Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference

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

Membership (6 members)

Chair (elected by the Board)

Deputy Chair (elected by the Board

4 Elected Community Board Members

1 Mohaka Ward Councillor

1 Kahuranaki Ward Councillor

Quorum – 4 members

DELEGATED POWERS

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONG TERM PLAN/ANNUAL PLAN/POLICY ISSUES

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

ROADING AND TRAFFIC

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

· Section 335 (vehicle crossings);

· Section 344 (gates and cattle stops);

· Section 355 (overhanging trees).

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

(i) Road user behaviour at intersections;

(ii) Controls on stopping or overtaking

(iii) Controls on turning

(iv) Pedestrian safety,

(v) Footpath maintenance and improvements.

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

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

Te Rārangi Take
Order of Business

1.0	Apologies & Leave of Absence – Ngā Whakapāhatanga me te Wehenga ā-Hui At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
2.0	Conflict of Interest – He Ngākau Kōnatunatu 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.
3.0	Confirmation of Minutes – Te Whakamana i Ngā Miniti Minutes of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held Monday 15 June 2020. (Previously circulated)
4.0	Forestry Slash Update	7
5.0	Rating Area 2 - Financial Result for the year ended 30 June 2020	7
6.0	Provision of Security Cameras in Rural Locations Update	7
7.0	Waipatiki Permanent Recycling Facility Request	7
8.0	Animal Control Annual Report 2019/2020	7
9.0	Five Year Review Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016 Chapter 3 Dog Control & Dog Control Policy	7
10.0	Rural Transportation Activities Report	7
11.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
12.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihir

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Dean Ferguson, Project Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Forestry Slash Update

1.0 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Hastings District Rural Community Board on the progress made around Plantation Forestry monitoring subsequent to the recent appointment of a Forestry Compliance Officer, jointly funded between Hastings District Council (HDC) and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC).

1.2 Due to the substantial interruptions over the last 6 months, officers will be recommending to Council the funding for the Forestry Compliance Officer is extended for a further 12 months and be reviewed thereafter. A report will be going to Council in October/November.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Issues relating to forestry slash have been increasingly prevalent in the Hastings District and East Coast region in general over the last few years. It is anticipated that risks as a consequence of forestry slash are only likely to increase over the next few years.

2.2 Forestry slash is the scrap timber, branches and offcuts left behind in a felling area and can contain a mixture of small and large branches. Slash has the potential to damage or destroy Council owned roads, culverts and bridges among other assets as well as putting the community at risk of being isolated or sustaining damage to their properties.

2.3 There are two primary reasons driving concerns around forestry slash. Firstly the effects of climate change will mean that extreme rainfall events are likely to occur with greater frequency and intensity. Second is that there is currently an intense period of forestry harvesting occurring on the East Coast. This is due to the high period of afforestation which occurred after Cyclone Bola in 1988. Harvesting of these plantations has been occurring over the last few years, and will continue to occur over the next 5 to 10 years.

2.4 Further to this, Hastings District has steep topography which is susceptible to erosion and run-off over many parts of the region, further adding to overall risk compared to other areas of the country.

2.5 With current forestry pruning and harvesting practices, a large amount of slash will remain after harvesting. Effectively managed, slash can be contained onsite within traps, and during storm events should be confined within existing harvesting areas. However poorly managed slash can run off into waterways and can cause significant damage downstream. Management of slash across the region can vary from operator to operator.

2.6 Examples of poorly managed slash have been particularly prevalent across the East Coast over the last two years. The Tolaga Bay event illustrated the damage that slash can cause to a community. Further to this the McVicar Road Bridge was badly damaged last year as a result of forestry run-off.

2.7 It is this desire to ensure that the environment, HDC’s existing infrastructure as well as individual lives, homes and properties are protected, that has led to the need to put greater resources into forestry slash monitoring.

2.8 The National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) came into effect on 1 May 2018. The National Standards were aimed at standardising provisions across regions for forestry operators, given that many operators and forestry blocks are located across regional boundaries. In Hawke’s Bay the NES-PF led to a strengthening of rules, primarily for the Regional Council. The NES-PF has given them greater teeth to ensure compliance for all forestry operators, particularly with regard to slash management and waterway protection (both in terms of silt run-off and wildlife protection).

2.9 Notwithstanding this, while the NES-PF reduced the potential District Plan controls on forestry management (with only some small changes to District Plan requirements) it has raised questions how local authorities might have an influence on the downstream effects caused by forestry on communities and infrastructure.

2.10 Whilst in most instances it makes sense to control forestry at a regional level, Hastings District Council also has general obligations set out under Section 31 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), including the requirement to control the actual and potential effects on the land. Section 31(1) (b) (i) which requires the avoidance or mitigation of effects relating to natural hazards is particularly relevant with regards to slash management.

2.11 Further to the NES-PF, it requires HDC to review and monitor forestry management plans. It was considered that the most efficient method to meet RMA requirements would be to work collaboratively with the HBRC, which would ensure the HDC monitoring requirements can still be achieved without covering the same ground as the monitoring at a regional level.

2.12 The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council had one full time equivalent (FTE) working on ensuring compliance of forestry operators with the NES-PF. The scope of this compliance was far greater than just slash, and also included checking compliance on management plans and waterway protection. The HBRC indicated that was not sufficient a resource to ensure adequate monitoring and compliance for all operators.

2.13 Subsequent to the events around Tolaga Bay and the Hastings District, HDC consulted with HBRC in managing the risks associated with forestry management and how we could work collaboratively on the issue. There were a number of matters discussed including online accessibility to best practice guidelines and relevant NES-PF provisions, creating GIS layers showing areas of vulnerable infrastructure downstream from existing forestry blocks, and areas identified for high erosion risk.

2.14 https://webmaps.hdc.govt.nz/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=74b064782f23497b88703de9dea41126

2.15 Also discussed was the need to ensure greater levels of monitoring and education for existing operators. As part of this the potential for Council providing funding for more resources was discussed. This was done with the recognition that better monitoring and compliance of forestry slash will provide greater protection of HDC owned assets.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 In November 2019, a new FTE commenced working as a joint HDC/HBRC Forestry Compliance Officer. It was initially agreed by Council that the role would be funded for a 12 month period and reviewed after that.

3.2 The first four months consisted of training with HBRC and familiarising the role with HDC systems and developing a work programme which took into considerations under the NES-PF as well as associated risks and interests from an HDC lens.

3.3 In February 2020, due to COVID-19 in China, plus an oversupplied market, the harvesting of plantation forestry in New Zealand were either cut back or completely stopped. That resulted in less forestry activity, which in turn resulted in less monitoring and creating a high level of uncertainty in the industry.

3.4 In March 2020, New Zealand went into a level 4 lockdown which suspended any forestry compliance activity until the transition into level 2 towards the end of May.

3.5 Although operating under extraordinary times, the Forestry Compliance Officer has received 43 applications for forestry activities, mainly afforestation or harvesting within the District.

3.6 The Forestry Compliance Officer has also undertaken 14 site visits to carry out the appropriate monitoring. The sites chosen were subject to a risk assessment. There were no issues specific to HDC that arose out of the site visits.

3.7 One of the main issues the Forestry Compliance Officer has been focussing on is forestry slash to ensure slash traps were adequate and culverts had safeguards.

3.8 Due to the substantial interruptions over the last 6 months, officers will be recommending to Council the funding for the Forestry Compliance Officer is extended for a further 12 months and be reviewed thereafter. A report will be going to Council in October/ November.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

That the Board receives the report titled Forestry Slash Update.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Aaron Wilson, Financial Controller

Te Take:

Subject:

Rating Area 2 - Financial Result for the year ended 30 June 2020

1.0 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Hastings District Rural Community Board (RCB) of the indicative rating result for the year ended 30 June 2020.

1.2 The indicative result for Rating Area 2 for the 2019/20 year is favourable to budget and is a $68,934 rating surplus. The results are unaudited and indicative at this stage and consequently there may be some variation to the figures in the final result. This RA2 rating surplus is in the context of a $269,655 overall rating deficit for Council.

1.3 This report concludes by recommending that the Hastings Rural Community Board recommend to the Operations and Monitoring Committee that $8,375 be carried forward to fund the additional cost of the Rural Security Camera Trial with the remaining rating surplus allocated to the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve.

1.4 The unaudited result for the year ended 30 June 2020 will be presented to the Operations and Monitoring Committee on 17 September 2020.

1.5 This report sets out the indicative rating result for the year ended 30 June 2020 for Rating Area 2.

2.0 The Rating Result

2.1 The indicative rating result for the 2019/20 financial year is a positive result for Rating Area 2, a $68,934 surplus.

2.2 A more detailed breakdown of this result is available in Attachment 1.

2.3 The overall rating surplus is due to savings across a number of Council activities.

2.4 The largest single contributor of the RA2 surplus was in the corporate services area with lower spend in contracted services costs along with favourable internal charges and recoveries. The rates revenue for RA2 had a surplus after rates remissions, penalties and doubtful debts were taken into account, and has contributed to the overall RA2 surplus.

2.5 Offsetting this was the RA2 share of the loss in the planning and regulatory area ($174k). This was primarily driven by higher operational spends due to the very high volume of work with building and environmental consenting and associated costs that were above budget. Also contributing was the RA2 share of Community Facilities losses of $43k which were impacted by Covid-19 with reduced revenues and higher costs.

2.6 The net rating result is shown in the attached schedule “Analysis of Year End Result for 2019/20 for Rating Area 2”. This shows the budgeted and actual cost for the various activities and the amount requested to be carried forward. The final column shows the rating surplus or deficit (negative) for the activities.

2.7 The following table summarises the allocation of the 2019/20 Rating Area 2 surplus:

	$
RA2 Surplus on General Rate	68,934
Allocation of Surplus:
Rural Security Camera Trial	8,375
Rural Flood & Emergency Event Reserve	60,559


Allocated Surplus	$68,934

3.0 Landfill Surplus allocation

3.1 In addition to the rating surplus, the Council has received for allocation, revenue from the surpluses generated at the Landfill totalling $1,976,633 of which the RA2 share is $395,332. Last year the RA2 share of the Landfill surplus was put towards the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve with the RA1 share used to help fund the refuse collection changes.

3.2 The allocation of the RA2 share of the 2019/20 Landfill Surplus could be to either the Flood and Emergency Event Reserve or to the RA2 Capital Reserve. The 2020-30 Long Term Plan is going to present some challenges for RA2 with large increases in transportation renewals, a further contribution to the RA2 Capital Reserve could help smooth the impact of these increases and help transition the rural community to an increased level of expenditure on these assets.

4.0 Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve

4.1 The Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve has a balance of $1,229,072 as at 30 June 2020. The Hastings District Rural Community Board on 21 September 2015 resolved:

“That the Hastings Rural Community Board recommend to Council that a new target level for the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve be established of $2,000,000.”

4.2 The above resolution was subsequently approved by Council.

4.3 The following table summarises the cost of recent flood and emergency events and how they were funded which this year included a $200,000 contribution to the Mayoral Drought Relief Fund and a small contribution towards the local share of flood damage costs that exceeded budget during 2019/20:

5.0 Allocation of Surplus

5.1 Council’s Treasury Policy states the following on the allocation of surpluses:

“The funds from all asset sales and operating surpluses will be applied to the reduction of debt and/or a reduction in borrowing requirements, unless the Council specifically directs that the funds will be put to another use.”

5.2 Whilst Rating Area 2 currently has debt of $1.285m, incurred for capital works, the specific resolution by Council to build the Rural Flood and Emergency Event reserve up to a level of $2m is considered a prudent one given the recent flood events and the contribution to the Drought Relief Fund this year.

5.3 The exact allocation of funds to reserve contributions may change if Council determine that additional funds be set aside from the RA2 2019/20 surplus to meet any other identified needs.

5.4 The Rating Area 2 reserve balances as at 30 June 2020 are as follows:

Reserve Description *(Interest bearing Y/N)*	Balance ($)
Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve (Y)	1,229,074
Rural Fire Contingency Fund (N)	6,457
General Purpose Reserve - Rating Area 2 (N)	666,870
Capital Reserve - Rating Area 2 (N)	1,778,708
Transportation NZTA Fund Reserve Rating Area 2 (N)	399,789

5.5 It is recommended that the rural flood and emergency reserve be increased from the 2019/20 surplus to enable Council to help mitigate the cost of another event occurring.

5.6 The following table is a summary of the recommended allocations of the 2019/20 RA2 surplus:

2019/20 RA2 Rating

Surplus

RA2 Surplus on General Rate

- Allocation to Rural Flood & Emergency Event Reserve

- Allocation to Rural Security Camera Trial

$68,934

$60,559

$ 8,375

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Board receives the report titled Rating Area 2 - Financial Result for the year ended 30 June 2020

B) That the Board recommends to Council that the Rating Area 2 Rating Surplus of $68,375 be allocated as follows, noting that the value of the surplus available may change.

2019/20 RA2 Rating

Surplus

RA2 Surplus on General Rate

- Allocation to Rural Flood & Emergency Event Reserve

- Allocation to Rural Security Camera Trial

$68,934

$60,559

$ 8,375

C) That the Board recommends to Council that the Rating Area 2 share of the Landfill Surplus of $395,332 be allocated to the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve or the Rating Area 2 Capital Reserve.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

RA2 Financial Result for year ended 30 June 2020

FIN-09-3-20-344

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Clint Adamson, Security Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Provision of Security Cameras in Rural Locations Update

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Rural Community Board on the progress with regards to installing a trial Rural Community Crime Prevention/Detection camera.

1.2 The Rural Community Board considered the budget at its meeting of 2 March 2020 and requested the addition of $10,000 to fund a pilot security camera installation.

1.3 Taihape Road, next to the recycling facility, was chosen as the trial site.

1.4 A site assessment has been completed and the actual cost for installing a camera and associated infrastructure has been confirmed at $18,375.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Board receives the report titled Provision of Security Cameras in Rural Locations Update.

B) That the Board considers the additional cost involved in installing the CCTV camera in Taihape Road.

C) That if the Board recommends to Council that the installation of a CCTV system on Taihape Road, and close to Matapiro Road, is to proceed, that the additional cost in providing the CCTV system being funded is met by the Rating Area 2 2019/20 surplus.

D) That if this Rural Security Camera trial proves successful, a more permanent and appropriate funding regime for the installation of any further CCTV cameras is to be explored by the Committee through the Long Term Plan and in consultation with the community.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 At the Rural Community Board meeting of 2 March 2020, the Hastings RCB received the report titled Provision of Security Cameras in Rural Locations – Addendum Report.

3.2 This report outlined how 14 rural sites had been identified as potential locations for the installation of CCTV systems. These sites had been selected after consulting with Police and were subsequently assessed as to their suitability and the practicality of installing CCTV in those locations.

3.3 When taking into account issues such as connectivity for camera monitoring, how the system could be powered, general security of the system once installed, and relative isolation, Taihape Road – near Matapiro Road – was selected as the best option for a trial.

3.4 The estimated cost at that point to install a CCTV system in this area was $10,000. A budget of $10,000 was provided for in the Rating Area 2 Unsubsidised Transport budget for the capital costs of the CCTV installation.

3.5 The RCB recommended to Council the installation of a security camera on Taihape Road and close to Matapiro Road for an appropriate trial period to assess effectiveness and community benefit.

3.6 A progress report on the operation of the camera was to be reported to a future meeting of RCB.

3.7 After Covid-19 related delays, Council has then organised a detailed site assessment of the Taihape Road location with its preferred supplier of CCTV services, Advanced Security.

3.8 In June 2020, Advanced Security made an initial quote of $32,014 (plus GST) for a CCTV system at the location that would have included cameras covering Taihape Road, the Recycling Centre and the entrance to the stockyard.

3.9 In consultation with Council’s Animal Control team, a decision was made that the camera covering the stockyard was not required.

3.10 Council’s Solid Waste team have agreed to fund $4,250 to cover the cost of the camera overlooking the recycling centre.

3.11 A remaining amount of $18,735 (plus GST) is required to complete the scope of work needed to install the camera and related infrastructure.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 The main risks involved in installing CCTV camera systems in rural areas were covered in the Provision of Security Cameras in Rural Locations report considered by the RCB on 02 March 2020.

4.2 In respect of the camera system installed in the Taihape Road location the main factors to be considered were;

· Camera quality sufficient to visually capture licence plates of vehicles travelling on Taihape Road

· Security of camera and related infrastructure

· Ongoing servicing requirements

· Power and connectivity issues.

4.3 The bullet camera selected is a specialised Licensed Plate Recognition camera fit for purpose.

4.4 The pole required to be erected to place the camera and related infrastructure on has been selected on the basis that it is both more difficult to scale than a standard pole, and also has a locking pivot point (with removable winch) so that there is no need to hire a scissor lift every time the camera requires servicing. The pivoting pole price alone is $6,292.74.

4.5 While the assessment has considered security, the relatively isolated location of the camera means that wilful damage/attempts at theft cannot be completely ruled out.

4.6 Given the lack of mains power options, a solar charging and battery storage solution has been included with solar panels installed on the top of the pole.

4.7 To ensure the signal from the camera can be received by the Council CCTV monitoring station, a Permaconn Data connection and associated plan (based on 5GB per month) has been included.

4.8 The 12 month Data plan will mean an ongoing annual cost of approximately $1,260.00 with normal CCTV servicing costs to be included over and above that amount.

4.9 A budget of $10,000 was provided for in the Rating Area 2 Unsubsidised Transport budget for the capital costs of this CCTV system. With the cost estimate coming in at $8,735 more than that approved by Council, there is a funding gap that needs to be bridged.

4.10 Given that this installation is anticipated to be a trial for rural security camera effectiveness, it is recommended that the Rating Area 2 2019/20 surplus is used to cover the funding gap of $8,735.

4.11 If the trial is proven to be a success, then a more permanent and appropriate funding regime will need to be explored which may include the creation of targeted rates for the areas benefiting. This will need to be done through the Long Term Plan process and in consultation with the community.

4.12 In respect of rural CCTV cameras in general, subsequent to this proposal being considered by the RCB there have been several other requests made to Council by rural based communities wanting CCTV to be installed.

4.13 Advanced Security have previously supplied a quote for five locations in the wider Puketapu area. As a comparison with the trial site, those quotes included a standard galvanised 5.5m pole that costs $2,555 but annual service costs then included hireage of a scissor lift and was a minimum of $1,910.

4.14 For further comparison, site visits and assessments have also been done at Waimarama (quote received for $28,011), Maraetotara Falls ($22,156), Ruahapia Road ($17,534) and Te Awanga ($19,420). Each assessment included the same four main factors identified above in paragraph 4.2.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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 wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the social wellbeing 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 Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

As outlined in the report.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

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

N/A

Risks

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

This matter was previously discussed by the Rural Community Board on 02 March 2020.

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Danny McClure, Solid Waste Operations & Contract Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Waipatiki Permanent Recycling Facility Request

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek support from the Rural Community Board to install a permanent rural recycling facility at Waipatiki.

· This matter arises from a Waipatiki community request to increase the recycling level of service and is in line with the Joint Waste Management Minimise Plan.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Rural Community Board receives the report titled Waipatiki Permanent Recycling Facility Request.

B) That the Board approve the establishment of a rural recycling facility at Waipatiki for a 12 month trial period. The success of the trial will be measured on participation, contamination and illegal dumping at the site.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Council currently provide a seasonal recycling service for Waipatiki residents and the visitors to the beach for four months of year (over the summer period) in the form a 20ft “Green Bin” six-cell bin with steps on both side of ease of access.

3.2 Rural recycling facilities provide a drop off service for common recyclables; glass, plastics, cans, paper and cardboard.

3.3 Several requests have been received by Council Officers from the residents in the Waipatiki Community to have access to a recycling service/facility year round. The reasons provided from the community for this are;

· Increased permanent residents in the community, of the 80 properties 23 are permanent residents and there are 60 lifestyle and farming properties within a 20km radius that would also utilise this service.

· Increase in visitor numbers, both at peak times and throughout the year.

· Recent closure of the public drop off facility in Onekawa Napier requires northern Hastings District Residents to travel further to another Napier City Council facility (Redcliffe Refuse Transfer Station) – currently there are no Hastings recycling services for residents in this area of the district.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 In the 2014/2015 Annual Plan, Council resolved to proceed with the development of rural recycling facilities, looking at a potential eight sites across the district. Since then five permanent sites have been established.

4.2 In 2019 a new recycling service contract was procured and this new contract allows for additional sites to be serviced under the contract.

4.3 The current annual budget for servicing the five rural recycling sites is $35,000 pa. There is sufficient funds to cover estimated additional servicing costs in the 20/21 budget for rural recycling.

4.4 The bin will be positioned on HDC road reserve, approval will be obtained from the Transportation Manager prior to works commencing. No resource consent is required.

4.5 If a larger recycling facility is installed in the Eskdale area, this site may not be required, however this decision would be at least 12 months away from planning stage. The community see a need for the service immediately.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.1 Install a rural recycling drop off facility at Waipatiki on the road reserve of Waipatiki Road, opposite the driveway to 529 Waipatiki Road, where the temporary summer bin has been placed for the past 4 years.

5.2 The facility will be installed for a 12 month trial period during which time participation, contamination and illegal dumping will be monitored and assessed. This option also allows for the assessment of other possible locations that could serve a broader area of the district in the wider Eskdale area.

Advantages

· Provides a permanent service to residents in the Waipatiki and wider rural community.

· Minimises/mitigates the public leaving recyclables next to toilets, public litter bins and in car parks reducing Council clean-up costs.

· Community to monitor and “own” to ensure the site is looked after.

· Bin provision will be covered using the existing fleet of green bins and with no purchase required.

· The site would not have to be set up/removed annually and would provide continuity or service throughout the year.

Disadvantages

· Cost to service increase 50% during off peak times, circa $1700.00 for 7 months. This would be in addition to the $3300.00 already allocated to the site.

· Contamination of product within bins with visitors using site/bin as dumping ground for rubbish (as it’s unmanned).

· The site may have to be closed down if contamination levels become a problem.

Success of the trial will be assessed on the following points;

· Participation / use of the facility measured through number of times the bin is serviced over the quiet winter period.

· Contamination of recycling material, to be less than 2% at all times.

· No illegal dumping of rubbish at the site.

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

Continue to provide the temporary Green Bin Recycling service for 4-5 months over the busiest period of summer – November through to March.

· Costs to service would remain unchanged at approximately $3300.00.

· The service operated successfully with few problems as it is currently set up.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 Support for the installation a rural recycling facility at Waipatiki is requested from the Hastings District Rural Community Board.

· If support is received, installation will be undertaken during September and October 2020 with the intention to have the site operational for the Hawke’s Bay Anniversary weekend.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the local public services wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future supporting a community which wastes less.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

This initiative will have no direct impact on the Maori community.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The establishment of a permanent rural recycling facility at Waipatiki aligns with Action 4E of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 -2024; Expand recycling drop off stations to communities where feasible.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

Additional Installation costs will be an education sign detailing use of the facility. As this service is being undertaken as a 12 month trial, a concrete pad will not be required.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being not of significance.

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

Consultation regarding rural recycling facilities was undertaken as part of the 2014/2015 Annual Plan, no further consultation is required.

Risks

Opportunity: to extend rural recycling services in line with action 4E of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

Increased accessibility to recycling facilities to support the aims and targets of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, to increase recycling by 20%.

There is a risk that the site may be subjected to dumping of rubbish or contamination of recyclable material. There is no higher risk at this site than any other rural recycling site. The community will be responsible for the management and oversight of use of a daily basis.

Additional cost to service may exceed existing budget.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

This request is being presented to the Rural Community Board for consideration.

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

John Payne, Regulatory Solutions Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Animal Control Annual Report 2019/2020

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Board on the dog control statistics for the annual Dog Control Report for the year 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

· Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires Council adopt and publish an annual report on the administration of Council’s Dog Control Policy and Practises

1.2 This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting regulatory performance and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of community safety.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Board receives the report titled Animal Control Annual Report 2019/2020.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Annually the Council adopts the animal control statistics Report. The report must include information

relating to:

· The number of registered dogs

· The number and type of dog and dog owner classifications

· The number infringements

· The number and nature of dog related complaints:

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 The effects of Covid-19 are obvious when analysing some of the data. Complaint numbers are down by 220 despite dog numbers being up. During lockdown dogs were less inclined to roam or bark, however it will be interesting to see if there has been an increase in ACC figures relating to attacks. Research suggests that more than eighty percent of dog attacks are by the victims’ family dog. The injury requires medical attention but the incident is not reported to Council.

We continue to see steady growth in the dog population 2.1 percent.

There was an unprecedented spate of stock attacks experienced in the district. This was touched on in the previous report as the attacks started in June 2019. Where dogs were caught, owners identified and there was sufficient evidence to gain a conviction, legal proceedings were undertaken.

Legal costs	$29,000
Reparation awarded to stock owners	$8,000
Fines	$4,200

Reparation in some cases was not ordered because arrangements had been made between the offender and the stock owners’ insurance company. There have been 10 destruction orders made, however in some cases the offending dogs were destroyed before the case was prosecuted.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

There are no options with regard to this report as it is information only.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 Once the report is adopted it must be:

· Publicly notified (Website & Newspaper)

· A copy is sent to the Secretary for Local Government

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Annual Report Animal Control 2019/2020

REG-1-14-20-99

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

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 wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes regulatory compliance wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future by reducing public nuisance and threats to public health and safety.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

Nil

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy and does not trigger the threshold of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

Not required as the report is information only:

Risks: Legal - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture

N/A

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

[State the benefit, opportunity, innovation of the outcome & whether it benefits; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

[State the significant risks or threats (4 or 5 max) to the objective & whether they affect; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

Damage to stock from stray dogs.

Annual Report Animal Control 2019/2020

Attachment 1

10A Report 2019/2020

Report on the Administration of

Hastings District Council’s

Policy and Practices in Relation to the

Control of Dogs for the year

1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020

Pursuant to:

(Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996)

REG-1-14-20-99

1. Background

The policy is made under section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Council adopted the “Dog Control” Policy 6 August 2009. The policy underwent a review and public consultation in conjunction with the Dogs Bylaw and was submitted to Council for adoption on 25 August 2016. The policy is currently under a five year review in conjunction with the Consolidated Bylaw 2016 as required under section 158 of the Local Government Act 1974 and section 10AA of the Dog Control Act 1996.

The purpose of the policy is to provide a framework for the care and control of dogs throughout Hastings District with regard to:

a) “the need to minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally; and

b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners”

The anticipated outcomes of the policy are:

1. Minimising the potential for danger, distress and nuisance to the community from dogs;

2. Promoting responsible dog ownership;

3. Promoting effective dog control, particularly in public places where children or families are present;

4. Minimising the risk of intimidation and attacks by dogs;

5. Promoting positive interaction between dog owners and members of the community;

6. Providing for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires Territorial Authorities to publically report each financial year on the administration of their dog control policy and practices.

2. Dog Prohibited Areas

Dogs are prohibited from the following areas:

1. Hastings District Council Civic Building

2. Hastings District Council Public Libraries

3. Hastings District Council Swimming Pools

4. Children’s playing areas under the control of Hastings District Council

5. All areas under the control of Hastings District Council set aside for organised games or sports and all other areas zoned as sports parks in the Hastings District

6. Rangaiika Beach at Ocean Beach / Cape Kidnappers.

Prohibited areas are established to prevent conflict with other users, or areas with sensitive ecological value. Very few complaints are received regarding non-compliance as the majority of dog owners are responsible people and comply with the requirements.

3 Dog Exercise and Leash Control

There are currently areas where dogs are required to be leashed and areas where they may free run (under control of the owner). Council does not provide specific dog exercise areas. The majority of dog owners are responsible and considerate.

Council has the philosophy that dogs which have easy access to open spaces and are exercised regularly are less likely to display anti-social behaviour such as aggression and excessive barking. To achieve this, there is a limited number of dog prohibited areas and leash control areas other than areas of high public usage or biodiversity significance.

4 Dog Aggression

A focus is on encouraging dog owners to understand the true nature of dogs, to recognise the potential that all dogs have and to comply with their obligations under the Dog Control legislation, in particular Section 5(f) –

to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dog does not injure, endanger, intimidate, or otherwise cause distress to any person.

All complaints of aggression reported to Council are given priority and are thoroughly investigated. Action ranges from written warning, infringements, menacing dog classification, dangerous dog classification or prosecution.

5 Dog Control Statistics

Year	% increase	Registered	Impound	Claimed
19/20	2.1%	12,769	947	69.8%
18/19	1.6%	12,640	1,131	64%

NB: Impounded does not include dogs relinquished

The increase in the number of dogs is simply in line with the increase in growth in the area.

The decrease in the number of impounded dogs is also attributed to Covid-19.

The claim rate is a reflection of the number of dogs suitable for adoption.

Complaints	18/19	19/20
Person Attacked	52	67
Person Rushed	90	129
Animal Attacked	135	147
Roaming	2,033	1,701
Barking	604	487
Fouling	2	6
Other	262	194
Total	3,178	2954

Complaint numbers are down however complaints of aggression are slightly up. The Person attacked & rushed records can fluctuate without any justified reason.

Animal attack records reflect an unprecedented spate of stock attacks experienced in the district from July 2019 to June 2020.

Roaming dog and barking dog complaints are down because of Covid-19

Other complaints are made up of several miscellaneous topics like unleashed dogs in leash control areas, reported unregistered dogs, dangerous dogs, unmuzzled etc.

Owner Classification	18/19	19/20
Probationary owners s21	0	0
Disqualified owners s25	5	9
Menacing s33A 1b(i) – (Behaviour)	27	25
Menacing s33A 1b(ii) – (Breed Characteristics)	0	0
Menacing s33C – (Government listed breeds)	190	181
Dangerous s31 (1)(a) – (Conviction under s57)	0	1
Dangerous s31 (1)(b) – (Sworn evidence)	11	10
Dangerous s31 (1)(c) – (Owner admits in writing)	22	19

	Infringements	Prosecutions
19/20	204	49
18/19	691	15

As mentioned above, there was an unprecedented spate of stock attacks. Several of these incidents resulted in summary prosecution involving multiple dogs and multiple offences. Of the 49 charges there were only 19 dogs involved and 15 people were prosecuted.

Offence	Attack Stock	Attack Person	Rushing	Failing to Control	Unreg	Unmuz
Number	13	4	3	19	9	1

Infringement offences are down as staff shortage and Covid-19 prevented processing unregistered dogs, hence the lower percentage of registration compliance.

Registration categories

Category	18/19	19/20
Urban	6,828	7,126
Rural	6,524	6,518
Other	16	16
Total	13,368	13,660

6 Fees

Dog registration fees are set by Council resolution.

Dog registration fees, fines and impound fees are used to fund dog control.

A reduced dog registration fee is offered to those who register their dogs before 1 August and a reduced fee is offered to those owners on the Selected Owner Scheme.

27% of the dog control activity is funded from the general fund in recognition of the public good benefit.

7 Education

Education is offered to all offenders by way of one-on-one consultation and a series of educational brochures are available.

Dog bite prevention and responsible dog ownership addresses are undertaken free of charge to schools, kindergartens and any other community groups. This training is also offered contractors and internally to HDC staff.

A copy of Council’s dog control policy is available on our website together with other educational material.

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

John Payne, Regulatory Solutions Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Five Year Review Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016 Chapter 3 Dog Control & Dog Control Policy

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek feedback from the Board on the proposed minor changes to the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy.

1.2 This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of reducing public nuisance and more specifically through Council’s strategic objective of community safety through appropriate bylaw controls.

1.3 This report concludes by recommending that the report be received and that the Community Board discuss the matters raised and provide comment back to staff.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Board receives the report titled Five Year Review Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016 Chapter 3 Dog Control & Dog Control Policy.

B) That the Board discuss the matters raised in the report and provide comment back to staff.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Section 158 of the Local Government Act 1974 requires that a local authority must review a bylaw made under the Local Government Act 1974 no later than 5 years after the bylaw was made. The Dog Control Bylaw was formulated in 2016 to form the new Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2016. The bylaw is therefore due for review.

3.2 In addition to the bylaw review, section 10AA of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires the local authority must review its policy if the bylaw implementing the policy requires review.

3.3 Attached is a copy of:

· Chapter 3 of the Consolidated Bylaw 2016 Dog Control, and

· The Dog Control Policy 2016, and

· Miscellaneous Bylaws

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 Staff have reviewed the current Dog Control Bylaw and the only changes proposed are:

· To amend the time restriction for dog exercise in Ebbett Park to 5.00pm to 8.00am all year round.

Comment

As part of the adoption of the Raureka Parks Management Plan Council agreed to support an amendment to the bylaw regarding the provision of dog exercise areas within Ebbett Park.

· Change the description of the off leash area of Keirunga Gardens to - along the extent of the western boundary walkway accessed from Tanner Street, and including the open grass areas at the southern and northern ends of the Park.

Comment

This description is in line with the current signage in the Gardens.

4.2 Staff have reviewed the current Dog Control Policy and the following changes are proposed:

· Policy 4 – amend the Ebbett Park and Keirunga Gardens changes as proposed in the bylaw; and

· Policy 10 – Dog adoption – add the word ‘potential’

Comment

Dogs are a product of their present environment, temperament is a snap shot of ‘now’. Potential behaviour should be factored into the evaluation.

· Add Clause 10.2 No dogs will be released for research, testing or teaching purposes; and

· New Policy 13 – Add a clause about chained dogs

Comment

Council does not encourage restraining dogs by means of a chain or tether as a permanent means of controlling a dog.

Explanation

Chaining or tethering a dog poses serious threats to its physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing. Research confirms that chained dogs are more aggressive. Chained or tethered dogs can feel threatened, fearful and frustrated, causing them to become antisocial and aggressive.

Other reasons why you should not tether your dog for long periods:

· Without the physical barrier of a cage, tethered dogs can feel threatened

· Natural instincts of survival, fight and flight are disengaged

· Can easily tip over their water container

· Have been known to die from strangulation

· Can get easily tangled

· More likely to get parasites, disease, injuries and infections

· Lunging or pulling against the chain can cause abrasions to the neck

· Forced to defecate and urinate in the same place they sleep, eat and run

· Barking continuously from boredom and frustration

5.0 Options

Not Applicable

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The next steps are:

· Once a draft bylaw is developed incorporating all the proposed changes of the Consolidated Bylaw, a workshop will be held with Council 22 September 2020.

· The draft will then be sent for a legal review before being reported to Council 1 December 2020 to adopt the draft for public consultation.

· A copy of the finalised proposals will be sent to the Chairman and members of the Rural Community Board as part of the public submission process.

Time Line

Notify District Planning and Bylaws Subcommittee of the process	12 June 2020 *Memo dated 18 June 2020*
Receive feedback/information from (internal stakeholders)	10 July 2020
Notify HBRC, Police, Community Groups, and Business Associations.	1 July 2020 Feed Back by 31 July 2020 *Letter dated 1 July 2020*
~~Report to District Planning and Bylaws Subcommittee~~	~~12 August 2020~~ *~~Report 12 August 2020~~*
Notify Rural Community Board	7 September 2020 *Report 7 Sept 2020*
Council Workshop	22 September 2020
Legal review & Statement of Proposal	15 October 2020
Report to Council	1 December 2020
Advice out with rates –	Post out 29 Jan 2021
Submission forms to: http://www.myvoicemychoice.co.nz Hastings Customer Service Centre Flaxmere, Hastings and Havelock North Libraries	21 January 2021
Newspaper advertisement	27 & 30 January 2021
Public consultation opening date	1 February 2021
Public consultation closing date	5 March 2021
Staff comment on public submissions	12 March 2021
Submissions heard by Council	April 2021
Report to Council for final adoption	August 2021

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Review Copy Dog Control Bylaw RCB	CG-16-7-00017
2 ⇩	Review Copy Dog Control Policy RCB	CG-16-7-00018
3 ⇩	Miscellaneous Bylaws RCB	CG-16-7-00016

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of reducing public nuisance and threats to public health and safety through appropriate bylaw controls and for the wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No known impacts for mana whenua / iwi / tangata whenua above and or beyond the general community population.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The bylaw is being reviewed after the initial five years. It is not required to be reviewed again until after 10 years (2031).

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The bylaw process will incur legal fees for legal review. These will be sourced from existing Planning & Regulatory budgets.

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 Moderate significance.

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

The proposed/amended bylaws must follow the Special consultative procedure required under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks: Legal - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture

The bylaw is required to undergo a five year review under Section 158 of the Local Government Act 1974: Council risks the existing bylaw being unenforceable if it fails to go through this process.

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

[State the benefit, opportunity, innovation of the outcome & whether it benefits; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

[State the significant risks or threats (4 or 5 max) to the objective & whether they affect; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board will have an interest in the Dog Control Bylaw and Policy, however the Board will also have an opportunity to submit to the public consultation process:

Monday, 7 September 2020

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Adam Jackson, Transportation Operations Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Rural Transportation Activities Report

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This report is to update the Rural Community Board with the Rural Transportation Programmed Project Status and Activities Report.

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

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Board receives the report titled Rural Transportation Activities Report.

3.0 2020/2021 Major Works Programme

3.1 The 2020/21 financial year is the final portion of the 2018-21 LTP programme.

3.2 Projects able to be completed in 2020/21 are often a result of programme changes during the first 2 years of the LTP programme and that has been the case during this LTP.

3.3 The following is the confirmed Area Wide Pavement Treatment programme for the 2020/21 financial year.

Road	Section	Status/Comment
Kereru Road	Kereru Road – Section 2	Design complete – shovel ready. Construction programmed to start in October
Kereru Road	Kereru Road – Section 3	Design underway. Construction sequence will follow Kereru 2 project provided funding is available.

4.0 Bridge Update

4.1 Ohara (Big Hill Road) and Riggirs (Maraetotara Road) strengthening works have finished. Moeangiangi (Waikare Road) strengthening work is expected to be finished by end of August.

4.2 Mangatahi Low Level (Mangatahi Road) enabling works are underway with a view to tender the project in October.

4.3 Taylors (Kikowhero Road) and Kuripapango (Taihape Road) are undergoing design.

4.4 Several bridges (Crystal No 1 and 2, St Georges, Poporangi and Farndon Overhead) are showing signs of meeting the required loading limit with no strengthening required.

4.5 Next set of bridges to start evaluations in the next quarter.

4.6 Turamoe No. 2 Bridge project is awaiting funding to be secured and to meet Council expectations prior to commencement:

5.0 Provincial Growth Fund Projects (PGF)

5.1 PGF has allocated $1.4M for roading projects in DRA2. These are 100% funded by the PGF, so do not have any impact on rates. These projects are ones that were considered shovel ready, and have been assigned to Contractors to start in Q3 of 2020. The projects are:

Road	Project	Status/Comment
Tukituki Road	AWPT	Assigned to Russell Roads as a variation to the existing Kahuranaki Contract. Construction to start in September 2020 and be complete by December 2020.
Taihape Road	Passing Lanes 1-4	Design complete. Assigned to Fulton Hogan as part of their Maintenance Works Contract. The pricing for these additional works are currently being finalised. Works to re-commence in September 2020 and are expected to be completed by December 2020.
Taihape Road	Bridge Guardrail Package 1 – 3.	Assigned to McNatty Construction who are currently finalising design and pricing for the three bridge sites. Works to commence in late September 2020 and are expected to be completed by December 2020.

6.0 Delineation Review

6.1 We have recently established a delineation policy to ensure that our roads have markings and signage of a consistent standard throughout each of the road hierarchy levels.

6.2 A gap analysis is being done to identify the roads that currently do not meet the new standards.

6.3 Following the gap analysis we will programme improvements on the identified roads to get them up to the policy standards, beginning with NZTA identified High Risk Roads.

6.4 It is estimated that this work will take place throughout the next 3-4 years at current proposed funding levels:

7.0 Works Update

7.1 Attachment 1 provides the Rural Community Board with a photographic snapshot of activities undertaken between June 2020 and September 2020.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Transport (USE ROAD CONTAINER FOR INDIVIDUAL ROADS) - Roads General (See notes) - Sept 2020 RCB Photos

TR-8-20-9919

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This report promotes the performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of providing safe, reliable and efficient transport networks.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No known impacts for tangata whenua over and above the impact on the rural district as a whole:

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

This is a progress report and sustainability issues are not addressed.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The works identified within this report are within existing budgets.

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. Individual projects will have been addressed under the significance and engagement policy during the planning and decision making phase of those projects.

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

No consultation is required as part of this report.

Risks

Risk management and mitigation issues have been addressed in project planning and organisational health and safety policies.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board will have an interest in the operations and transportation activities within the DRA2 rating area.

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Monday, 7 September 2020
Te Wā: Time:	2.00pm
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Landmarks Room Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings
Te Hoapā: Contact:	Democracy and Governance Services P: 06 871 5000 \| E: democracy@hdc.govt.nz
Te Āpiha Matua: Responsible Officer:	Transportation Manager - Jag Pannu

Mematanga: Committee Members:	Heamana Chair: Nick Dawson Marcus Buddo, Sue Maxwell and Jonathon Stockley Councillors Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair) and Sophie Siers
Tokamatua: Quorum:	4 members
Apiha Matua: Officer Responsible:	Kaiwhakahaere Rōpū Transportation Manager: Jag Pannu
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga: Democracy & Governance Services:	Vicki Rusbatch