Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

Monday, 13 February 2023

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:

Matt Adamson, Strategy and Policy Advisor

Te Take:

Subject:

Review of Standing Orders

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The Local Government Act 2002 requires community boards to adopt a set of standing orders. Their content is largely informed by the Local Government Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

1.2 The Hastings District Rural Community Board Standing Orders provide a framework of rules for fair and transparent decision making that inspires public confidence in local democracy. In this regard, Standing Orders should be reflective of best practice and easy to use.

1.3 The current version of Standing Orders was last updated in January 2021. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has recently released new guidance and has suggested some minor amendments. A revised Rural Community Board Standing Orders has been prepared based on this guidance and relevant legislative changes that have occurred.

1.4 No major changes are proposed to the Standing Orders. Minor updates have been made and headings are now presented in both English and Te Reo Māori. It is proposed to retain the same optional clauses that are present in the current Standing Orders. These include the Chair possessing a casting vote, members being able to attend meetings virtually, and retaining Option C as the default provision for speaking and moving motions.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Review of Standing Orders dated 13 February 2023.

B) Notes that any amendment to Standing Orders requires a vote of no less than 75% of members present.

C) Note that the default provision for speaking and moving amendments is Option C unless a Chair, or meeting, agree to apply one of the other two options (clause 22.2 or 22.3) at specific meetings.

D) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board adopts the revised Standing Orders.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 It is good practice for a governance body to review its standing orders at the beginning of a triennium to ensure they align with current sector best practice and legislative updates. Despite this, standing orders continue in force until they are amended and there is no legal requirement to adopt new standing orders at the beginning of a triennium.

3.2 LGNZ issued updated guidance to Council’s in September 2022 which suggests several minor amendments to their Standing Orders Template. These suggestions have come from local government experts and reflect a programme of continuous improvement.

3.3 Officers have reviewed the Rural Community Board Standing Orders based on the latest advice and this report presents a revised set of Standing Orders (Attachment 1) for adoption. Note that any amendments to standing orders require a vote of no less than 75% of members present.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 These Standing Orders have been amended where appropriate to provide clarification and ensure legislative alignment. Headings have also been updated to include Te Reo Māori translations which were provided by LGNZ. Table 1 outlines the amendments that have been incorporated in the revised Standing Orders.

Standing Order	Changes made to the current Rural Community Board Standing Orders
Definitions	New definitions and amendments: · Matariki as a public holiday · Member of the Police · Appointed member · Emergency under “meeting” · debate · conflict of interest, · division, · Item, · leave of the hui, · officer, · open voting, and · pecuniary interest · definition of chair and presiding member tweaked · definition of workshops tweaked with change to standing orders advice · definition of seconder expanded by addition of ‘amendment’.
3.5	Motion to suspend standing orders – ‘may’ replaced with ‘must identify the specific standing orders to be suspended’.
5.2	Removal of chair or deputy chair – deleted as covered by other provisions.
7.2	Confirmed that the District Licensing Committee does not need to be reconstituted.
9.1	Preparation of an agenda – amended to make it clear that a chief executive prepares an agenda on behalf of the Chair and ‘must’ consult the Chair, or person acting as Chair, when preparing it.
9.5	Chair’s recommendation – an addition, to make it clear that any recommendation by a chair must comply with the decision-making provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002.
12.2	Statutory reference inserted - s. 50 LGOIMA.
12.4	Public may record hui - slight amendments to improve practicality.
13.3	Leave of absence – amended to remove ambiguity.
13.13 & 13.16	To confirm that if a chair is concerned that confidential information might be at risk, they may terminate an audio and/or audio-visual link
18.5	Release of public excluded information - requirement that the Chief Executive will inform the subsequent hui, has been deleted due to administrative impracticality.
19.1	Decisions by majority vote - tweaked to better align with statutory reference in Schedule 7, LGA 2002.
21.12	Clarification made to the option that allows a member who moves a motion to reserve their right of reply.
23.1	Proposing and seconding – amended to make it clear that movers and seconders are NOT required to stay for the subsequent debate.
23.5	Amendments to be relevant - this Standing Order has been expanded with a list of reasons that can be used for not accepting amendments.
23.6 (previous)	‘Chair may recommend an amendment’ - deleted.
23.6 (formerly 23.7)	Foreshadowed amendments – changes to better communicate intent.
23.10 (formerly 23.11)	Withdrawal of motion – changes made to clarify standing order intent.
27.7	Repeat notices of motion – the phrase, ‘in the opinion of the Chair’, deleted as not helpful.
28.2	Matters recorded in the minutes - new bullet point (i) added to clarify that “items tabled at the hui” should be included in the minutes.
Appendix 8	Specific standing order references provided when listing the powers of a chair where relevant.

Table 1: Suggested amendments to Standing Orders

4.2 The Rural Community Board previously adopted Option C as the default provision for speaking and moving motions. Information on this is contained in clause 22.4. It is not proposed to change this default position. However, the Chair or a meeting may agree to use a more formal mechanism (Option A or B) at specific meetings, should they be considered more appropriate.

4.3 The suggested amendments are illustrated as tracked changes in (Attachment 1). The LGNZ Guide to Standing Orders is also attached (Attachment 2). This serves as an interpretive aid to the Standing Orders and provides additional information and rationale on some subjects.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.1 To adopt the revised Standing Orders.

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

· There is a risk that members are not sufficiently familiar with the revised Standing Orders. This risk can be mitigated by providing training sessions on the new Standing Orders which will be incorporated in the member induction.

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

5.2 Decline to adopt the revised Standing Orders.

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· A decision not to adopt the revised Standing Orders would mean that the Rural Community Board’s Standing Orders are not reflective of current best practice.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

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

Attachments:

1 ⇨	DRAFT Rural Community Board Standing Orders - Revised 2022-25 Triennium	PRJ22-20-0025	Under Separate Cover
2 ⇨	LGNZ Guide to Standing Orders 2022	PRJ22-20-00015	Under Separate Cover

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 social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of Hastings in the present and the future through providing effective and efficient governance rules and procedures.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

N/A

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance. The matters covered by Standing Orders concern procedural aspects of public meetings that are of low interest to the public. The Rural Community Board is legally required to have Standing Orders in place.

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

The review of these Standing Orders has involved consultation with LGNZ.

Risks

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

Provides a set of guidelines grounded in best practice which support the efficient and effective conduct of meetings.

Ongoing legal compliance is a significant risk for Council. Regular reviews of key documents such as Standing Orders mitigates this risk.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

N/A

Monday, 13 February 2023

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:

Matt Adamson, Strategy and Policy Advisor

Te Take:

Subject:

Code of Conduct

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Rural Community Board to adopt a new Code of Conduct.

1.2 The Code of Conduct is designed to ensure that governance is undertaken with the highest degree of integrity while also providing a safe and rewarding environment in which all elected members can thrive. The Code sets boundaries on standards of behaviour and provides a means of resolving situations if elected member/s breach those standards.

1.3 The Rural Community Board has not adopted a Code of Conduct since December 2003. Strictly speaking, this Code still applies, although Members are likely unaware of it, and it is not published on the Council website.

1.4 The Code of Conduct has been reviewed in light of updated guidance, including a new model code published by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ). The revised Code has been rewritten to better reflect current best practice which includes a greater emphasis on behaviours that are inconsistent with the Code and incorporation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles.

1.5 Council adopted a new Code of Conduct on 8 December 2022. The Rural Community Board are asked to adopt one which is substantively the same in order to ensure consistency in standards across Council governing bodies.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Code of Conduct dated 13 February 2023.

B) That the Rural Community Board revoke the Code of Conduct adopted on 1 December 2003.

C) That the Rural Community Board note the new requirements in the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to members’ pecuniary interests.

D) That the Rural Community Board note that Council has appointed the Chief Executive (or their delegate) as the registrar for the purposes of section 54G of the Local Government Act 2002.

E) That the Rural Community Board note the draft Code of Conduct reflects the Code of Conduct adopted by Council on 8 December 2022.

F) That the Rural Community Board note that Members desire to see issues resolved at the lowest possible level and wish to utilise informal dispute resolution mechanisms wherever feasible and safe.

G) That Rural Community Board adopts the draft Code of Conduct 2023.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 A code of conduct is required under clause 15, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. This also requires adoption of a code and any amendments to it, to be approved by a vote of at least 75% of members present.

3.2 While the current Code has not had to be used many times since it was last adopted, it is important that the standards of behaviour and processes contained in it are fit for purpose and members are well aware of them.

3.3 The below paragraphs show the information put forward to Council when they considered the adoption of an identical Code of Conduct in December 2022.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 In September 2022, LGNZ issued a new model Code of Conduct. This has been developed over the past three years in consultation with councils around Aotearoa. Councils current Code of Conduct is based on the 2016 LGNZ Model Code and as such, there are several changes which have been considered for the revised Code being presented for adoption. These include:

· A clearer distinction between the Code of Conduct and the process for considering complaints

· Additional criteria for assessing complaints

· A greater emphasis on behaviours that are inconsistent with the Code

· Incorporation of Te Tiriti principles

· Illustrative case studies of behaviour found to be inconsistent with the Code

· A policy for dealing with alleged breaches

· Two optional clauses concerning

- A single step or two step assessment process

- Whether recommendations from an investigator should be binding or non-binding.

4.2 Officers have reviewed the Model Code in light of the status quo and any unique requirements of Hastings District Council. While the Model Code has a different layout and tone to the current Council Code, much of the substantive content is the same.

4.3 Several provisions which are in the current Council Code but not the Model Code have been retained. These are still considered useful in adding clarification around certain points (e.g., roles and responsibilities, and conflicts of interest).

4.4 The revised Code carries through the LGNZ Draft Policy for Dealing with Alleged Breaches. This contains guidance for assessing the significance of an alleged breach and clarifies that only elected members or the Chief Executive (CE) can make a complaint under the Code. The CE is provided with full discretion on whether to formally lodge any complaints made to them by staff or the public as a code of conduct complaint. This discretion does not exist for complaints made by elected members.

4.5 The revised Code clarifies that members involved in a complaint are not left to meet any reasonable costs created by doing so. It also makes clear that members who make or are subject to complaints are entitled to appropriate and reasonable support. This includes access to confidential counselling through Council’s Employee Assistance provider.

5.0 A single step or two step assessment process

5.1 The LGNZ Model Code provides the ability to adopt either a single step or two step process for assessing complaints.

5.2 The single step process was what was used by Council previously. The chief executive refers all complaints to an independent investigator who determines whether the complaint is valid and, if so, recommends action(s) appropriate to the level of materiality or significance of the breach.

5.3 The two-step process would require the chief executive to refer all complaints to an initial assessor who determines whether the complaint is valid and, if so, can recommend that the parties undertake mediation. Where the nature of a breach is significant and where mediation is not an option (or not agreed to) then the initial assessor will refer the complaint to an independent investigator, who may also re-assess the complaint.

5.4 Both options provide for a degree of independence, however the two-step process is designed to quickly address those complaints which have a low degree of materiality with minimum expense to the Council.

5.5 Council agreed to use a two-step assessment process in their recently adopted Code. Note: this is in addition to informal mechanisms for resolving disputes among Members that sit outside the Code.

6.0 Binding or non-binding recommendations from an investigator?

6.1 LGNZ note that a key principle is that the process for investigating an alleged breach must be politically independent and be seen to be so. The mechanism that is currently used by Council of an independent investigator ruling on a complaint and making recommendations is designed to achieve this. However, the perception of independence and objectivity may be lost if it is elected members who decide the nature of an action to be taken when a complaint is upheld.

6.2 One solution is for the Council to agree to be bound by an independent investigator’s recommendations. This would remove the discretion that Council currently has in considering actions to take in response to a Code of Conduct complaint that has been upheld.

6.3 The Rural Community Board may wish to consider adopting this approach if it believes it to be necessary for reasons of independence and transparency. While Code of Conduct complaints are infrequent at Hastings District Council, they have the potential to be very divisive and the process of members having to decide what action should be taken against a fellow member who has been found in breach may damage team cohesion.

6.4 At the Council meeting on 8 December, Council agreed that rulings from an independent investigator should be binding.

7.0 Local Government (Pecuniary Interests) Amendment Act 2002

7.1 The Local Government Act was recently amended to require local authorities to maintain and publish a register of pecuniary interests for members. This aims to provide consistency across local authorities and improve transparency. It also aligns the requirements for local government with those of Members of Parliament in disclosing information about their pecuniary interests. The requirements apply to the Mayor, Councillors and Community Board members but not external appointees to committees/subcommittees.

7.2 The amendments concern four main obligations for councils:

· Keep a register of members’ pecuniary interests

· Appoint a registrar to compile and maintain the register

· Make a summary of the information publicly available

· Ensure that information contained in the register is only used in accordance with the purpose of the register and is retained for seven years after the date on which a member provides the information.

7.3 A pecuniary interest is defined as a “…matter or activity of financial benefit to the member.” However, threshold limits exist for what is required to be disclosed and a full list of requirements is provided on page 21 of the draft Code of Conduct. There are two broad categories of information that must be disclosed in returns:

· Information relating to the elected member’s position – as a business owner, employee, trustee, etc; and

· Information relating to the elected member’s activities – as recipients of gifts or payments.

7.4 Council has agreed to appoint the Chief Executive as the registrar under the Act who is responsible for compiling the Register, ensuring compliance with the Privacy Act 2020 and providing advice and guidance to members in connection with their obligations.

7.5 If an elected member does not comply with these obligations, it constitutes an offence which can be punished by a fine of up to $5,000.

7.6 The timeframes for making declarations are set out in the legislation and are as follows:

· Year 1: the day that is 120 days after the date on which the member comes into office under section 115 of the Local Electoral Act 2001;

· Year 2: the last day of February in the second year of the triennium;

· Year 3: the last day of February in the third year of the triennium.

7.7 This mean that, for Year 1, the calculation of the due date is as follows:

· 8 October 2022 – Polling day

· 13 October 2022 – Public notice of the final election result given as per section 86 of the Local Electoral Act

· 14 October 2022 – Members come into office (as per section 115 of the Local Electoral Act 2022)

· 15 October 2022 – Day 1 of the 120 day period

· 11 February 2023 – Due date for members returns

7.8 Members obligations under this amendment are in addition to and do not affect the members existing obligations under the Local Authority (Members’ Interests) Act 1968. These are also outlined in the draft Code of Conduct at page 20.

8.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

8.1 That the Rural Community Board adopts the revised Code of Conduct as attached.

Advantages

· Incorporates current best practice and legislative updates

· Acknowledges obligations to adhere to Treaty principles

· Consistent with the Council Code of Conduct

· Better outlines what constitutes unacceptable behaviours under the Code.

Disadvantages

· Discretion in deciding actions in response to a Code breach is lost.

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

8.2 The Rural Community Board declines to adopt the revised Code of Conduct.

Advantages

· The current Code of Conduct stays in force.

Disadvantages

· An opportunity to capture local government sector learning from the last five years contained in the LGNZ Model Code is lost.

9.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

9.1 The revised Code of Conduct if adopted, will be published to the Council website. A copy will also be provided to all elected members.

Attachments:

1 ⇨

Draft Rural Community Board Code of Conduct - 2022-25 Triennium

23/35

Under Separate Cover

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 wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future by supporting effective, efficient, and harmonious Council governance arrangements.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

The revised Code of Conduct refers to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for the first time and acknowledges Council’s obligations to act consistently with these.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

N/A

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 low significance.

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

Consultation has occurred with Councillors through a briefing in November 2022. The adoption of a Code is a legal requirement under the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks

Updating the Code of Conduct regularly ensures that potential actions taken under it are consistent with legislation and current legal precedent.

There is a risk in not adopting the optional clause for an investigators ruling to be binding on the Council that the actions taken following a breach of the Code may be seen as politically motivated. However, the presence of this clause would remove Council discretion in setting penalties for a breach of the Code.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

N/A

Monday, 13 February 2023

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

Te Take:

Subject:

Waste Minimisation Programme Overview

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of the current work programme that the HDC Waste Minimisation Team and Ministry for the Environment is undertaking regarding waste minimisation.

2.0 Current HDC Waste Minimisation Work Programme

2.1 Waste Assessment, Waste Management & Minimisation Plan and Solid Waste Bylaw Reviews

2.2 Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, District and City Councils must have completed a Waste Assessment (WA) before the Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP) can be reviewed. The Waste Assessment is a stocktake of waste issues and movements within the joint territories.

2.3 Waste Assessments must be completed within the six year time period along with the six-yearly review of the WMMP. Not keeping to the statutory timeframe will result in the Councils waste levy funding payments being withheld under section 33 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA).

2.4 A WMMP is the term set in the WMA for a council’s waste management and minimisation planning document.

2.5 The legislation enables councils to use various tools to influence, promote and implement measures to manage and minimise waste. The WMMP is intended to be the guiding document for councils to promote and achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts.

2.6 A WMMP should contain a summary of objectives, policies and targets for waste management and minimisation. The plan should clearly communicate how the Councils will deliver on these objectives.

2.7 Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station Improvements

2.8 A project to make improvements to the Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station to increase resource recovery is in the initial stages. Updates will be provided to the Joint Waste Futures Committee throughout the project.

2.9 Waste Minimisation Contestable Funds

2.10 Two Waste Minimisation contestable funds were created in 2020 to support projects that result in a new waste minimisation activity. These funds are:

· A large annual waste minimisation contestable fund, with a pool of $20,000 available each year for one round, generally in September.

· A small monthly waste minimisation contestable fund, of $2,000 available each month from February to November. The month fund applications are approved by the Waste Minimisation Team.

2.11 The purpose of the funds is to contribute to building a community that values our resources, re-uses, re-purposes and recycles as much as possible. This can be achieved through education, engagement and the development of new technology and ways of working.

2.12 Community Communication Activities

2.13 A user-pays Electronic Waste (e-waste) recycling service has been set up at Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station. This is an interim service after the Environment Centre stopped their service in August and it likely that a national product stewardship will be in place within the next 2-3 years. Associated communications activities are underway to promote this new service to the community.

2.14 Regular activities have continued such as the monthly waste awareness newsletter and Facebook posts about waste and kerbside-related information or events.

2.15 School Education

2.16 The HDC and NCC waste teams have engaged a contractor to develop the content for an Ōmarunui Landfill region waste minimisation education programme for schools in line with the national curriculum.

2.17 The education programme is currently in the research phase. The contractor has carried out interviews with educational partners used in the past as well as potential partners for future collaboration.

2.18 Some informal surveys with teachers have been carried out. However, it is proving difficult to connect with teachers at this time of year. An online survey has been developed and will be sent out to all schools in the New Year.

2.19 Officers have also been trying to arrange a get together for teachers running green teams, again at the moment it seems schools are too busy to engage.

2.20 Events Waste Minimisation

2.21 The Event Waste Minimisation Trailer has been built and used for the first time on 18 November at Haumoana School fundraiser event “Hauchella.” Some operational aspects of the trailer will be further refined.

2.22 The team has supported event organisers who have reached out for advice. In 2023, we are aiming to be more proactive and grow the number of events we give waste-related support to. Event guidance is still being developed but in the meantime, officers provide direct advice.

2.23 Sustainable is Attainable

2.24 Is a business-focused initiative, modelled on and connected to the initiative by the same name in South Canterbury, where it was initiated by Venture Timaru.

2.25 Sustainable is Attainable is coordinated and managed via the Hawke’s Bay Business Hub, under the umbrella of the regional food programme. This programme is managed on behalf of the region’s five councils by Nicky Solomon, and Sustainable is Attainable is the core initiative of the programme.

2.26 The programme aims to develop viable alternatives for the waste and by-products generated during food processing and manufacturing, through collaboration across businesses, universities and research and development organisations, with a specific focus on organic and plastic wastes.

2.27 Over the summer period four students will be gathering more quantitative data to enable to the analysis of options for the waste streams, understanding seasonal peaks and limitations.

2.28 Internal Waste Management

2.29 The next stage of revitalising the internal waste and recycling bins has been completed, with revamped bins being rolled out into Warren Street, Hastings Street and Camberley Community Centre buildings.

2.30 Three new recycling stations have been set up in Splash Planet. Although some level of contamination is to be expected, we will be monitoring the bins throughout the season and implementing some interventions to try and help reduce this.

2.31 Pan Pac treated timber disposal option

2.32 The team has worked with Pan Pac, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and Napier City Council and submitted an expression of interest to the National Waste Minimisation Fund in 2021. Pan Pac have been successful in their application for funds to support a trial to test whether burning treated timber is feasible in the boilers at Pan Pac. If successful this could provide an alternative solution for ~ 14,000 tonnes of timber per annum, significantly helping to progress the Joint WMMP goal of reducing organic waste by 30%. The trial is expected to be undertaken in 2023.

2.33 Construction and Demolition Waste Minimisation

2.34 In November 2022, Geoff Gibson was appointed to the Regional Construction and Demolition Waste Minimisation Advisor role.

2.35 Both Hastings District and Napier City Councils Waste Teams have co-funded this regional role working across the Ōmarunui Landfill catchment area to reduce the volume of construction and demolition waste disposed to landfill.

2.36 Based on the past two three-yearly Waste Surveys, construction and demolition waste to landfill is estimated to between 132 – 195 tonnes per week or the equivalent to 100 skips. Timber makes up approximately 9.4% of all waste sent to Ōmarunui Landfill, estimated to be 8,650 tonnes per annum, this is a decrease from the estimated 14,000 tonnes 3 years ago. But still a huge amount and we want to support the sector to reduce this further.

2.37 As timber is an organic waste, it produces methane gas and leachate as it breaks down in the landfill. Central Government has indicated through the Emissions Reduction Plan that they may ban all organic waste from landfills by 2030 and this would include timber. We need to start making changes now so we are prepared ahead of time.

2.38 There are many other waste materials from the construction and demolition sector that could be minimised or replaced with alternatives to improve the sustainability of construction projects, e.g. polystyrene, offcuts of pipes and tubing, wrapping and packaging of materials, or even avoided in the first place through design changes.

2.39 Waste Minimisation Specialist Recruitment

2.40 Jordy Wiggins joined the team in December 2022. Jordy’s role focuses on building, strengthening and maintaining reciprocal and genuine relationships with hapū, iwi and Māori communities in order to link to local Māori priorities and aspirations that support collaboration on the progression up the waste hierarchy and achievement of the NZ Waste Strategy and Joint WMMP. Jordy will also be supporting the business sector to explore and establish waste minimisation and diversion opportunities to increase resource recovery.

2.41 Jordy will be working closely with the Pou Ahurea Team to ensure continuity of kaupapa/mahi across the many projects mana whenua are engaged with. The Pou Ahurea Team will also be supporting Jordy in her role specific work where possible to achieve the best outcomes for mana whenua across the breadth of projects officers are working on.

2.42 Jordy will be reaching out to our marae, hapū and our Māori communities over the coming months to seek involvement and feedback as part of the WMMP and bylaw review, she is also available to provide waste minimisation kōrero, sustainability workshops and waste presentations throughout the rohe.

2.43 More information about implementation of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be viewed in the report to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee on 2 September 2022.

3.0 Central Government Work Programme

3.1 Over the past 18 months, there have been five consultations undertaken by Central Government that have a waste component; Emission Reduction Plan, Waste Minimisation Act and New Zealand Waste Strategy, Product Stewardship for large batteries and tyres, Transforming Recycling and the National Adaptation Plan (climate-related risk for landfills)

3.2 The Emission Reduction Plan and associated emission budgets were released in May 2022.

3.3 Key aspects of the Emission Reduction Plan that relate to the waste sector are;

· Enable households and businesses to reduce organic waste.

· Encourage behaviour to prevent waste at home.

· Enable businesses to reduce food waste.

· Support participation in improved kerbside collections.

· Increase the amount of organic waste diverted from landfill.

· Improve household kerbside collections of food scraps and garden waste.

· Invest in organic waste processing and resource recovery infrastructure.

· Require the separation of organic waste.

· Reduce and divert construction and demolition waste to beneficial uses.

· Support the building and construction sector to minimise waste through Research and improved capability.

· Invest in sorting and processing infrastructure for construction and demolition materials.

· Enable the separation of construction and demolition materials.

· Explore bans or limits to divert more organic waste from landfill.

· Investigate banning organic waste from landfill by 2030.

· Increase the capture of gas from municipal landfills.

· Regulations will require landfill gas capture at municipal (Class 1) landfills.

· Feasibility studies will determine the need for additional landfill gas capture requirements.

· Improve waste data and prioritise a national waste licensing scheme.

· Develop a national waste licensing scheme.

· Improve information on greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposal.

3.4 Central Government has indicated that Councils will need to provide services, such as kerbside collections and related infrastructure, to enable New Zealand to reduce and recycle organic waste. New Zealanders should be able to recycle organic waste responsibly no matter where they live. Sustained investment will be required by Council’s industry and government in the coming years.

3.5 Another consultation was expected in June 2022 (but not yet released) on a new Investment Framework.

3.6 The second annual increase to the Waste Disposal Levy occurred on 1 July 2022, increasing by $10 to $30 per tonne of waste to landfill. This levy will increase again on 1 July 2023 to $50 per tonne and 1 July 2024 to $60 per tonne.

3.7 New Waste Strategy was due to be released in August/September 2022 (yet to be released). The new strategy is anticipated to set an innovative bold direction for everyone to transform the way we think about and manage waste.

3.8 A Long-term Infrastructure Plan and Action Investment Plan for the waste sector are expected to be released at the end of 2022 (yet to be released).

3.9 A decision on the Container Return Scheme is yet to be announced by Central Government. If the Government decides to implement a NZ CRS, there is likely to be further targeted consultation at the legislation/regulation development phase. Pending consultation outcomes and the legislative development process, we anticipate a CRS could be operational in New Zealand by 2025 at the earliest.

3.10 Container return schemes encourage consumers and businesses to return beverage containers (eg, bottles, cans etc) for recycling and/or re-use. They do this by including a refundable deposit (eg, 20-cents or more) in the price of purchase. Consumers get their deposit refunded when they return their empty beverage container(s) to a designated scheme drop-off point for recycling.

3.11 A Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme is due to commence in early 2023.

3.12 The Farm Plastics Product Stewardship Scheme consultation is expected in the next 12 months.

3.13 The development of the new waste legislation based on the consultation undertaken in late 2021 is underway. A bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament later in 2022. The new legislation is expected to go through the House during 2023.

3.14 The consultation regarding this new legislation undertaken in 2021 and included the following proposed aspects;

· A duty of care model - people and organisations have duties to manage waste appropriately.

· National licensing system for the waste management system.

· Legislative support for product stewardship schemes

· Maximising the waste levy.

4.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Waste Minimisation Programme Overview dated 13 February 2023.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Monday, 13 February 2023

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:

Danny McClure, Solid Waste Operations & Contract Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Rural Recycling Update

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the rural recycling stations including community participation.

1.2 This is to ensure the Rural Community Board members are up to date with what is working and what is not working in their respective community areas.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Rural Recycling Update dated 13 February 2023.

B) That the Rural Community Board provides feedback on the initiatives outlined in this report.

C) That the Rural Community Board note that officers are continuing to work with the rural communities to identify suitable recycling site options and reinforce community education about recycling.

3.0 Site Updates

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

3.2 Isabelle Crawshaw has been in contact to discuss options for a recycling station at Patoka, which had been explored previously.

3.3 Image below highlights initial and possible areas where this station could be located (subject to community input/feedback) and subject to Rural Community Board approval, further investigation and the outcome of the Government initiated Container Return Scheme.

3.4 Current Rural Recycling Stations update:

3.4.1 Maraekākaho – The community continue to proactively report contamination, full bins and any illegal dumping, with very little issues occurring since the last update.

3.4.2 Pukehamoamoa – The rural community are proactively reporting any/all issues, with HDC being in regular contact with the community champion. No significant issues to report. Contractors will be onsite in February to clear some areas of the site that have become overgrown.

3.4.3 Poukawa – No issues to report. Site requires HDC contractor to trim shrubbery – underway.

3.4.4 Waipatiki – This site is well monitored by the Camp owners and reporting has been proactive, with no significant issues to report

3.4.5 Waimārama – No significant issues to report on this site and it continues to be well used.

· The site will continue to be reviewed and updates provided at the next Rural Community Board meeting.

· The Community are continuing to report full bins more regularly and taking a more proactive interest in their site.

· An extra bin is provided during the peak holiday season – December to February, being an open cell bin for plastics and cans placed on the grass area opposite the current recycling site.

· This bin was placed onsite in early December 22 and continues to be well used, with no significant issues arising.

3.4.6 Blackbridge continues to be well used by the Havelock North and surrounding community, and we continue to see a decrease in levels of contamination.

· The site will continue to be reviewed and an update provided at the next Rural Community Board meeting.

3.4.7 Tūtira site remains very good with only one significant issue reported.

· The community champion continues to report when the bin is full and if/when the site has been poorly treated (illegal dumping).

3.5 Henderson Road recycling station continues to be well used, based on the location within a manned Refuse Transfer Station environment.

3.6 There has been very little contamination issues and staff are aware of the challenges when the site is busy and will monitor the behaviour of residents.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Monday, 13 February 2023

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:

James Minehan, Senior Environmental Planner, Policy

Te Take:

Subject:

National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

1.0 Purpose and Summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to give an overview and explanation of the Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) and to outline the potential implications for Council.

2.0 Background – Te Horopaki

The Government is proposing a National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. It has been developed by the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Conservation. It builds on a draft created by the Biodiversity Collaborative Group (the original stakeholder group established by the Minister for the Environment).

2.1 The NPSIB is considered as necessary as many native plants, birds and animals along with their ecosystems that are unique to the country are under threat of extinction.

2.2 Two documents have been put out for consultation to date - the Proposed NPSIB (Nov 2019) and then the Exposure Draft (June 2022).

2.3 The process has included:

· Public consultation and hui on the Proposed NPSIB (2019/2020).

· Release of an Exposure Draft of the NPSIB by Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity), James Shaw, for targeted consultation (June 2022).

· The purpose of the exposure draft was to test the workability of the NPSIB provisions with key sector groups. It incorporated feedback from the public consultation and hui held 2019/2020.

· Targeted consultation on the exposure draft closed on July 2022. Officials are now analysing submissions and feedback. Policy change recommendations will be provided to Minister Shaw for decisions before the final policy goes to Cabinet to consider for gazettal.

2.4 The detailed timeframe is outlined below:

· March 2017 – Biodiversity Collaborative Group (BCG) began the development of a draft NPSIB and complementary and supporting measures.

· October 2018 – BCG delivered a draft NPSIB and complementary and supporting measures to then Associate Minister for the Environment, Nanaia Mahuta.

· October 2018 - Government officials continued to develop the BCGs draft NPSIB.

· November 2019 – Public consultation opened on the proposed NPSIB.

· March 2020 – Public consultation closed and over 7000 submissions received.

· 31 August 2020 – Summary of submissions published.

· 9 June 2022 – Exposure draft released and targeted consultation began.

· 21 July 2022 – Exposure draft targeted consultation closed.

· December 2022 - Gazettal of the NPSIB is anticipated. This has not been achieved to date.

3.0 Council’s Joint Submission on the Proposed NPSIB that was released in Nov 2019

3.1 The HBRC, NCC, CHB District Council and HDC made a joint submission (13 March 2020).

3.2 The joint submission listed the following concerns:

· Need for prioritisation and staging of outcomes within the policy statement.

· Need for adequate resourcing of Councils especially those with small rating bases.

· Lack of interim guidance where Significant Natural Area (SNA) assessments have not been undertaken.

· Lack of clarity regarding how successful implementation would be measured.

An overall concern was that the directive nature of the NPS might risk undermine the community driven approach already begun via the Hawkes Bay Regional Biodiversity Strategy.

3.3 Additionally it was noted that:

· The Hastings District Plan has a focus on 58 recommended areas for protection (RAP sites). Checking these for accuracy would be expensive and take time due to their dispersed geographical extent.

· HDC is a sponsor of the Hawkes Bay Biodiversity Strategy and has allocated $35,000 per year for 3 consecutive years to support this regional project.

· HBRC is also a supporter of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy and associated action plan. It has identified $450,000 for operating costs and $600,000 for an endowment fund in their Long Term Plan.

· Many significant ecological areas in the Hastings District Council are in ownership of the Crown/Department of Conservation. Other remnant native bush and wetlands are on private property.

4.0 How the changes identified in the Exposure Draft (released June 2022) lined up with the HDC submission

“Prioritisation and stages of outcomes”

4.1 There is a detailed implementation timeline that identifies support inputs from the Ministry including the activation of incentive pilots, guidance and best practice advice.

4.2 The significant milestones for Councils are identified as:

· Late 2022 - NPSIB to be gazetted.

· Late 2022 - Implementation plan and guidance to be released.

· Late 2023 - Detailed guidance and best practice to be developed.

· 2026 - Councils that have already identified their Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) are to audit these sites.

· 2027 – Deadline for territorial authorities to have identified, mapped and notified all SNA’s.

· 2027 - Implementation progress review.

· 2030 - Councils to have publically notified any changes to policy statements and plans.

· 2032 - NPSIB review.

4.3 So there is a ten year timeframe until a review of the NPSIB occurs in 2032.

“Resourcing for councils especially those with small rating bases”

4.4 MfE documentation identifies funding for indigenous biodiversity as follows:

· $92 million for operational investments.

· $2M capital expenditure for the protection, maintenance and restoration of indigenous biodiversity.

· $19 million to support NPSIB implementation for iwi/Māori, private landowners and councils.

· They indicate that these amounts of funding were additional to the “hundreds of millions” already identified in existing programmes.

· Other future financial support will be for SNA identification, funding of pilot programmes, and for regional biodiversity co-ordinators.

Council staff will monitor the availability of funding as the implementation programme becomes more apparent.

“Lack of interim guidance for areas where an SNA assessment has not been undertaken”

4.5 There will be financial support and guidance to councils for SNA identification. Regional Councils are obliged to assist in the identification and evaluation of SNAs if requested by a local council. Hastings Council has an existing database of identified RAP sites that could act as a starting point for the evaluation of potential sites.

“Lack of clarity regarding the expectations of successful implementation”

4.6 There are guidelines for action contained in the Draft Implementation Plan. Best practice pilots are planned including follow-up audit procedures.

Overall concern – “The directive nature of the NPS may risk undermining the community driven approach via the Regional Biodiversity Strategy”

4.7 MfE documentation indicates that:

· There must be an integrated approach (“from the mountains to the sea”) and strategies may extend to include the coastal marine area and water bodies. The emphasis on an integrated and comprehensive approach. It is noted that existing community initiatives in the region should not be undermined but enhanced.

· There is recognition that there are initiatives that are already funded and can be built on.

· The emphasis is to be on partnership and transparency.

· Local authorities must actively engage and collaborate with tangata whenua.

· There is also a social, economic and cultural wellbeing emphasis. This means not precluding subdivision use and development in appropriate places.

5.0 Council’s comments on the Exposure Draft (Consultation opened on 9 June and closed 21 July 2022)

5.1 Council had only a few weeks to make comments. Checking with staff from HBRC and NCC it was decided that each Council make individual comments on any specific issues. CHB was already working independently on their biodiversity strategy as part of their District Plan Review process.

5.2 It was possible to make comments online. There were a set questions about the provisions in the exposure draft that could be answered. However it was not expected that submitters have to respond to every question or section. There was the option to enter general comments directly into the “Provide feedback on the draft Implementation Plan or any further feedback section”.

5.3 MfE noted:

· They were not specifically consulting on policy intent because this had been worked through in previous consultation and development.

· They were focused on targeted consultation to test the workability of the NPSIB.

· Feedback on the exposure draft would inform the final drafting of the NPSIB.

5.4 The general concerns raised in the joint council submission including the specific concerns raised by Hastings District Council (March 2020) look to be addressed by the additional information contained in the Exposure Draft. However, it won’t be until the final NPS is released, together with the detailed Implementation Plan that Council will know for certain.

5.5 The emphasis now seems to be on potential solutions that will be tested through pilots. These pilots are intended to be trialled for a year before being potentially expanded or renewed for a longer period. Pilots are to start in two regions initially and will include stakeholders involved in the workshops that were held in February 2022.

5.6 It was considered worthwhile to make a submission of general support for the contents contained in the Exposure Draft but reiterating two specific issues. One being that the geographic spread of the Hastings District could present Council with some logistical issues. The other being that securing a suitably trained ecologist to do the assessment work required would be difficult given that the demand for ecologists would be very high (i.e. expert advice is required to assess the 58 RAP sites identified in the District Plan and other specific sites of interest). Finally, it was stated that HDC would be interested in any pilot scheme (if these are to be extended) as this would assist with resourcing and provide guidance on the ground for any regional initiative.

6.0 Central Hawke’s Bay District Council’s experience in addressing indigenous biodiversity in their District Plan

6.1 HDC Senior Policy Planner, James Minehan had the opportunity to meet (via Teams application) in December 2022 with the District Plan Support Officer from CHB (Tiffany Gray). This was to discuss CHB’s experience in dealing with indigenous biodiversity and identifying Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) in their district. Also present were two staff involved in policy and biodiversity from the HBRC (Saul Gudsell and Gavin Ide).

6.2 Central Hawke’s Bay (CHB) started their review in May 2020.

6.3 CHB contracted Gerry Kessels from Bluewattle Ecology to help with the study. They started with sites already identified in the old District Plan (62 sites). This expanded to over 500 SNAs but included sub-sets of existing sites. Nothing under ½ ha was considered.

6.4 CHB used a six point identification criteria (there are four in the NPS). It was recognised that two criteria could have been condensed. Desktop studies were undertaken using various datasets and aerial images. It was noted that some HBRC information was incorrect i.e. ground vegetation didn’t match the areas mapped. This included information on natural wetlands and farm ponds.

6.5 The dune ecosystem at Porangahau was identified as significant and this included private property land areas.

6.6 It was recognised that there was less indigenous vegetation remaining in CHB compared to the region overall (7 percent compared to 22 percent).

Consultation Process

6.7 The Draft Plan was out for consultation in 2019. Letters were sent to landowners that were recognised as potential SNAs. Public meetings were also organised.

6.8 Sites visits were organised to sites where confidence levels with the database were “low to medium”. Twenty nine landowners requested site inspections.

6.9 The Proposed Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan was notified in May 2021. No affected landowners expressed support for SNAs identified on their land. At the hearings some submitters were represented by planners. One submitter had an ecologist.

6.10 CHB District Plan land use controls relating to identified SNAs range from restricted discretionary, discretionary to non-complying status. The non- complying status was applied to some more important wetland areas.

Lessons Learnt

6.11 Comments included:

· Need for incentives i.e. rates rebates and other forms of compensation to get landowner support but noting that funding is difficult to find.

· Need to better integrate the relevant information using the Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS).

· Need to undertake more site visits (‘ground truth’). Time and resources was seen as a limiting factor.

· Need to consult Maori specifically and give them time to identify areas rather than relying on a separate database.

· Noted: Waikato Regional Council provides a good exemplar for an approach to implementing the NPSIB.

HBRC Comments

6.12 The following things were noted:

· The HBRC has a greater focus on aquatic marine areas.

· Indigenous terrestrial areas are mostly of lowland forest types, coastal and dune vegetation types, braided riverbed vegetation, and wetlands.

· There are 700 recognised ecological sites (terrestrial) which cover the top 30 percent of sites.

· There is a problem with determining where wetlands best fit i.e. the NPSIB or the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management (NPSFM).

7.0 Summary and Conclusion

7.1 The Government is determined to move ahead with its biodiversity strategy. This will require councils to start the implementation of the NPSIB after it is gazetted. This was expected to be before the end of 2022 (but has not yet occurred).

7.2 There will be high expectations for councils to identify, map and notify SNAs in their respective areas of jurisdiction. The Exposure Draft indicates that there will be financial support and guidance on best practice for councils for SNA identification. Regional councils are obliged to assist local councils if requested to do so.

7.3 The actual implications will be apparent when the NPS is gazetted followed by the development of an implementation plan and guidance on best practice.

7.4 Council will need to consider how to inform and collaborate with rural constituents including mana whenua.

7.5 It is likely that the NPS will be controversial as the identification of SNAs will potentially affect private property rights and could curtail land from future development. This will depend on how and what land is classified, what existing rights apply, and how Council applies a consenting process.

7.6 The Exposure Draft indicated that an implementation plan and guidance was to be released in late 2022 (this has not occurred to date). More detailed guidance and best practice examples are to be developed by late 2023. The date for territorial authorities to have identified and mapped and notified their SNA’s is 2027.

7.7 Finally it is worth noting a series of points made in the LGNZ submission on the Draft NPS in 2020

· Prioritisation will be important in recognition that different regions face very different issues and threats.

· Success in biodiversity requires engaging with landowners, enlisting their support and offering them support. A combative approach with landowners or a solely government-led approach will not deliver long-term, durable outcomes for biodiversity. The availability of resources to be able to support landowners is not ‘a nice to have’ but will be an essential part of a successful implementation of the NPSIB.

· Successful interaction with landowners requires building of trust. That can take some time and should not be rushed. It requires using the right process and the right people/attitude. In some parts of New Zealand, past experiences have resulted in low levels of trust and the effort and time required to rebuild that trust should not be under-estimated. Accordingly, councils need flexibility in the process and timelines they employ.

· Regional biodiversity strategies are a tool already widely used by regional councils. However, they are best as community-led initiatives that will take different forms in different regions.

Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled “Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity”.

B) That the Rural Community Board give consideration how to best communicate and collaborate with the rural community taking into account the NPSIB provisions (to be gazetted) and the details contained in any implementation plan and guidelines for best practice.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Monday, 13 February 2023

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 Control Fees 2023/2024

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to set the fees for the dog registration year 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. It is proposed that the total collection of dog controls fees is increased using the BERL average inflation factor of five percent, however rounded up or down to the nearest dollar.

1.2 Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires – the dog control fees payable to a territorial authority shall be those reasonable fees prescribed by resolution for the registration and control of dogs.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Dog Control Fees 2023/2024 dated 13 February 2023.

B) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board supports the proposed dog control fees for the 2023/2024 year:

Category	Fee Paid Before 1 Aug 2023	Fee Paid After 1 Aug 2023
Urban	$118 to $124	$176 to $185
Selected Owner	$80 to $84	$120 to $126
Rural	$57 to $60	$85.50 to $90
Special Purpose	$0	$0

C) That pursuant to sections 37 and 68 of the Dog Control Act 1996, and section 14 of the Impounding Act 1955, the Hastings District Rural Community Board supports the following other Animal Control fees:

Category	Current Fee	Proposed Fee 2023
Dog Related Fees
Micro-chip Fee	$45.00	$47.00
Relinquishment Fee	$50.00	$52.50
Destruction Fee	$60.00	$63.00
Seizure Fee	$60.00	$63.00
First Impound	$90.00	$94.50
Second Impound	$130.00	$136.50
Third Impound	$185.00	$194.00
Adoption Fee	$265.00	$278.00
Daily Sustenance Fee	$9.00	$9.50
Application Selected Owner	$30.00	$31.50
Application More Than Two Dogs	$30.00	$31.50
Animal Control Hourly Rate	$115.00	$120.00
Vehicle Rate	$0.83	$0.87
Replacement Tag	$6.00	$6.50
Stock Related Fees
Goats	15:00	$16.00
Sheep	15.00	$16.00
Pigs	25:00	$26.00
Deer	$45.00	$47.00
Horse	$45.00	$47.00
Cattle	$45.00	$47.00
Daily Sustenance Fee	Actual Costs	Actual Costs

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 Animal Control is a community safety activity which does not function to make a profit.

3.2 The current charging method is determined based on breaking the costs into two components, registration and enforcement, then dividing the registration component equally amongst all dogs and dividing the enforcement component based on the level of work.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 When determining the registration fee, fine recoveries and impound fees have been calculated and rate funding as per the funding policy 27/73 split.

4.2 Special purpose dogs are:

· Aviation Security

· Department of Conservation

· Department of Corrections

· Ministry of Agriculture

· Ministry of Defence

· Ministry of Fisheries

· New Zealand Customs

· New Zealand Defence Force

· New Zealand Police

Staff would like to recommend to Council that it would be appropriate to add a new class of dog to the fee exemption category ‘Pet Therapy’ dogs. These are dogs approved by Canine Friends Pet Therapy. This is a New Zealand-wide network of people who share their friendly well behaved dogs with patients in hospitals and residents in rest homes/hospices. The organisation would provide Council with a list of active operators annually (currently about 22 in the Hastings District).

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 the recommendation section of the report:

Advantages

· Will help to meet the costs associated with the Animal Control function

Disadvantages

· Slightly increases the costs to dog owners

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

5.2 Leave the fees as they currently are:

· No increase will create a budget shortfall resulting in either a level of service adjustment or costs will need to be funded 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 2023/2024 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 on a cost recovery basis.

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 that Policy.

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

Although the fees have been included in the annual plan consultation process, they are required to be adopted by Council and dispatched mid-May, before the annual plan process is finalised.

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

47 percent of the district’s dogs are in rural communities.

Monday, 13 February 2023

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 Activity 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

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receives the report titled Rural Transportation Activity Report dated 13 February 2023 and;

B) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board approves $761,292 to be allocated from the Flood Damage Reserve to fund councils local share of unbudgeted storm costs experienced year to date.

3.0 2022/2023 Major Works Programme

3.1 The 2022/23 financial year is the second portion of the 2021-24 Long Term Plan programme.

3.2 The following is the status of the final Area Wide Pavement Treatment programme for the 2022/23 financial year and beyond.

Road	Section	Status/Impact
Kererū Road	Kererū Road – Section 3	Designed – to be done pending confirmation of available funds.
Mt Erin Road	School Road to Te Aute Road	Complete
Kahurānaki Road	Km7 to km9	AWPT project. Survey is complete and design is underway. Build now likely to be in 2024/25.
Waimārama Road	Before quarry hill	AWPT project. Survey is complete and design is underway. Costs on other projects has meant this work will be deferred until the 23/24 season.

3.3 The following is the status of the low cost/low risk (old minor safety), and Road to Zero programme for the 2022/23 financial year.

Road	Section	Status/Impact
Taihape Road	Various sites	Price has been approved, and works to start in April 2023
Kererū Road	Various	Crash reduction study complete. Quick wins* being delivered through maintenance contract.
Dartmoor Road	Various	Crash reduction study complete. Quick wins* being delivered through maintenance contract.
Kahurānaki Road	Various	Crash reduction study complete. Quick wins* being delivered through maintenance contract.

*Quick wins are a variety of very low cost items that require no design. Examples are the replacement of edge marker posts, replacing faded signs, road marking etc.

4.0 Bridge Update

4.1 Peach Gully Bridge strengthening works on Waimārama Road is complete.

4.2 Rosser Road Bridge strengthening works is commencing in late February.

4.3 Arapaoanui Low Level and Lambs Hill No.1 strengthening works have been awarded with works starting on Arapaoanui mid-February.

4.4 Kaiwaka Bridge Strengthening works is being tendered currently. The aim will be to award this project and complete prior to end of 22/23 financial year.

4.5 Seafield No. 1, Moka Moka and Awanui designs are underway with a view to construct next financial year.

4.6 A separate report to Council will be presented to increase the budget allocation to complete the bridge strengthening programme.

5.0 Emergency Reinstatement 2022/23

5.1 As at 31 January 2023 we have experienced three events that have necessitated reinstatement costs over and above those budgeted for in the 2022/23 financial year. The table below summarises these:

Event	Spent to Date	Estimated Total Cost
March 2022 Storm	$121,140	$121,140
October/November Storm	$606,618	$610,552
Ex TC Hale		$1,200,000
Total		$1,931,692.00

5.2 The status of the reserve fund for this activity is as below:

5.3 The rain event on the weekend of 27-28 January 2023 was not considered to be sufficient to warrant a new claim under this budget. There is a minor emergency budget that has been used to cover these costs.

5.4 The remaining reserve balance is insufficient should further events occur on a similar scale as 2022/23 so far. It is this Officers opinion and recommendation that the Rural Community Board should plan to increase this reserve over time to be at least $4M at the start of each financial year.

5.5 A few photos showing damage to infrastructure are shown below, and more are in the appendices of this report.

5.6 This report includes a recommendation for the Hastings District Rural Community Board approves $761,292 to be allocated from the Flood Damage Reserve to fund Councils local share of unbudgeted storm costs experienced year to date.

Big Hill Road Slip

Soldiers Settlement Road – Tree Fallen

Taihape Road Slip

6.0 Rural Community Communications

6.1 An opportunity exists to provide formal communication from the Rural Community Board to its constituents, with transportation often being a key feature.

6.2 This report offers opportunities for the Board to consider for future correspondence. Messages can include:

· Resealing season information – loose chip, drive with care, treat new seal carefully to avoid damage etc

· Storm impacts

· Potholes and pavement repairs

· Reaffirming our 06 8715000 24/7 service

7.0 Waka Kotahi Update

7.1 Verbal update provided by Waka Kotahi staff.

8.0 Works Update

8.1 Attachment 1 will provide the Board with a photographic snapshot of activities undertaken between November 2022 and January 2023.

Attachments:

1 ⇨

RCB Photos - November 2022 to January 2023

CG-14-26-00157

Under Separate Cover

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. The major risk noted in this report is the potential for increase in tender costs in the maintenance contract rewrite. There are many ways to manage this risk such as decreased level of service, increased funding (and rate take), loan funding projects and negotiations with successful tenderer.

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, 13 February 2023
Te Wā: Time:	2.00pm
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Council Chamber 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: Jonathan Stockley Deputy Chair: Isabelle Crawshaw Vicki Scoular and Abby Morley Ngā KaiKaunihera Councillors: Ana Apatu, Marcus Buddo and Tania Kerr Youth Council appointee: - Vacancy
Tokamatua: Quorum:	4 members
Apiha Matua: Officer Responsible:	Kaiwhakahaere Rōpū Transportation Manager: Jag Pannu
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga: Democracy & Governance Services:	Louise Stettner (Ext 5543)

1.0	Apologies – Ngā Whakapāhatanga At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Kerr
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 5 December 2022. (Previously circulated)
4.0	Review of Standing Orders	9
5.0	Code of Conduct	15
6.0	Waste Minimisation Programme Overview	21
7.0	Rural Recycling Update	27
8.0	National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity	31
9.0	Dog Control Fees 2023/2024	39
10.0	Zone 3 Representative on the Community Boards Executive Committee (CBEC)	43
11.0	Rural Transportation Activity Report	47
12.0	Presentation on Annual Plan and Budget matters	55
13.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
14.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihiri

Item 10 Zone 3 Representative on the Community Boards Executive Committee (CBEC)
Voting Form - LGNZ Community Boards Executive Committee	Attachment 1

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference