Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

Monday, 1 March 2021

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:

Dog Registration Fees

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek feedback from the Board on a proposal to increase the dog registration fees to take effect from 1 July 2021.

1.2 This issue arises as the fees must be set by resolution for the registration and control of dogs under the Dog Control Act 1996.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the report of the Regulatory Solutions Manager titled Dog Registration Fees dated 1 March 2021 be received.

B) That the Board supports the proposed increased Dog Control fees which will take effect from 1 July 2021: Note, all fees are inclusive of gst.

Registration Fee Fee if paid after 1 August

Urban fee $115.00 $172.00

Rural/Working $56.00 $84.00

SOP Fee $78.00 $117.00

Special purpose Nil

Other fees and charges:

First Impounding $85.00

Second Impounding $127.50

Third & Subsequent Impounding $180.00

Animal Control Officer hourly rate $112.50

Sustenance per day $9.00

Microchip Implanting Fee $42.00

Adoption Fee $260.00

Seizure Fee $60.00

Destruction Fee $60.00

Relinquishment Fee $50.00

Application to keep more than 2 dogs $30.00

Application for selected Owner Policy $30.00

Replacement Tag $6.00

Vehicle rate (per km) $0.83

Stock Control (Note: The cost of retrieving stock will be charged actual costs)

Deer $40.00

Horses $40.00

Cattle $40.00

Pigs $20.00

Goats $10.00

Sheep $10.00

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Dog Control fees are set under section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by Council resolution, there being no requirement for the proposed fees to pass through a public consultation process.

3.2 The fees need to be set in advance of the expiry of the registration year (June 30) to give dog owners sufficient time to apply for registration for the coming year. In practise this means the dog registration fee setting process has to be completed ahead of the Annual Plan process.

3.3 Council currently has a fee structure which reflects 73 percent private and 27 percent public benefit.

3.4 All dog owners contribute through their fees to a fair proportion of the costs of operating the dog control service. Fine recoveries, impound fees and application fees help to offset the remaining costs.

3.5 Unclaimed, impounded dogs with a suitable temperament/potential are adopted out. Dogs are registered, neutered, microchipped, dewormed and vet checked prior to placement. The current adoption fee $250 does not fully meet the costs and the registration income cross subsidises this activity.

3.6 Any dog which remains unregistered after 31 July incurs a penalty of an additional 50 percent of the registration fee, section 37(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996. Any person keeping an unregistered dog after 1 August are liable to an infringement notice in addition to the registration penalty fee.

3.7 There remains an increased focus of dangerous, menacing, roaming and unregistered dogs. There is a target to achieve 100 percent registration compliance of known dogs, accordingly Animal Control Officers will be making site visits across the district to determine why known dogs haven’t been re-registered.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 There are about 13,525 dogs on the Council database. There is about a 1.5 percent dog population increase annually.

4.2 In 2019/2020 the animal control activity was increased by one full time equivalent staff member to meet the service levels required, in particular due to an increase in public hostility, requiring staff to work more frequently in pairs.

4.3 In 2019/2020 there was a spate of stock worrying incidents resulting in more than 300 sheep killed and several more badly injured. Several of these incidents resulted in summary prosecution involving multiple dogs and multiple offences. Legal costs exceeded $34,000.

4.4 The dog registration fees have remained unchanged for five years, since the 2015/2016 registration year.

4.5 There are five categories of dog registration:

· Urban

· Urban Selected Owner

· Rural/Working

· Dangerous Dogs

· Special, which covers disability assist and special purpose dogs.

Table 1. The proportion in each category

Urban	Urban Selected	Rural/Working	Dangerous	Special	Total
2,687	4,247	6,546	30	15	13,525
19.9%	31.4%	48.4%	0.2%	0.1%

Table 2. The current fees

Urban	Urban Selected	Rural/Working	Dangerous	Special
$110.00	$73.50	$48.00	150%	No fee

Table 3. The proposed fees

Urban	Urban Selected	Rural/Working	Dangerous	Special
$115.00	$78.00	$56.00	150%	No fee

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.1 Support the proposed fees as set out in table 3:

Advantages

· Helps to meet the increased costs associated with the Animal Control function.

Disadvantages

· Increases the costs for dog owners.

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

5.2 Leave the fees as they currently are, as identified in table 2, or recommend a different fee structure:

Advantages

· No increase for dog owners

Disadvantages

· No increase would create a budget shortfall resulting in either the level of service be adjusted or funding will need to be found from another source

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The Rural Community Board’s position on this issue will be reflected in a report to Council next month.

6.2 If Council adopts the proposed fees, these will be publically advertised the month preceding the start of the dog registration year and will apply from the start of the 2021/2022 registration year.

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

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 performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of reducing public nuisance and threats to public health and safety through appropriate animal control activities 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 beyond the general community population.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Fees are charged each year pursuant to section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 to reflect the costs associated with the Animal Control activity.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The fees are reviewed annually.

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

N/A:

Risks

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

The revenue from registration fees funds the dog control activity.

Insufficient funds would result in a drop in the level of service which would likely have an impact on community safety.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

48 percent of the district’s dogs are in the rural communities:

Monday, 1 March 2021

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 Hastings District Rural Community Board receives the report of the Transportation Operations Manager titled Rural Transportation Activities Report dated 1 March 2021.

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 status of the final Area Wide Pavement Treatment programme for the 2020/21 financial year.

Road	Section	Status/Comment
Kererū Road	Kererū Road – Section 2	Construction 95% complete. Small shoulder areas needing sealed.
Kererū Road	Kererū Road – Section 3	Design complete. Construction on hold until 21/22 season

4.0 Bridge Update

4.1 Mangatahi Low Level (Mangatahi Road) bridge replacement has been tendered and the enabling works have been completed. The contractor is expected to be on site late February.

4.2 Kuripapango bridge strengthening tendering process is complete. Work is commencing on 1 March 2021. Additional consultation has been done prior to work starting as bridge will be weight restricted during the contract period. During the stakeholder meeting some ideas were suggested to ease the impact of closure and most of the ideas have been implemented.
Signage for the closure and opening times has been advertised on various platforms as well as on Taihape Road to inform the road users.

4.3 Rissington bridge designs are nearing completion to remove the vertical restriction.

4.4 Next round of bridge evaluations are underway with further material testing being planned for the coming months.

4.5 Turamoe No. 2 Bridge project has now gone over the deadline imposed by the Council Officers with the landowner failing to meet the requirements set by Council. Landowner has asked for a discussion with the officers.

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	Complete
Taihape Road	Passing Lanes 1-4	Complete
Taihape Road	Bridge Guardrail Package 1 – 3.	Tender has been let and works have commenced. Project is due for completion by end of April.

6.0 Speed Limit Review

6.1 The review into the speed limits of about 77 roads across the district has concluded, with Council approving most of the proposals.

6.2 The new signs will be installed the week prior to 1 March 2021 with the new speed limits being enforceable from 1 March 2021 onwards.

6.3 A total of 72 new signs are being installed over this period.

7.0 Works Update

7.1 Attachment 1 (to be circulated separately) provides the Rural Community Board with a photographic snapshot of activities undertaken between November 2020 and February 2021.

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 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.

Monday, 1 March 2021

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:

Mark Clews, Principal Advisor: District Development

Te Take:

Subject:

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Update

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This report provides an update to the Rural Community Board about the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy.

1.2 The report concludes by recommending that the update be received.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report of the Principal Advisor: District Development titled Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Update dated 1 March 2021.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The coastline between Tangoio and Clifton is defined by a gravel barrier ridge, which acts as a vital defence from the sea, without which large areas of the coast would be regularly inundated. Sea level rise and climate change present an increasing threat to the integrity of the ridge and therefore increased risk of beach erosion and inundation through sea level rise and overtopping.

3.2 In 2014 a joint committee comprising the three affected Councils and Iwi representatives was set-up to recommend a strategy for managing these coastal hazard risks over the period 2016-2120.

3.3 The Strategy has been progressed in four key stages as shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Process Stages

3.4 Stage 1 commenced in 2014 with two reports being prepared – “Coastal Hazard Assessment” and “Coastal Risk Assessment”. These estimated the extent and probability of coastal hazards occurring and the likely scale of damage that could be caused to physical assets, people and communities and the environment. The coast was broken down into 16 assessment cells as shown in Figure 2 to provide a finer grained analysis.

3.5 Figure 2 Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazard Assessment Cells

3.6 While the effects of erosion on land and physical assets is one of the more visible impacts of sea level rise, the stage 1 work clearly showed that recurrent inundation by storm surge overtopping of the beach barrier was likely to affect far more members of the community and inflict greater financial losses than the erosion aspect alone. With sea level rise and increased storminess associated with climate change, these impacts are likely to be felt further inland and at a greater frequency, particularly with erosion or roll back of the ridge.

3.7 Stage 2 commenced in 2016 and developed a framework to support a collaborative decision making forum for a community led response to the issues, rather than the more traditional and previously used ‘top down’ planned approach. The framework also used latest guidance material that prompts communities to consider combinations of different management strategies or pathways (combining/switching different approaches over time and known as Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning or DAPP approach) to prevent “lock in” and allow flexibility to adapt to change in the light of significant uncertainty about the scale and pace of change.

3.8 Stage 3 two assessment panels (one southern and one northern) reflecting the Coastal Hazard Assessment Cells used in Stage 1 and shown in Figure 2 were formed with community representatives from Tangoio/Whirinaki, Bay View, Westshore/Ahuriri, Marine Parade, Clive/East Clive, Haumoana/Te Awanga/Clifton. Along with selected other participants representing other aspects of the wider public interests the panels were charged with developing and evaluating response options in Stage 3.

3.9 The two Assessment Panels both met in 11-12 three hour workshops throughout 2017. At the end of 2017 they recommended to the Joint Committee their preferred response options for the 100 year timeframe, as required by the NZ Coastal Policy Statement, focussing at that stage on priority areas deemed most at risk in the short term.

Table 1 Summary of Recommended Pathways

3.10 Table 1 summarises the recommendations while Table 2 provides a summary of the total costs estimated in range from high to low, including capital, operations and maintenance allowances.

Table 2 Summary of Total costs (Capital, Operations, and Maintenance)

Key

1-5 = Pathway Number e.g. PW1-5

Pathway Description: SQ = Status Quo, R = Renourishment, RCS = Renourishment & control structures, IP = Inundation protection, SW = Sea wall, MR = Managed Retreat

Time Frame: ST = Short Term (0-20 years), MT = Medium Term (20-50 years), LT = Long Term (50-100 years)

3.11 In February 2018 the Joint Committee recommended to the partner Councils that they endorse and adopt the recommendations. While the Councils endorsed the recommended pathways for further consideration, this was on the basis (at least in Hastings District Council’s case) that the scope of Stage 4 of the Strategy development (Respond) needed to first also enquire into issues around:

· Legal and Environment

· Benefits and Costs

· Funding and Responsibilities

· Wider community consultation

with all four stages needing to be fully developed before the Strategy could be adopted and implemented.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 The Joint Committee has been actively engaged in Stage 4 over the past two and half years. The activities in Stage 4 can be divided into three key steps:

Step 1: Concept Development, Testing and Planning; (NOW)

Step 2: Community Consultation and Approvals; and (NEXT)

Step 3: Pathway Implementation Projects (multiple). (OVER TIME)

4.2 The adoption of each Stage in an incremental manner is intended to provide decision “gateways” at logical hold-points throughout Strategy development.

Step 1: Concept Development, Testing and Planning

4.3 Step 1 of Stage 4 involves multiple, interrelated work streams as discussed further below (and shown diagrammatically in Figure 3). The key outcome is to develop sufficient detail on the recommended pathways to enable an informed Council gateway decision and allow effective community consultation in Step 2. To be effective, consultation must also include discussion on the alternative to the recommended pathway, likely a do-minimum or managed retreat option (where appropriate), and these alternate options also need to be developed in Step 1.

Technical Design

4.4 Each pathway had been designed to a high-level concept plan stage. Those concept plans required refinement and further development to detailed concept plan stage, in order to effectively communicate what each pathway will actually look like if implemented, develop more accurate costings, and to assess environmental effects. Detailed design sufficient to support resource consent applications / construction was not required at this stage, but it was expected to mean some recommended pathways would need to be revisited where the design work and/or new information came to light and this occurred with the Pandora Pathway. The design options have recently been shared with the Assessment Panels for feedback and further revision.

Assessment of Environmental Effects and Mitigation including likely costs

4.5 With the benefit of detailed concept plans, a high-level assessment of actual and potential environmental effects was undertaken, including consideration of necessary mitigations and costs. It was also necessary at this point to consider the collective and cumulative effect on the environment of implementing all pathways. This will be an important element for community consultation purposes, but again this did not need to be at the level needed for a resource consent application.

4.6 A report completed last year on the consentability of the pathways found no obvious red flags, but did recommend that baseline ecological studies be undertaken to support applications later on in the process and these are programmed for the 2021-2022 financial year.

Detailed Costings

4.7 The pathway costs developed in stage 3 were highly indicative, with a large estimate range, amounting to several hundred million dollars across the region, but the cost of doing nothing was also estimated to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The comparative benefits and socio/environmental effects were also indicative.

4.8 Informed by the detailed design work and refinement of the pathways, likely costs structures and any associated benefits are better able to be assessed to underpin the funding propositions. Similarly the do-minimum/retreat option (Plan B) also needed some refinement and more targeted cost estimating to satisfy the public consultation requirements at the end of the stage 4 process. In this respect a report on Managed Retreat is due to be considered by the Joint Committee at its next meeting.

Priority and order of Works

4.9 In Stage 3, seven priority units were identified along the coast within the Strategy area. However, it will be impractical to commence pathway implementation in all seven units concurrently. Recognising that of those seven units, some will require more urgent action than others, a process of prioritising and staging of works is required to detail the order, timing and duration of the physical works programmes that form the first step of the recommended pathways in each priority unit. This work has yet to commence.

Signals and Triggers

4.10 In order for the pathways to be adaptive, signals and triggers are required. These will provide both the early warning signals that things are changing, and the ultimate trigger point when a decision will be made to shift to the next step in the pathway, or potentially shift to an entirely new action if necessary. Signals and triggers will be developed in a collaborative way with members from the Stage 3 Assessment Panels as a starting point, assisted by the “Deep South” National Science Challenge programme developing methodologies for this work. Engagement with the panels on the signals and triggers development work is scheduled to start in the next few weeks.

LGA S101 Analysis

4.11 The Strategy is expected to set out a 100 year approach to responding to coastal hazards and will require significant expenditure over that time period to implement. While the strategy cost benefit analysis helps to demonstrate from an economy-wide perspective the value for money of the recommended pathways versus the do-minimum, this does not necessarily make them affordable to those who are expected to pay for the works.

4.12 Before setting its funding policies and structures Council must first apply Section 101 (3) of the Local Government Act (“LGA”), which sets the process and considerations a local authority must consider in developing its funding approach. A key part of this analysis is determining the apportionment of costs (public / private) in accordance with the benefits of each works programme, while considering the affordability of such measures.

4.13 This analysis will determine how a targeted and general rating system could be applied to fund implementation. Affordability then needs to be tested with the private beneficiaries for their share and also with the public agencies (largely Councils) responsible for raising the public share. This work is underpinned by the more detailed design and costing work.

Funding Policies and Structures

4.14 A funding framework that is durable and able to survive through future successive political cycles over the long timeframes associated with climate change and sea level rise is needed to implement the strategy. Discussions have occurred between the partner Councils regarding the development of a funding model to implement the recommended pathways, but some key questions remain open, including how/which Councils rate for the public good portion of the costs.

4.15 The development of a Coastal Contributory Fund has been agreed to in principle by the Partner Councils; this will likely involve regular contributions being made by the Partner Councils, or directly by Regional Ratepayers, into a fund ahead of time to offset the future (public) costs of implementation. The detail on how that fund would operate, including how it would be governed, whether it could borrow, its legal structure, is part of the current work programme.

Planning and Regulatory Review

4.16 Implementation of the Strategy will likely involve the need for resource consents to be obtained. The recommended pathways need to be assessed against the current policy framework and any necessary recommended changes to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan and District Plans to facilitate pathway implementation identified. These in turn need to be assessed as to their compatibility with the Resource Management Act (RMA).

4.17 Reports on these matters were completed last year and assessed the following:

1. Whether the existing framework require changes to improve consistency across jurisdictions;

2. How supportive / restrictive is the existing framework in terms of Strategy implementation and what changes could be made to better facilitate implementation while appropriately managing adverse effects; and

3. How can the moral hazard risk associated with implementing coastal defence measures be managed; i.e. the risk of inadvertently encouraging further development / investment in an area only temporarily protected by a coastal defence.

Council Roles

4.18 While the Partner Councils have embarked on a collaborative process with Iwi to develop the Strategy, the detail of each Partner Council’s role through implementation is yet to be agreed. Responsibilities for seeking and holding consents, implementing physical works programmes, monitoring of triggers, and the collection of rates (among other matters), are all details that require an agreed position before implementation can commence. Retired High Court Judge Raynor Asher has recently been engaged to give an independent view on the funding and ownership roles and responsibilities of the respective Councils to assist in resolving these issues.

Step 2: Community Consultation and Approvals

4.19 While the development of pathways in Stage 3 was a consultative and collaborative process, the full package of detailed information including concept plans, costs and who pays, still requires full consultation with all members of the Napier and Hastings communities.

4.20 This consultation process is expected to occur formally under the LGA as a standalone special consultative process, following the next Long Term Plan revision. The scope for this step will be further developed by the Joint Committee over the next year, including the development of a full community engagement plan.

Step 3: Pathway Implementation Projects

4.21 At the conclusion of consultation (which will likely include hearings held under the LGA), a further decision gateway will be presented to the Partner Councils to seek approval to commence actual implementation of the Strategy. This will include:

· Identifying and scheduling Implementation Projects;

· Making provision in Long Term Plans and Thirty Year Infrastructure Strategies;

· Establishment of the Coastal Contributory Fund;

· Commencement of general and targeted rating;

· Implementing changes to the Regional Policy Statement / Regional Coastal Environment Plan / Regional Plan / District Plans;

· Confirming detailed design;

· Seeking resource consents; and

· Commence construction of coastal structures / nourishment programmes in order of priority.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.1 As this is an information report there are no options to consider.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 Over the course of this year there will be reports back to the Joint Committee on each work stream and where required, particularly in relation to funding arrangements, workshops and report backs to the each of the partner Councils individually or collectively. This will culminate in the production of an integrated Draft or Proposed Strategy Document which will form the basis of the wider community consultation programme tentatively slotted for October, but potentially, not until early next year, given the need for all three Councils to sign off on the strategy document and the consultation process.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Monday, 1 March 2021

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:

Jackie Evans, Manager: Democracy and Governance

Te Take:

Subject:

Adoption of Amended Standing Orders

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 In accordance with clause 27 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002, a local authority must adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees. The standing orders must not contravene the Local Government Act, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), or any other Act.

1.2 Standing Orders provide a framework of rules for open, fair and transparent decision making which inspires public confidence in local democracy. It is therefore important that the Board’s Standing Orders are not only fully compliant with legislation and best practice in the conduct of meetings, but that they are also easy to use.

1.3 The current version of Standing Orders was first adopted in January 2017. This version of Standing Orders was based on Local Government New Zealand Model Standing Orders which had undergone a thorough review and rewriting to make it easier to follow, encompass legislative changes and reflect technological changes which have had an impact on the running of local council meetings such as live streaming and remote access via audio visual means. Since adopted in 2017, Local Government New Zealand has provided an updated version of Standing Orders which has been expanded to include legislative changes and matters identified by practitioners over the past three years.

1.4 At its meeting on 28 January 2021, the Council adopted revised Standing Orders.

1.5 The Board’s approval is sought to adopt the revised Community Boards Standing Orders as set out in Attachment 1 to this report and to confirm the inclusion of the following optional clauses in line with status quo:-

· member’s right to attend by audio or audiovisual link (clauses 13.11 – 13.16)

NB - currently extended to count towards a quorum until 22 March 2021 under Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020, and

· a casting vote for the Chair (clause 19.3)

1.6 The Board is also asked to consider a default option for speaking and moving motions – it

· A – formal (cl.22,2);

· B – medium (cl 22.3); or

· C – informal (cl.22.4)

1.7 An amendment of standing orders or the adoption of a new set of standing orders requires, in every case, a vote of no less than 75% of the members present.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Adoption of Amended Standing Orders dated 1 March 2021.

B) That the Rural Community Board adopts the Standing Orders appended (Attachment 1) to the report at A above with the inclusion of the following optional clauses:

i. Retaining a casting vote for the Chair (clause 19.3);

ii. Including Member’s right to attend by audio or audiovisual link (noting the current provisions which allow for attendance via audio/audiovisual link to count towards a quorum until 22 March 2021) (clauses 13.11 – 13.16); and

iii. Adding the choice of Option C (informal) (clause 22.4) as the default provision for speaking and moving motions unless a Chair, or meeting, agree to apply one of the other two options (clauses 22.2. and 22.3) at specific meetings.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Current Standing Orders were adopted by the Board on 27 February 2017 and have not been reviewed during this triennium, although a number of amendments have been approved to reflect procedural changes, such as attendance by audiovisual link and webcasting. In late 2019 a committee of practitioners appointed by LGNZ issued an updated version of Standing Orders for community boards which has been expanded to include matters identified by practitioners over the previous three years. This report presents these Standing Orders for adoption (Attachment 1) and as part of the adoption process members are asked to confirm which options to include with regard to attendance via audio/audiovisual link, Chair’s casting vote and the choice of a default option for speaking to and moving motions.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 These Standing Orders have been amended throughout for clarification and to update some minor changes to legislation which notably includes:

· provision for a new type of meeting referred to as Emergency meetings (clause 8.5). The difference between extraordinary and emergency is the timeframe involved and the process for calling them. An emergency meeting can be called by the mayor or chair (or in their absence the chief executive not less than 24 hours before the meeting; and

· reducing the length of time a meeting may sit continuously without a break from 3 hours to 2 hours in compliance with health and safety legislation (clause 4.2).

4.2 The Board’s attention is specifically drawn to the following optional provisions.

The Chair’s casting vote

4.3 Standing Order 19.3 allows the Chair to exercise a casting vote where there is an equality of votes. Incorporating a casting vote in a council’s Standing Orders is optional under cl. 24 (2) & (4)(b) Schedule 7, LGA 2002. The Council has chosen to adopt the casting vote provision up to present, unless the terms of reference of the committee or subcommittee provides otherwise (eg Heretaunga Takota Noa: Māori Standing Committee). This provision enables a meeting to conduct and conclude important business in a timely manner without the risk that a vote might be tied and as a result a significant statutory timeframe might be exceeded.

4.4 However, there are three options open to the Board:-

· The casting vote provisions are left as they are in the default standing orders.

· The casting vote provision is removed, and Standing Order 19.3 is replaced with cl 24(2)(a) and (b) of Schedule 7 LGA 2002 before the standing orders are adopted.

· The standing orders are amended to provide for a “limited casting vote” that would be limited to a prescribed set of decisions only such as statutory decisions, for example: where the meeting is required to make a statutory decision e.g. adopt a Long Term Plan, the Chair has a casting vote where there is an equality of votes.

Joining meetings by audio and audio visual means

4.5 The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014 gave local authorities the option to include in their standing orders a provision to enable members to join meetings by audio or audiovisual means and these standing orders include this provision (13.7 – 13.16). Over the past 18 months audiovisual improvements to the Council’s meeting rooms and the requirement to hold meetings remotely during lockdown has embedded this provision as business as usual.

4.6 These Standing Orders make it as clear as possible that while a member can take part in discussions and vote while joining a meeting electronically, they are not part of the quorum. However for the period covering the COVID -19 pandemic the Government issued an Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice, which included arrangements for Council decision making to continue during periods of lockdown. At the time of writing any member attending a meeting electronically counts towards the quorum until 22 March 2021 and this directive overrides both standing orders and the Local Government Act 2002. Should the legislation change at a future date to make this arrangement permanent, the Board’s Standing Orders will require further amendment.

Options for speaking and moving motions

4.7 One of the new features in these standing orders is the ability to use different rules for speaking to and moving motions so as to give greater flexibility when dealing with different situations.

· Option A is the most formal of the three and limits the number of times members can speak and move amendments, for example, members who have moved and seconded a motion cannot then move and second an amendment to the same motion and only members who have not spoken to a motion or substituted motion may move or second an amendment to it. (This is the framework currently adopted in the Council’s Standing Orders.)

· Option B is less formal than Option A. While limiting the ability of movers and seconders of motions to move amendments it allows any other members, regardless of whether they have spoken to the motion or substituted motion, to move or second an amendment.

· Option C provides substantial flexibility by removing the limitations placed on movers and seconders by the other two options.

4.8 The Board is asked to agree on a default option which will apply to all meetings unless a Chair, or meeting, agree to apply one of the other two options at specific meeting. It is recommended that the default option be marked as Default in the adopted standing orders.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.1 To adopt the Standing Orders with the following optional clauses:-

· retain a casting vote for the Chair (Clause19.3);

· include the Member’s right to attend by audio or audiovisual link (noting the current provisions which allow for attendance via audio/audiovisual link to count towards a quorum until 22 March 2021) (Clauses 13.11 – 13.16); and

· add the choice of Option C (informal) (clause 22.4) for speaking and moving motions.

Advantages

· The revised Standing Orders are up to date with legislative changes at the time of writing. The suggested changes provide greater clarity, provide full compliance with current legislation and best practice and are easier to understand and use.

· The Chair’s casting vote has been very rarely used by this Board. However, the provision does enable a meeting if necessary, to conduct and conclude important business in a timely manner without the risk that a vote might be tied and as a result a significant statutory timeframe might be exceeded. It is therefore proposed to retain this provision to cover the rare occasions when a decision is needed within a defined timeframe. These decisions may be covered by statute or for other reasons. Therefore the option to limit the use of Chair’s casting vote to specified statutory decisions such as the Long Term Plan is not recommended.

· Over the past 12- 18 months attendance via audiovisual link and webcasting has been become business as usual. This partially due to investment in audiovisual hardware and software technology in the Council meeting rooms and the necessity for remote decision making during the COVID -19 pandemic lockdown. Remote access to meetings, especially with the additional ability to count toward quorum offers greater flexibility for decision makers to participate in meetings. Hopefully the long-term legislative provisions will catch up with established custom and practice adopted during the pandemic. A decision not to adopt the provisions for audiovisual attendance at meetings would decrease the flexibility for decision makers to participate in meetings and make governance arrangements less resilient and agile, particularly during an emergency.

· When moving and speaking to motions the strict interpretation and limitation of movers and speakers as set out in Option A is not suitable for a Board of 6 members. Option B provides greater flexibility for members of the meeting to contribute and for the Chair to control the proceedings and has been adopted by Council as the default. However it is still overly formal for small meetings such as the Rural Community Board. Option C is the recommended default for moving and speaking to motions.

Disadvantages

· The casting vote provision could be open to abuse in a divided Council.

· There is a risk that officers and members and Chairs are not sufficiently familiar with the changes proposed in the revised Standing Orders. This risk can be mitigated by providing training sessions on the new Standing Orders.

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

5.2 A decision not to adopt the amended Standing Orders would mean that the Board’s current Standing Orders are not fully compliant with current legislation and best practice in New Zealand.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 If adopted, the revised Standing Orders will replace existing Standing Orders from the date of this meeting.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Draft Standing Orders Hastings District RCB 2021

CG-16-7-00041

Item 10 Adoption of Amended Standing Orders
Draft Standing Orders Hastings District RCB 2021	Attachment 1

PDF Creator

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Monday, 1 March 2021
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:	Jackie Evans (Ext 5018)

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 30 November 2020. (Previously circulated)
4.0	Long Term Plan 2021-2031 Update Report	7
5.0	Dog Registration Fees	29
6.0	Rural Recycling - Summer Update Report	35
7.0	NZ Rural Community Boards Conference 2021	39
8.0	Rural Transportation Activities Report	47
9.0	Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Update	51
10.0	Adoption of Amended Standing Orders	61
11.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
12.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihiri

Item 4 Long Term Plan 2021-2031 Update Report
Draft LTP 2021-2031 Strategic Framework for RCB	Attachment 1

Item 7 NZ Rural Community Boards Conference 2021
NZ Community Boards Conference Programme 22-24 April 2021 in Gore	Attachment 1

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference