authority means a territorial authority—

(a)       the district of which is wholly or partly in the region of a regional council; and

(b)       that undertakes, or has notified in its long-term plan or annual plan its intention to undertake, the significant new activity

annual plan

(a)       means a report adopted under section 223D of the Local Government Act 1974; and

(b)       includes such a report that section 281 applies to

new activity

(a)       means an activity that, before the commencement of this section, a regional council was not authorised to undertake; but

(b)       does not include an activity authorised by or under an enactment

regional council-controlled organisation means a council-controlled organisation that is—

(a)       a company—

(i)        in which equity securities carrying 50% or more of the voting rights at a meeting of the shareholders of the company are—

(A)      held by 1 or more regional councils; or

(B)       controlled, directly or indirectly, by 1 or more regional councils; or

(ii)       in which 1 or more regional councils have the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors of the company; or

(b)       an organisation in respect of which 1 or more regional councils have, whether or not jointly with other regional councils or persons,—

(i)        control, directly or indirectly, of 50% or more of the votes at any meeting of the members or controlling body of the organisation; or

(ii)       the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the trustees, directors, or managers (however described) of the organisation.

 

Resource Management Act 1991

Schedule 1 Preparation, change, and review of policy statements and plans

3A Consultation in relation to policy statements

(1)       A triennial agreement entered into under section 15(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 must include an agreement on the consultation process to be used by the affected local authorities in the course of—

(a)       preparing a proposed policy statement or a variation to a proposed policy statement; and

(b)       preparing a change to a policy statement; and

(c)       reviewing a policy statement.

(2)       If an agreement on the consultation process required by subclause (1) is not reached by the date prescribed in section 15(1) of the Local Government Act 2002,—

(a)       subclause (1) ceases to apply to that triennial agreement; and

(b)       1 or more of the affected local authorities—

(i)        must advise the Minister and every affected local authority as soon as is reasonably practicable after the date prescribed in section 15(1) of the Local Government Act 2002; and

(ii)       may submit the matter to mediation.

(3)       If subclause (2) applies, the parts of the triennial agreement other than the part relating to the consultative process referred to in subclause (1) may be confirmed before—

(a)       an agreement on the consultative process is reached under subclauses (4) and (5)(a); or

(b)       the Minister makes a binding determination under subclause (5)(b).

(4)       Mediation must be by a mediator or a mediation process agreed to by the affected local authorities.

(5)       If the matter is not submitted to mediation or if mediation is unsuccessful, the Minister may either—

(a)       make an appointment under section 25 the purpose of determining a consultation process to be used in the course of preparing a proposed policy statement or reviewing a policy statement; or

(b)       make a binding determination as to the consultation process that must be used.

(6)       The consultative process must form part of the triennial agreement, whether or not the other parts of the triennial agreement have been confirmed, in the event that—

(a)       an agreement is reached under subclause (4) or subclause (5)(a) as to a consultative process, as required by subclause (1); or

(b)       the Minister makes a binding determination under subclause (5)(b).

(7)       In this clause, affected local authorities means—

(a)       the regional council of a region; and

(b)       every territorial authority whose district is wholly or partly in the region of the regional council.

 

          


TRIM File No. CG-16-2-00013

 

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Council MEETING

 

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

SECTION 48, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

 

THAT the public now be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely:

 

28        Flaxmere Landholdings

 

The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this Resolution in relation to the matter and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

 

 

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND

PARTICULAR INTERESTS PROTECTED

 

 

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF EACH RESOLUTION

 

 

 

 

28        Flaxmere Landholdings

Section 7 (2) (b) (ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

Section 7 (2) (i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

To allow third party commerical negotiations to take place.

Section 48(1)(a)(i)

Where the Local Authority is named or specified in the First Schedule to this Act under Section 6 or 7 (except Section 7(2)(f)(i)) of this Act.

 



[1] Appendix Three