Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1	Matters Arising	HB Oil & Gas Exploration economic report to be circulated to Councillors once released by the Minister	LL	The report has been delayed out of central government due to a change in Minister and is now expected to be released in March.
2	Matters Arising	Extract from the Air Quality Monitoring Strategy providing rationale for the rotation of air quality monitoring equipment to Waipawa to be provided to Cr Gilbertson	IM	Information was provided to Cr Gilbertson via email on 9 January 2013.
3	Ruataniwha Water Storage Project	Sale & Purchase agreement document between HBRC to include agreement of ownership & use of IP developed through Stage 2	AN	Completed in December 2012 and included agreement of ownership and use of IP.

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1	General Business	Request for stats on Stock Effluent facility usage	CG		Emailed to Councillors 21/12/12

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1	RMA Delegations	A process for advising Council when delegations have been exercised to be developed	IM		Discussions underway with other councils to review useful and cost effective ways of doing this

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Affixing of Common Seal

Reason for Report

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 2

DP 12533

CT D4/445

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 3

DP 7596

CT E2/341

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 2

DP 7417

CT B4/445

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 11

DP 12517

CT D4/968

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 221

DP 11194

CT B3/83

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 42

DP 14447

CT G2/664

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.7 Lot 42

DP 14447

CT G2/664

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.8 Lot 2

DP 24417

CT V2/798

- Transfer

1.1.9 Lot 40

DP 13691

CT F2/1256

- Transfer

1.1.10 Lot 167

DP 12548

CT D4/1519

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

- Transfer

1.1.11 Lot 35

DP 12517

CT D4/977

- Transfer

1.1.12 Lot 480

DP 2451

CT 56/136

- Transfer

1.1.13 Lot 35

DP 7201

CT B4/938

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.14 Lot 1

DP 14665

CT G3/319

- Transfer

1.1.15 Lot 178

DP 6598

CT C2/365

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- (no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

1.1.16 Lot 141

DP 10912

CT D4/9255

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

- Transfer

1.1.17 Lot 3 Part Lot 2

DP 7118

CT F2/982

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

1.1.18 Lot 1

DP 216

CT C2/335

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.19 Lot 85

DP 13096

CT E3/524

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

1.1.20 Lot 55

DP 13096

CT E3/510

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

3633

3634

3635

3650

3636

3653

3637

3640

3641

3642

3644

3645

3646

3647

3648

3649

3654

3655

3656

3657

3658

3659

3661

3664

3665

10 December 2012

11 December 2012

11 January 2013

11 December 2012

23 January 2013

11 December 2012

13 December 2012

18 December 2012

3 January 2013

7 January 2013

8 January 2013

10 January 2013

11 January 2013

25 January 2013

29 January 2013

30 January 2013

4 February 2013

1 February 2013

20 February 2013

1.2

Heads of Agreement

Lot 2 DP 8634

(Acquiring a strip of land adjacent to the Makaretu River)

3638

12 December 2012

1.3

Deed of Grant of Easement

Lot 3 DP 25317 CT V4/89

(water supply to Tutira Camping Ground)

3639

13 December 2012

1.4

Deed of Grant of Easement

Lot 1 DP 16537 CT J2/24

(undertake drainage works – Elwood Rd)

3643

20 December 2012

1.5

Staff Warrants

1.5.1 E. Tregidga

S. Fraser

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

3651

3652

16 January 2013

1.6 Subventuon

Subvention Agreement

Port of Napier Limited and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

3660

4 February 2013

1.7 Deed

Subdivision and freeholding

1.7.1. Deed of Grant of Easement (to allow freeholding – property being subdivided)

1.7.1 Deed of Lease (for other party)

3661

3662

4 February 2013

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided;

2.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Draft Tukituki Plan Change for Adoption and Notification

Reason for Report

1. This paper presents a final draft of Plan Change 6 (‘Change 6’) to the Regional Resource Management Plan (‘RRMP’) (Attachment 1), together with the associated section 32 evaluation summary report (‘S32 Report’) (Attachment 3) for the Council to consider for adoption and public notification as a ‘proposed’ Change. The paper also sets out a number of process matters that the Council ought to consider in relation to the discretion Council may exercise when adopting and publicly notifying a proposed change to its regional plans.

2. This paper also presents the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan (‘TCIP’) (Attachment 4), which is an important complementary document to Change 6 and outlines the programmes that will support the implementation of non-regulatory approaches referred to in Change 6 relating to the use of production land.

3. Change 6 inserts new Chapters (Ch 5.9 and 6.9) relating to the Tukituki River Catchment into the RRMP. Change 6 also makes a number of ‘consequential’ amendments to other parts of the RRMP to make them no longer applicable to the Tukituki Catchment. Change 6 does not propose amendments to the Regional Policy Statement parts (Chapters 2 and 3) of the RRMP.

Background

4. Section 2 of the S32 Report outlines the background and the strategic context for Change 6. It also summarises the community engagement process including Tukituki Choices.

5. Change 6 sits alongside the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) as the key mechanisms for delivering the Tukituki Water Strategy to improve summer flows, water quality, water security for users and sustainable economic development.

6. They jointly comprise the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ which is the working title for the proposal to be lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority requesting that the RWSS applications be heard by a Board of Inquiry and that Change 6 be called-in by the Minister for the Environment on the basis that together, the Tukituki Catchment Proposal is a matter of national significance.

Key Features of Change 6

7. Change 6 would insert five objectives into the RRMP specifically for the Tukituki Catchment. To achieve those objectives, Change 6 also includes a number of policies and methods (including rules). Key features of Change 6 include:

7.1. An integrated suite of five freshwater management objectives specifically for the Tukituki Catchment, the first three covering water quality, the fourth covering water allocation and the fifth enabling community irrigation schemes. These are explained in section 7 of the S32 Report.

7.2. Setting surface and groundwater quality limits. These are detailed in Policies TT1 to TT3, with TT4 – TT6 addressing the implementation of nitrogen limits and phosphorus targets.

7.3. Setting surface water and groundwater allocation limits and minimum flows. These are detailed in Policies TT7 to TT10.

7.4. A number of implementation type policies (Policies TT11-TT15) associated with water quantity including managing stream depletion effects, transfers, enabling community irrigation schemes, consent durations and water measuring and reporting requirements.

7.5. Change 6 contains two rules for the use of production land (Rule TT1 permitted activity, Rule TT2, restricted discretionary activity).

7.6. It also includes a new rule for the filling of agrichemical spray tanks from existing take points (Rule TT3). This addresses an existing issue associated with these takes and formalises them as a permitted activity.

7.7. Change 6 has two new rules for surface and groundwater takes in the Tukituki Catchment. Rule TT4 is a discretionary activity for takes within the allocation limits and Rule TT5 is a non-complying activity for takes seeking water outside an allocation limit. Taking for Community Irrigation Schemes is provided for under an amendment to existing Rule 55 as a discretionary activity.

8. Appendix 7 of the S32 Report provides an explanation of each objective, policy and rule while Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 evaluate the development of the policies and rules and the options considered.

9. The final draft of Change 6 is consistent with the approach endorsed by the Council at the 31 October 2012 meeting. However, there have been some changes to the draft Plan Change document that Council endorsed in December.

10. Those changes largely relate to the implementation of nitrogen and phosphorus limits and targets (Policies TT4 and TT5, and Rule TT1).

11. Additional requirements have been included with respect to phosphorus management plans in the sub-catchments that are significantly exceeding DRP targets, and review dates have been included to indicate that Council will review the need for increased regulation should water quality trends indicate that DRP targets may not be met by 2030 or if indicators developed for the non-regulatory methods are not being met. This better reflects the over-allocated status of the Tukituki Catchment with respect to phosphorus.

12. Conversely, nutrient budget requirements for nitrogen leaching have been better targeted to the properties leaching more than 15 kgN/ha/year. This enables better use of resources and also allows time for the nutrient budget providers to build capacity in this area.

Implications of Change 6 for farmers

13. Change 6 is the first time that a regional plan for Hawke’s Bay will contain a rule relating to the use of production land. While the use of production land is a permitted activity rule, there are a number of conditions that are required to be met in order to be a permitted activity.

14. The Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan outlines a number of programmes designed to assist farmers in understanding and meeting the conditions. Such programmes include:

14.1. Stock exclusion – all stock to be excluded on land adjoining water bodies that is less than 15 degrees while stock at densities greater than 18SU (except sheep) on land steeper than 15 degrees adjoining water bodies is also to be excluded. These requirements are to be complied with by 2017 for permanent water bodies and by 2022 for intermittently flowing streams.

14.2. Bridging of stock crossings – these are required by mid-2017 where a formed stock race crosses a river.

14.3. Phosphorus management plans – these are to be done on all properties in the sub-catchments currently exceeding DRP target concentrations over a period of time. These will identify critical source areas for phosphorus losses and mitigation strategies. This information will be important for the development of catchment management plans and will enable a more targeted mitigation programme.

14.4. Retaining records for nutrient budget purposes – this is an immediate requirement of all properties over 4 ha and is an important aspect for nitrogen management. It will enable nutrient budgets to be prepared if and when required in the future

14.5. Preparation of nutrient budgets – for farms leaching less than 15 kgN/ha/year, farmers can rely on sector specific defaults if they met the criteria associated with that default value. If there is doubt, the records will be available for a nutrient budget to be prepared. For farms leaching more than 15 kgN/ha/year, whole of farm nutrient budgets will be required, at least one to be prepared by 2018 and then at three yearly intervals. This information is important for accounting for Nitrogen loads in the catchment to ensure instream concentration limits are not exceeded.

14.6. Farm environmental management plans – these are more extensive plans covering irrigation, effluent, fertiliser, cropping and stock management and will be required when the use of production land which is increasing its N leaching requires a resource consent.

14.7. Land use intensification – from the date of notification, any increase in land use intensification (an increase in nitrogen leaching of 10% or more, or more than 5kg/ha/year than is currently occurring on-farm) will require a land use resource consent (subject to the transitional provisions in section 20A of the RMA which mean that the farmer who has intensified will have to seek consent within 6 months of Rule TT1 becoming operative).

15. Estimated costs of these requirements are detailed in Section 4 of the TCIP. Average per-farm costs could be $4,500-6,400 for stock exclusion, $1,000-$3000 for nutrient budgets, about $300 for updating a nutrient budget and about $200 for nutrient management plans. These are only indicative costs and could be more or less for some farms. Mitigation measures required to reduce nutrient and sediment losses such as riparian planting, soil conservation measures, and constructed wetlands will be an additional cost. The catchment management plans will enable those measures to be effectively targeted.

Legal Effect of Change 6 (s86B, RMA)

16. Change 6 proposes amendments to the RRMP and includes the introduction of new rules. Consequently, s86B of RMA is relevant, so the Council ought to specifically consider when those rules will have legal effect.

17. For the avoidance of doubt, from the time Change 6 is notified, objectives and policies in Change 6 will be something that decision-makers on resource consent applications may take into account. There is no delay in objectives and policies having immediate legal effect. However, any consideration would need to be mindful that Change 6 still needs to run its course through the submissions > hearing > decisions > appeal process in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

18. Under section 86B(3) of the RMA any rules relating to water or soil have immediate legal effect (i.e. from the date a proposed plan is publicly notified). In this particular instance, staff have assessed the basis and purpose of each of the new rules proposed and existing rules amended in Change 6 (see Table 1 following).

Table 1: When Change 6 rules have immediate legal effect – staff assessment

Rule	Activity	Protects or relates to water or soil? [s86B(3)(a)]	Other notes
TT1	Use of Production Land	P	Land use intensification requires consent under Rule TT2. Other conditions have built-in transition periods for certain requirements: Preparation of nutrient budgets by 1 July 2018 By 31 Dec 2017, livestock exclusion shall occur for lakes, wetlands and permanently flowing rivers; By 31 Dec 2022, livestock exclusion shall occur for intermittently flowing rivers. By 30 June 2017, rivers that are permanently or intermittently flowing that are crossed by formed stock races shall be bridged or culverted. By 1 July 2020, compliance with industry good practice nitrogen leaching rates
TT2	Use of Production Land not complying with conditions of Rule TT1	P
TT3	The take and use of surface water or groundwater for filling agrichemical spray tanks	P	Only applies to existing takes
TT4	The take and use of surface water within allocation zones and groundwater takes within and outside allocation zones	P
TT5	The take and use of surface water or groundwater that does not comply with Rule TT4, other than takes for Community Irrigation Schemes under Rule 55.	P
Rule 47	The discharge of contaminants into surface water	P	Cross references DRP limits in Change 6
Rule 50	The disturbance of the bed of any permanently flowing river and any lake arising from the entry of livestock	P	To align with Rule TT1
Rule 54	The take and use of surface water	P	To exclude new permitted activity takes in Tukituki catchment
Rule 55	The take and use of surface water or groundwater including takes and uses associated with or ancillary to Community Irrigation Schemes	P	To include requirement to have regard to Policy TT12
Rule 61	Transfer of consent to take and use surface water	P	To include requirement to have regard to Policy TT12
Rule 62	Transfer of consent to take and use groundwater	P

19. Staff consider new Rules TT1 to TT5 and amended rules 47, 50, 54, 55, 61 and 62 either protect and/or relate to water and/or soil conservation. Based on this, each of those rules in Change 6 would come into force immediately from the date when Change 6 is publicly notified.

20. Notwithstanding this, s20A of the RMA sets out circumstances relating to certain existing uses which may continue even if they do not comply with proposed regional rules. Basically, if an existing land use activity requires a resource consent because of a breach of Rule TT1(a) (land use intensification), then that land use activity can continue to occur up until the rule becomes operative. Within 6 months of Rule TT1 becoming operative, then a resource consent application must be made for the activity, and until that application is decided upon, the activity can continue.

Options considered and Section 32 of RMA

21. In preparing a plan change, local authorities have a duty under s32 of the RMA^{^[1]} to evaluate a number of matters:

(3) An evaluation must examine —

- the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

- whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

(3A) This subsection applies to a rule that imposes a greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies than any prohibition or restriction in the standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whether the prohibition or restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the region or district.

(4) For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account —

- the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

- the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

22. The RMA also requires that a report be prepared that summarises the evaluation and gives reasons for that evaluation. That report must be made available for public inspection at the same time as the change is publicly notified (under s32(6) RMA). The RMA does not prescribe the style, layout and content of s32 summary reports.

23. Staff have prepared a comprehensive S32 evaluation summary report. It provides the strategic context for both Change 6 and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications in anticipation of the Ministry for the Environment deciding to call-in Change 6 to be considered alongside the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications. The report summarises the evaluation of the proposed plan provisions, particularly in relation to the water quality limits and water allocation limits and minimum flows, as well as a discussion on the associated policies. It also contains a set of explanations for the Objectives, policies and rules in Appendix 7 for easy reference.

24. The S32 Report is not part of the plan change itself, but a ‘companion’ document.

25. The S32 Report needs to be formally adopted by the Council as part of adopting Change 6.

Adoption and Notification

26. Typically, HBRC has publicly notified a plan change within a matter of days after adopting that Change at a formal council meeting. There are two reasons why it is recommended not to be the case for Change 6:

26.1. Need to align with EPA process. Notification of Change 6 must align with the timing of lodging of the Ruataniwha Water Storage applications with the EPA and with the lodging of a letter requesting that the Minister for the Environment call-in the Proposed Plan Change. This is because the Minister for the Environment only has a five working day window following the close of submissions within which to call-in the Proposed Plan Change.

26.2. Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications. These applications and the associated assessment of environmental effects need to be prepared in the context of Change 6. In order to finalise the application documents, Change 6 needs to be finalised ready for notification. The delay in notification provides time to ensure all application documentation accurately references relevant objective, policy and rule provisions.

27. Based on the current timetable, notification of Change 6 is scheduled to occur on Saturday 4 May 2013 with the RWSS applications and the letter of request being lodged with the EPA on Monday 6 May 2013. This alignment provides the Minister with the maximum possible time to consider any recommendations from the EPA in respect of the requests for a Board of Inquiry to consider and determine both Change 6 and the RWSS applications.

28. If the lodging date changes, the notification date will also need to change because of that ‘five day’ window to call-in the Proposed Plan Change.

29. Adoption of Change 6 at the February Council meeting will bring Change 6 into public view in advance of the official public notification and call for submissions in May. This provides a ‘de facto’ extension of time for interested parties to view Change 6 as adopted by Council and the associated documentation.

30. The Table 2 below sets out indicative dates of the EPA process. Note that this process provides the public with two opportunities to make a submission on Change 6.

Table 2 – Indicative dates for Change 6’s notification and subsequent process

HBRC adopts Change 6	27February 2013
HBRC notifies Change 6 (submission period 20 working days)	4 May 2013
Minister calls-in Change 6 (no later than 5 working days after close of submissions.)	4 -10 June 2013
EPA Public Notice (submission period 20 working days.)	1 June 2013
EPA (end of 9 month period)	March 2014

Notification Matters

31. The Council must publicly notify a proposed plan change and subsequently invite submissions. The submission period must be at least 20 working days. The RMA requires that the Council give notice of regional plan changes to “any person who, in the regional council’s opinion, is likely to be directly affected by the proposed [plan change].” Staff have assessed the contents of Change 6 and consider that the following persons should be sent a copy of the public notice and other relevant information about Change 6:

31.1. Statutory agencies (i.e. constituent territorial authorities, neighbouring regional councils, Minsters for the Environment and Conservation, Regional Conservator, Fish and Game NZ, and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi incorporated

31.2. Owners and occupiers of land within and adjacent to the Tukituki Catchment (according to rating databases)

31.3. Resource consent holders for consents within the Tukituki Catchment (but only water permits and permits to discharge contaminants to land or water)

31.4. Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company

31.5. Groups and individuals who made written comments on ‘Tukituki Choices’ discussion document

31.6. Groups and individuals who have been members of the various stakeholder groups (i.e.: Ruataniwha Leadership Group; Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group; and Tukituki Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Liaison Group, Pan Sector Group)

31.7. Groups and individuals who have lodged submissions and/or further submissions on RPS Change 5 (Land and Freshwater Management).

32. The notification criteria for a matter of national significance are slightly different. EPA must notify ‘each owner and occupier (other than the applicant) of any land to which the matter relates; and each owner and occupier of any land adjoining the land to which the matter relates’. This means the whole of the Tukituki catchment plus the adjoining properties over the catchment boundary (including in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region). EPA is exploring their interpretation of this with regard to the Tukituki Catchment Proposal.

33. To avoid confusion resulting from Council taking a different approach to the EPA, the notification list for Council’s notification of Change 6 will be consistent with the EPA criteria (and therefore more extensive in some respects than would normally be the case). The method of Council’s notification will be by post in order to ensure owners and occupiers are served a copy of the public notice, as well as regional and community papers and the Council’s ‘Our Place’.

Rural Stakeholder Communication

34. Given the significance of Change 6 on the rural community, it is appropriate that in addition to the statutory requirements, a specific communication programme will be developed to inform farmers about Change 6 and its implications. This will include elements of the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan programmes.

35. This communication programme can get underway as soon as Council adopts the Plan Change and does not need to wait for the formal notification.

Decision Making Process

36. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Subpart 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

37. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

38. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by the Resource Management Act 1991.

39. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

40. The persons affected by this decision are all persons and organisations who made comments on Tukituki Choices, all residents and ratepayers within the Tukituki River Catchment and all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

41. Options that have been considered are documented in the section 32 evaluation summary report for Change 6.

42. The decision to adopt Change 6 is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan notwithstanding that the content of Change 6 adds to and changes provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan.

43. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on Change 6 following a decision by Council to publicly notify it.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on the proposed Change following a decision by Council to publicly notify them.

2. Adopts the “Section 32 Evaluation Summary Report which will then be made available for public inspection at the same time Change 6 is publicly notified.

3. Adopts Change 6 to the Regional Resource Management Plan for public notification subject to minor editorial changes.

4. Agrees that Rules TT1 to TT5 and amended Rules 47, 50, 54, 55, 61 and 62 in Change 6 protect or relate to water or soil and so come into immediate effect from the date of public notification of Change 6.

5. Endorses the draft Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan as a complementary non-statutory document.

6. Instructs staff to prepare other communication material to help stakeholders understand the provisions of Change 6.

7. Agrees that the following parties are considered to be directly affected by Change 6 and so will be given direct notice of Change 6:

7.1 Owners and occupiers of land within the Tukituki catchment

7.2 Persons holding resource consents (i.e. only water permits and permits to discharge contaminants to land or water) within the Tukituki catchment

7.3 Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited.

8. Agrees that direct notice of Change 6 also be given to at least the following interested parties:

8.1 Groups and individuals who made written comments on ‘Tukituki Choices’ discussion document

8.2 Groups and individuals who were members of the various stakeholder groups (i.e. Ruataniwha Leadership Group, Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Liaison Group, Pan Sector Group)

8.3 Groups and individuals who have lodged submissions and/or further submissions on RPS Change 5 (Land and Freshwater Management)

8.4 Owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the Tukituki catchment.

9. Agrees that notification of Change 6 should align with the lodging of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal request to the Environmental Protection Authority.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Attachment/s

1	Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Part A	Under Separate Cover
2	Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Part B Maps	Under Separate Cover
3	Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Section 32 Report	Under Separate Cover
4	Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan	Under Separate Cover

Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

1. Executive Summary and Summary of Statement of Proposal

Investigations have been underway to ensure the continued protection of the Makara Valley and Elsthorpe community from the risk of flooding, after a sinkhole was found in the face of the No. 1 Dam, Kokatewai Road, off Kairakau Road in May 2012.

Several options have been investigated, including reinstatement of the dam and decommissioning the dam and improving stopbanks. A Statement of Proposal has been prepared outlining all the options.

1.1. The Preferred Option

HBRC has held a number of community meetings in Elsthorpe. At those meetings a strong desire by the community to have the dam rebuilt has been expressed. Modelling work done by HBRC shows that the stopbank options will provide properties with at least a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam.

Whatever option is chosen there will be an ongoing need to maintain the Scheme, including from time to time, major items of repair or maintenance – particularly following significant flood events.

The option preferred by the community is to reconstruct the dam, with a new concrete discharge pipe in accordance with modern design codes. This option will have a significant impact on the targeted rates paid by properties benefiting from the Makara Flood control Scheme.

HBRC will send a letter to each property advising them of the rating impact of the options presented in the Statement of Proposal.

The estimated project cost of the preferred option is $1,204,000.

It is important to note that the dam is designed to reduce the peak flows in the Makara Stream during smaller more frequent flood events (those estimated to occur on average once every five years). The dam’s effectiveness reduces for larger events when the dam storage capacity is exceeded and spillway operates. In an event expected to occur on average once every 20 years, the dam has a negligible impact on the peak flows in the Makara Stream. Therefore in the April 2011 storm event, the dam would have had negligible impact on the flood levels that were experienced in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam, including Elsthorpe.

Some minor stopbanking improvements could reduce the frequency of flooding to some of the productive farmland downstream of the dam. This work has an estimated cost of $65,000.

The dam is also losing its effectiveness as a result of ongoing build-up of silt in its ponding area and has high annual costs because of depreciation and future desilting requirements to maintain the current level of service. The cost of desilting just to maintain the current level of service provided by the dam is estimated to be in the order of $25,000 annually.

1.2. The Cost

While HBRC has sought expert advice; the construction cost of the dam of $1,204,030 is based on the concept design. A more accurate assessment of the cost can only be done once final designs have been completed, the building consent granted and the contract for the physical works has been let.

Project Estimate	Costs to date		Estimated additional costs
	2011/12	2012/13	Estimated additional costs
Initial assessment by Damwatch	24,866
LiDAR surveying	19,830	490
Temporary spillway construction		23,375
Additional soil testing		6,385
Ground survey	7,388
Damwatch options assessment and preferred option development		127356
HBRC engineering modelling etc	9,722	38200	20000
Review of alternative options		14,189	12000
Miscellaneous	113	116
Damwatch detailed design			60000
Consents			20000
Construction			800000
Construction supervision			20000

	61,919	210,111	932,000

Total Project Cost			1,204,030

Owing to the high initial cost estimates for repair of the dam, alternative options were investigated to provide landowners on the Makara Valley floodplain with alternative options that will, as far as practicable, provide at least the same level of protection as that currently provided to the Makeara Stream by the Makara No.1 Dam.

1.3. Who will pay

The Statement of Proposal sets out how it proposes the preferred option would be funded and the relative benefit provided by the Scheme to individual properties. A significant part of the cost of the project will be met from HBRC regional disaster reserve fund, however there will be a need for a significant increase in the targeted rates paid by Scheme ratepayers. Each ratepayer will receive a letter advising of the estimated rating impact on their property.

An amendment to the HBRC’s 2012-22 Long Term Plan will be required to reflect the changes in targeted rates required to fund the work. This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4. Consultation

As part of the special consultative process a hearing will be held to consider all submissions.

The time frame is outlined below:

Fri 1 March 2013	· Letters sent to all Upper Makara ratepayers, including summary of Statement of Proposal
Sat 2 March 2013	· Public notice on Statement of Proposal
Early march	· Site visit for Council to the scheme, specifically the Makara No. 1 dam
March	· Public meeting in Elsthorpe Hall to explain content of Statement of Proposal
Tue 2 April 2013	· Submissions close
Fri 12 April 2013	· Hearings to be held in Elsthorpe Hall (subject to availability)
Wed 24 April 2013	· HBRC to consider Hearings Panel report and recommendations

1.5. Timing of Construction

Once the preferred option has been agreed there will be a need to complete design work, obtain the necessary consents, and let a contract for the construction work. The construction work is expected to take 12 to 14 weeks and there will be a 5 to 8 week lead in time for delivery of the pipes. Construction work is most cost effectively done in the summer months when the ground is drier and there is less risk of flood events. Therefore construction work is now expected to be undertaken in the 2013/14 summer.

A full statement of proposal is available for viewing in the following locations

· HBRC offices at 159 Dalton St Napier

· HBRC website

· An Email or hard copy of the text of the Statement of Proposal will be provided on request to Sally Chandler chandler@hbrc.govt.nz

2.
Introduction

On 31 May 2012 a sinkhole was identified in the Makara No 1 Dam high on its upstream face directly above the low level discharge pipe. This discovery compromises the structural integrity of the dam, has resulted in the HBRC:

· reducing the flood detention capacity of the dam by excavating a temporary spillway at a lower level than the permanent spillway, following advice from Consulting Engineers experienced in dam construction and rehabilitation;

· investigating the cost of reinstatement of the dam;

· investigating alternative options for the provision of a similar level of flood protection to downstream properties to that provided by the dam; and

· assessing the relative benefit that the Scheme and each of the alternative options provides to each property within the Scheme.

The Makara No 1 dam is the largest of 5 flood detention dams which provide flood protection to the Elsthorpe Valley, and which are assets of the Makara Scheme administered by HBRC.

This Statement of Proposal sets out a range of options for the provision of a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam, and demonstrates how it proposes the work associated with each of the options can be funded. A preferred option is proposed.

This Statement of Proposal also considers the relative benefit provided by the Scheme to individual properties and suggests some changes to the way rates are attributed to each property to provide a fair apportionment of the cost of the scheme commitments.

An amendment to the HBRC’s 2012-22 Long Term Plan will be required to reflect the changes in targeted rates required to fund the work.

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Submissions – Timeline

Submissions on this Statement of Proposal

close at 4.00pm on Tuesday 2 April 2013.

Submissions should be sent to Sally Chandler, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Private Bag 6006 Napier 4142; email chandler@hbrc.govt.nz

It is proposed that a public hearing be held in Elsthorpe Hall (subject to its availability) on Friday 12 April 2013. All verbal submissions on the proposal will be heard on that day. The Hearings panel will also consider written submissions on that day if time permits.

4. Construction timing

The consulting engineering organisation undertaking the dam design has advised that they could complete the detailed design and contract documentation ready for consent application in approximately 5 weeks after being instructed to resume their work.

They expect the consent process to take between 1 and 2 months.

The construction contract will require 12 to 14 weeks to complete and have a lead time of between 5 and 8 weeks between ordering and delivery of the pipes.

If the works are to be tendered, the tender process will take approximately 5 weeks, including at least 3 weeks for interested contractors to prepare their tenders.

This means that the works are unable to be completed prior to the 2013 winter. The work is now being planned during the 2013/14 summer.

5. Scheme Background

The Upper Makara Catchment Control Scheme is located approximately 30 km due south of Hastings, and 20 km due east of Waipawa. The catchment (approximately 7645 ha) spans the steep hill country above Elsthorpe, the flat valley floors as well as the flat area around the village of Elsthorpe. The main streams in the catchment are the Makara Stream, the Wharemate Stream, and the Silver Range Stream. The Wharemate and the Silver Range Streams drain into the Makara Stream, which flows through the Elsthorpe Valley to the Tukituki River.

The need for the Catchment Control Scheme was initiated in August 1971 following a period of severe storms which caused significant erosion on properties in the catchment and flooding through Elsthorpe. A further flood in October that year and widespread flooding in 1974 resulted in further damage and problems for the local community.

The Scheme was designed to improve stability and productivity of 800 hectares of flats and 2225 hectares of hill country.

The Makara and Silver Range Streams with their catchments in the very steep severely eroding hill country were subject to flash floods from combinations of high intensity rain storms and very low capacity alluvial channels.

The Wharamate Stream has a large catchment with moderately steep land and also had a low capacity drainage channel.

The Scheme design incorporated a combination of detention dams, some stopbanking, and significant channel improvements along with soil conservation works on the steep hill country using retirement planting.

Discussions between landowners and the former Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board regarding flood and erosion control in the catchment commenced in 1971 and the final Makara Scheme was agreed to in 1975.

During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s a series of 5 detention dams were constructed in the Makara Stream and Wharemate Stream catchments to reduce the flood peaks and provide a more controlled flow in the streams. The reduced flood peaks, significantly improved channels and reduced siltation arising from the soil conservation works in the steep hill country has enabled further development of the fertile flats in the valley floors.

During the 1980’s significant channel excavations were carried out on the Makara, Wharemate, and the Silver Range Streams, in order to improve the alignment and capacity of these channels. Soil conservation planting was also carried out throughout the catchment to control hill country erosion.

The Scheme’s capital works programme was completed in January 1984 at a cost of $1,239,763 with a government grant of $896,250. (Source – History of the Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board and Regional Water Board). The local share of $343,513 was met from capital works rates levied on the community from 1977/78 until 1983/84.

Figure 1: Location of dam and outline of Scheme area

Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

6. Original Scheme Objectives

The objectives of the Upper Makara Catchment Control Scheme when it was established were;

· to provide 5 year flood protection to approximately 720 ha of farmland in the Elsthorpe Valley by way of flood detention dams;

· to reduce erosion and improve production potential over much of the 2400 ha of moderately to severely eroded catchment by way of catchment planting;

· to reduce siltation of the Makara Stream;

· to improve drainage outlets along the Wharemate Stream; and

· to maintain channel capacity in the Silver Range Stream.

The current maintenance programme for the Scheme is designed to meet these objectives to a level which is acceptable to the scheme ratepayers, taking into account the cost of any works to be done.

The Scheme levels of service objectives are:

6.1. Streams and Channels

The design flow capacity (5 year return period) shall be contained within the stream or drainage channel. The channel shall be maintained with a short dense sward of vegetation to minimise resistance to flood flows and minimise channel sedimentation. Where specific design information is available the channels will be maintained in accordance with this design criteria. Streams and drains shall convey their design flow, for extended periods, without overflow on to adjacent land, and with an acceptable low risk of damage to the channel.

6.2. Detention Dams

The capacity of each detention dam was designed to manage the design storm event calculated using available hydrological records.

The spillway on each dam is designed to allow safe overflow when a storm event exceeds the design capacity of the dam.

It is recognised that in any event where a detention dam storage capacity is exceeded flooding will occur downstream of the dam.

All detention dams shall control water in a design storm event by releasing the maximum flow through the outlet culvert and retaining the remainder as ponded water behind the dam wall up to spillway level.

The spillway shall convey any water in excess of the design capacity via a spillway into the outlet channel without undue scouring of the spillway, or erosion of the banks of the downstream channel.

7.
Scheme Finances

7.1. Scheme Rating

Targeted rates levied since 1983/84 have funded ongoing maintenance of the Scheme. Key areas of expenditure have included the:

· maintenance of dam discharge pipe inlet structures free of debris, and repairs to localised scouring where necessary, including regular and post flood checks;

· annual surveys of the dam structures, with regular survey to monitor possible changes;

· maintenance of the Scheme waterways, including regrowth spraying;

· removal of windfall trees;

· periodic channel cleaning; and

· maintenance of the soil conservation plantings.

Since completion of the capital works programme in 1983/84, a total of $534,057 of targeted rates has been levied from the community. The total annual rate take is set out in the graph below. Targeted rates of $30,261 have been set for the 2012/13 financial year. The Local Government Act 2002 required local authorities to fund depreciation of infrastructure assets. Accordingly a depreciation reserve was set up for the scheme in 2002 resulting in the increase in Scheme targeted rates since that time.

7.2.
The existing rating system

The existing rating system was established in 1977 under the rating provisions of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.

The Act specified that in developing a rating system, the degrees of direct benefit to land and improvements arising from the proposed scheme shall be assessed by reference to the frequency, depth, severity and likelihood of flooding and erosion, improvements to drainage, and the improvements and advantages derived from any soil conservation works included in the Scheme.

The Act also required indirect benefit to be assessed by reference to the establishment or preservation of economic units of land and the protection derived by services and amenities such as water supply systems, electrical services roads and the benefit derived by other amenities which may derive benefit from the Scheme.

The Scheme was subsequently classified into seven rating classes being A to G where A class land derives the largest degree of benefit and G class receives no benefit. Classes C and D were further divided to recognise the different benefits derived on the Makara Stream, Wharemate and Silver Range Stream floodplains.

A full description of the existing rating categories is set out in

To determine the relative degrees of benefit for the various rating categories the classifiers assessed the current losses arising from flooding, siltation, direct stock losses, and the cost of stock replacement that would be prevented by the scheme, and the potential increases in both the stock carrying capacity and cropping ability of the land as a result of the Scheme.

The results of this analysis were as follows:

Rating Class	Relative Benefit
A	100
B	80
C (Makara)	65
C (Wharemate)	65
D (Makara)	35
D (Silver Range)	35
E	5
F	2
G	0

Figure 2 is a map showing the existing rating system. Larger scale maps are available at HBRC office 159 Dalton St. These will assist any land owners who wish to determine the boundaries of Scheme classification areas with regard to their properties.

The LiDAR surveying of the Makara valley and computer based flood models has enabled a much more accurate assessment of the potential risk of flooding and therefore benefit received by individual properties by the Scheme. The Scheme classification has been reviewed to better reflect actual benefit received and a proposed new classification form part of this proposal (ref section 11).

This review has highlighted a number of anomalies in Council’s rating database which will be corrected. In some cases this means properties which are within the Scheme but are not currently rated, will in the future have Scheme rates added to their rating assessments.

7.3. Scheme Funding

The money necessary to maintain the Scheme and fund scheme commitments such as rate collection and depreciation is sourced through targeted rates (90%) and HBRC general funding sources (10%).

Targeted rates are levied on individual properties on the basis of the benefit they are assessed to receive from the Scheme. As set out in 7.2 above these benefits were assessed at the time of establishing the Scheme.

HBRC recognises that the Scheme also provides benefits to local infrastructure, roads, power and telecommunications networks, which provide benefits outside the Scheme area. It also recognises that the increased flood protection to land as a result of the Scheme has benefits to the regional economy. These indirect benefits are recognised through HBRC 10% contribution to the Scheme (excluding rate collection costs) from general funding sources.

7.4. Scheme Accounts

HBRC manages the Scheme finances through 3 separate accounts. As at 30 June 2012, the account balances for each of these accounts was as set out below.

Account	Balance
Scheme operating account	-$39,050
Scheme disaster reserve	$40,538
Scheme depreciation reserve	$173,535

8. Damage to the Makara No 1 dam

On 30 May 2012 a sinkhole was discovered in the Makara No 1 dam. The sinkhole is approximately 3m in diameter and has resulted from the soil within the earth embankment of the dam caving in as a result of a cavity that formed below the surface. The sinkhole is on the upstream face and close to the crest of the dam, immediately above the low level discharge pipe. The April 2011 flood event tested the Scheme assets. It is believed that this initiated the formation of the cavity.

8.1. April 2011 flood event

The rainfall event that occurred in 2011 filled the Makara No 1 Dam, spilling large flows over its spillway.

No specific information is available for that event to determine its return period within the Makara Valley. However it is likely that the return period was an event that would be expected to occur on average once every 100 years or more. This is demonstrated in the tables below which show return periods verses rainfall depth and actual measured rainfall depths at the nearest HBRC rainfall recording site.

Table 1: Rainfall depths - NIWA HIRDS database

Table 2: Rainfall data recorded at the HBRC Waipoapoa site, the nearest rainfall gauge to the site to the Makara Catchment

Duration	Rainfall Depth
24 hours	431mm
36 hours	543mm
72 hours	625mm

Anecdotal evidence indicates that over 700mm of rain fell in 36 hours in the Pouhokio and Mangakuri catchments.

It can be seen from these figures that the heavy rainfall event in April 2011 had an estimated return period of at least 100 years and could have been considerably larger. The designed 5 year return period for the Scheme was therefore exceeded by a substantial amount, and the extent of flooding in the Makara Valley would have reflected the extreme event.

In major storms the dam fills up and excess water is spilled over its spillway. In bigger events the dam has very little impact on the peak flow in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam. This is illustrated in the flow hydrographs below.

An event with a total peak outflow of 45m³/s (with the dam in place) is expected to occur on average once every 5 to 10 years.

The blue line shows the flow without the dam and the red line with the dam.

The dam reduces the peak flow downstream of the dam from 60m³/sec to 45m³/sec.

An event with a peak flow of approximately 90m³/sec has a probability of occurrence of on average once every 20 to 30 years.

Whether or not the dam is in place makes very little difference to the peak flow downstream of the dam for this size of flood.

The effectiveness of the dam reduces even further for event larger events, such as the April 2011 event.

8.2. Design of the dam

The dam was originally constructed in 1980, with the design meeting the requirements of design codes and utilising construction techniques relevant at that time. As with the design codes for buildings, the design codes and construction techniques used today for large dam construction are different than those used in 1980. The concept design for the replacement dam therefore includes features that are not included in the existing dam, and the estimated cost of replacement is considerably more that the cost of reinstating the dam using the 1980 design.

8.3. Is it Insured?

HBRC has insurance cover for its infrastructure assets. Commercial insurance covers assets other than live tree edge protection which suffer damage from a natural hazard event. This insurance is for 60% of the cost of repair of the assets up to a maximum of $20,000,000 above a deductible of $3,500,000. This means that the cost of repair of the damage must exceed $3,500,000 before any claim will be considered.

HBRC is also a member of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) which is a mutual insurance scheme set up by local government specifically to cover local authority infrastructural assets. LAPP will meet 40% of the cost of repair of infrastructure assets above a deductible of $1,128,000 (1% of the infrastructure asset value insured).

Staff have sought advice from LAPP on the possible success of a claim. LAPP have advised that they will not accept a claim because the event that is most likely to have caused the failure occurred on or around 25 April 2011. On 13 April 2011, HBRC received a letter from LAPP advising that as a result of the Christchurch earthquake they were unable to provide any insurance for flood protection assets until at least 30 June 2011 or until suitable reinsurance cover and/or Government support is in place.

8.4. Dam siltation

Siltation in the catchment was a well-recognised problem when the scheme was developed and its impact on farm production as well as flooding were the main reasons for the Scheme being established.

Because of this problem, and especially with regard to the catchment of the Makara No. 1 Dam, it is generally understood that an allowance was made for some siltation of the dam’s storage area at the time the Scheme was designed.

The original volume in the reservoir was determined at the time of construction of the dam (in 1980) through traditional ground survey methods to be 835,000m3. Siltation has been occurring in the ponding area and has been monitored since 1980 through cross section surveys. Using the most recent siltation survey, it is estimated that 160,500m³ of silt has built up in the ponding area.

The ponding volume as at 2012 has been calculated to be 490,000m³ using the most recent LiDAR survey data and not the 674,500m³ (835,000m³ - 160,500m³) calculated using the original survey and siltation survey data. The source of this error is not known but could result from inaccuracies in the original calculations of storage volume arising from the methods of surveying available at that time.

An accumulation of 160,000m³ of silt equates to 19% of 835,000 m³; or 25% of 650,500m³ (490,000m³ + 160,500m³) (The possible original storage volume). This equates to siltation of approximately 5,000m³ per year since the dam was constructed.

Siltation of approximately 4,000 m³ has occurred in Dam 4 since its construction (No. 4 dam has a catchment of similar geology to that of the No1 dam.) The other 3 dams which are in the catchment of the Wharemate Stream and its tributaries, have relatively little siltation.

The performance of both dams has reduced since their construction. Desilting is estimated to cost approximately $6.00/m³ if a suitable dump site is able to be identified with only a short haul distance ideally downstream of a dam. Desilting the Makara No.1 Dam would therefore cost approximately $1,000,000.

If a programme of work was put in place to remove new siltation from the Scheme dams on a regular basis, provision should be made in scheme budgets for between $20,000 and $30,000 annually. This would allow improvement in the storage capacity of the dam between major flood events, however would on average only maintain the current detention storage capacity of the dam. A programme of desilting in excess of 5,000m³/year would be required to improve that capacity over time.

8.5. Scheme maintenance and management

Works have been undertaken to maintain the Scheme in line with the Scheme Management Plan prepared in March 1998.

The works involve the:

· the maintenance of the stream channels to control weeds and unwanted tree growth;

· the removal of blockages, obstructions and other impediments to the flow;

· the maintenance of grade control structures;

· the inspection at least annually of all aspects of the Scheme dams, including the embankments themselves, intake screens, outlet culverts, spillways and ponding areas;

· the maintenance as required of all aspects of the dams;

· flood damage inspections following flood events; and

· soil conservation works.

Stream channels maintained as part of the Scheme are maintained such that they are able to convey flood water without hindrance from excess vegetation. It should be noted however, that willows have been left in some areas because they provide protection against river bank scour, and/or river bed degradation. Ongoing work is necessary to maintain sections of the channel.

8.6. Annual expenditure and income

Annual expenditure and income for the Scheme is approximately as follows.

Expenditure
Engineering and other staff time	$1,600
Operations including physical works	$15,000
Rate collection costs	$350
Depreciation	$17,900
Surveying	$1,000
Soil conservation planting inspection and replacement	$2,000
Insurance	$3,300
Total expenditure	$40,150
Income
Targeted rates	$30,250
Council general funding	$4,370
Interest on Scheme reserves	$1,600
Scheme reserve draw down	$3,930
Total income	$40,150

8.7. Distribution of scheme expenditure

A breakdown of average annual Scheme expenditure has identified that on average the expenditure on the four main components of the Scheme are in the proportions set out in the table below. The expenditure items included in this analysis are channel maintenance, dam inspections and maintenance, dam depreciation, soil conservation works and general Scheme management.

Scheme Component	Proportion of average annual expenditure	Average annual expenditure
Makara Stream channel and dams	65%	$26,100
Wharemata Stream channel and dams	25%	$10,050
Silver Range Stream	5%	$2,000
Soil conservation	5%	$2,000

9. Options for reinstatement of the level of flood protection provided by the Makara No 1 dam

A range of options have been considered to reinstate the level of flood protection provided to properties downstream of the dam. These broadly include reinstatement of the dam, and channel improvements and stopbanking to increase the capacity of the Stream channel in conjunction with decommissioning of the dam.

These options are discussed below.

9.1. Reinstatement of the Makara No. 1 Dam

The following table set out the details of the Makara No. 1 Dam

Makara No 1 Dam Specifications
Year of construction	1980
Catchment area	1330 hectares
Design return period	5-years
Ponding area	15.36 hectares
Volume of earthworks	38,000 m³
Dam height	12 m above discharge pipe
Discharge pipe diameter	2 m
Discharge pipe length	70.8 m

Options and estimates for the repair or replacement of the discharge pipe have been developed. Options considered include:

· the repair of the existing discharge pipe, and

· complete replacement of the pipe.

The most cost effective option, and option that will provide the longest life to the dam structure once repaired involves the removal of a section of the existing dam, the replacement of the culvert, and the reinstatement of the dam to its original performance specifications, but in accordance with modern design codes. The construction works for this option are estimated to cost approximately $800,000.

Initial estimates for this work have been higher than this figure. The revised figure is on a more detailed assessment of the cost of the work HBRC’s operations group in conjunction with a local contractor.

If this option is chosen the estimated total project cost will be as set out in the table below.

Project Estimate	Costs to date		Estimated additional costs
	2011/12	2012/13	Estimated additional costs
Initial assessment by Damwatch	24,866
LiDAR surveying	19,830	490
Temporary spillway construction		23,375
Additional soil testing		6,385
Ground survey	7,388
Damwatch options assessment and preferred option development		127356
HBRC engineering modelling etc	9,722	38200	20000
Review of alternative options		14,189	12000
Miscellaneous	113	116
Damwatch detailed design			60000
Consents			20000
Construction			800000
Construction supervision			20000
	61,919	210,111	932,000

Total Project Cost			1,204,030

It should be noted that while HBRC has sought advice from people with expertise and experience in this sort of construction works, the estimate for the construction cost of the dam is based on the concept design. A more accurate assessment of the cost can only be done once final designs have been completed, the building consent has been granted and the contract for the physical works has been let.

Initial estimates for the reconstruction of the dam were higher than the estimate used in the project estimate set out above. In a briefing paper to Council’s Environment and Services Committee on 5 December 2012, an estimate of $1,210,000 was used.

Owing to the high initial estimates for the cost of repairing the dam, alternative options were investigated to provide landowners on the Makara valley floodplain alternative options that will, as far as is practicable, provide at least the same level of protection as that currently provided to the Makara Stream by the Makara No.1 Dam.

9.2. Flood Control Alternatives

Alternative flood control options that have been considered have focused on increasing the flood carrying capacity of the channel. Whilst in theory this could be increased by increasing the size of the channel and by improving its alignment, there is very little scope for this on the Makara Stream as it was already enlarged when the Scheme was developed and with only a few exceptions, its alignment is relatively good. This therefore only leaves stopbanking and stopbank raising as the available option.

There are 7.4 km of stopbanking along the channel largely located along only one side of the channel at any one location with the natural high ground limiting the extent of flooding on the other side. Of this only approximately 2 km would need to be raised to achieve the 5-year protection standard if the dam was decommissioned. The results of this work are set out in the John Philpott report – Ref Appendix 1 to this Statement of Proposal.

Key findings in the report are set out below:

9.2.1. Minor improvement works

An on ground inspection was undertaken to identify these locations and in all cases, in the areas protected with stopbanking, water would spill from the channel where the stopbanks were clearly low or hadn’t been extended sufficiently to tie into the high ground.

In reaches of the stream where there are no stopbanks, both the extent and depth of flooding was slightly increased with the depth increases generally no more than 100mm.

It was clear from these inspections that relatively minor works could be undertaken to reduce the impacts of this flooding in flood events when the channel was generally full to capacity. The estimated cost of raising these low sections of stopbank and extending banks where required to optimise the flood carrying capacity of the existing channel is $65,000 and would be worth doing as finances permitted even if the dam was repaired.

Specific areas suggested for this work are:

9.2.2. The top end of Paeroa Station - join the upper end of the stopbank to the high ground to the west

9.2.3. The second half of the Scheeles 1 area – figure 6 at the end of the Philpott report

9.2.4. A small gap at the upper end of Scheeles 2 - Figure 7

9.2.5. A small gap at the upstream end of Thomas 1 - Figure 8

This work has not been included in the preferred option but it will be considered should funding be available in the future.

9.3. Flood protection through stopbanking

There are a range of possible options for the protection of properties from flooding if the dam is decommissioned. These all include improvement of the current stopbanks on the Makara Stream,

The level of protection provided can be improved by increasing the height of the stopbanks. A summary of two stopbank options is set out below. Note cost estimates are for the construction cost of the option only. Total project costs will include costs already expended and committed, detailed design costs and construction supervision costs.

In preparing these tables, the following allowances have been made:

· the stopbank top width will be increased to at least 3m to aid construction and compaction. (It is assumed that the existing bank top width is only 2m on average);

· a freeboard allowance of 300 mm has been added to the design water level;

· a contingency of 20% has been allowed for in the estimated cost of stopbank raising bringing total raising cost at $18/m³. This includes sufficient allowance for fencing on some reaches.

· no allowance has been made for setting the stopbank back when upgraded to move it away from eroding riverbank if required;

· an allowance of $200,000 for the raising of the 4 farm bridges; and

· an allowance of $50,000 for additional stopbanks to protect small areas affected by the raising that are not currently protected.

The allowance for bridge raising assumes that the bridges will be able to be raised by raising the abutments.

When there is a stopbank along one side of the stream only, raising this stopbank will increase the flood level on the other side of the stream. In most cases there is only a very narrow strip of land along the unprotected side of the stream and where this is not the case, stopbanks could be constructed to protect the area.

10.
Evaluation of Options

10.1. Option 1 – Reinstatement of the dam

This option with an estimated project cost of $1,204,000 would reinstate the dam with a new concrete discharge pipe and to similar dimensions to the current dam. This would effectively reduce the level of flood flows in the Makara Stream for the smaller more frequent flood events (estimated to be those events that occur on average once every 5 years);

It is important to note that its effectiveness reduces for larger events when the dam storage capacity is exceeded and the spillway operates. In an event expected to occur on average once every 20 years, the dam has a negligible impact on the peak flows in the Makara Stream. Therefore in the April 2011 storm event, the dam would have had negligible impact on flood levels that were experienced in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam including within Elsthorpe.

Some minor stopbanking improvements set out in 8.2.1 above could reduce the frequency of flooding to some of the productive farmland downstream of the dam. This work has an estimated cost of $65,000. It is not included in the preferred option as it is not considered critical for the effective operation of the scheme.

The dam is also losing its effectiveness as a result of ongoing buildup of silt in its ponding area and has high annual costs because of depreciation and future desilting requirements to maintain the current level of service. The cost of desilting just to maintain the current level of service provided by the dam is estimated to be in the order of $25,000 - $30,000 annually. A figure of $25,000 has been used in financial models to assess the impact on rates.

Two options are presented for community comment.

Option 1a) - Includes the reinstatement of the dam, but does not include any provision to meet the cost of a desilting programme.

Option 1b) – Includes reinstatement of the dam and a provision of $25,000 annually for a desilting programme commencing in the 2014/15 year. This is the preferred option.

10.2. Option 2 – Decommission the dam and improve stopbanks to provide 5 year flood protection.

This option with an estimated project cost of approximately $1,000,000 will provide substantially the same level of flood protection as that provided by the Scheme when it was designed in 1975.

The option will require approximately 1.07 hectares of additional land being required for the stopbank footprint. Because of the nature of the channel the land affected by the stopbank upgrade is located on farms that derive the most benefit from the Scheme no provision has been made in the cost estimate for land purchase.

A provision is included in the estimates for all stopbank improvement options to raise the level of 4 farm bridges. The estimate included is based on experience on raising of farm bridges on other Schemes. However in some instances, other improvement works unrelated to the raising may be required, in which case there would be negotiation with the individual farmer to agree on a cost sharing arrangement.

Landowners with properties downstream of the dam advise that the dam does provide benefit by reducing peak flows in the stream channel and provides them with more time to move stock. This is of particular benefit in high intensity rainfall events.

If the dam is decommissioned and stopbanks are constructed to provide a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in channel maintenance required downstream of the dam to protect areas where channel erosion threatens to undermine the stopbanks. Provision for this additional work has been included in financial models used to assess the impact on Scheme targeted rates.

10.3. Option 4 – Decommission dam and improve stopbanks to provide 10 year flood protection.

This option with an estimated Scheme cost of $1,200,000 will provide an increased level of service to that provided by the dam plus an additional margin to cover modeling and flow uncertainties.

The option will require approximately 1.9 hectare of additional land being required for the stopbank footprint.

Farm bridge raising would also occur as in Option 1.

10.4. Preferred Option

The preferred option put forward for community comment is the reinstatement of the dam and an ongoing $25,000 per year programme of desilting.

Whatever option is chosen there will be an ongoing need to maintain the Scheme, including from time to time, major items of repair or maintenance – particularly following significant flood events.

Pros

Cons

Dam option

· Significant reduction in flood peaks up to a 5 year return period event, but reducing in effectiveness for larger floods.

· Delay in flood peak downstream of dam (other than small events).

· Impact known to the community.

· Reduced peak in flows in Makara Stream downstream of dam for most events, arguably resulting in reduction in erosion of Makara Stream banks.

· High cost infrastructure resulting in high depreciation charges and significant commitment to monitoring and maintenance.

· Significant cost associated with management of silt in ponding area.

· Limited level of flood protection (nominally a 5 year event).

Pros

Cons

Stopbank option

· Potentially lower capital cost than dam reconstruction, with range of options available.

· Potential for higher level of protection than provided by dam.

· Flood peaks will be higher for short duration high intensity rainfall events.

· More rapid rise in stream water levels will occur in events that would have been moderated by the dam.

· Slightly higher levels of flooding for properties downstream of Elsthorpe village.

· Potential for more siltation on floodable properties as a result of no ponding, and therefore silt deposition in dam.

· Increased potential for erosion of stream banks downstream of dam and therefore increased maintenance requirements and associated costs.

Stopbanking options will result in reduced depreciation costs as a result of the decommissioning of the dam. However reduced depreciation charges will be offset by increased maintenance costs because of the increased potential for erosion of stream banks downstream of the dam.

Community feedback to Council over the past several months is that there is a strong desire to have the dam rebuilt. While this may not be the cheapest option, the community believes that it will provide a level of protection that would not be possible to provide with the stopbank options proposed.

HBRC advise that there are advantages and disadvantages for each of the options, and present a number of pros and cons for each of the options in the table above.

11. Impact on rates

The attached table Appendix 2 shows how each of the options presented above would be funded and the impact the total amount of Scheme targeted rates collected from the community.

The current allocation of rates is determined through the Scheme classification which is described in Section 6.2 of this report.

A review of the areas classified under the various classification categories has been made possible as a result of the LiDAR survey work undertaken as part of this project. This review has also highlighted a number of anomalies in Council’s rating database which will be corrected. In some cases this means properties which are within the Scheme but are not currently rated, will in the future have Scheme rates added to their rating assessments.

The outcome review is set out in the report “Makara Scheme – Report on the development of the new rating system, attached as Appendix 3.

Letters will be sent to each property contributing to the Scheme to advise of the impact of their rates of the various options and their estimated costs set out in this Statement of Proposal.

11.1. Rating System

Description of Rating Classes

Class A

Areas of very severe and frequent flooding and siltation situated on the Makara Stream Flats which receive 5 year flood protection.

Class B

Areas of the Makara Stream flats where although the flooding is less frequent than in Class A, the soil is slightly more fertile and due to size and accessibility has greater potential for very intensive cropping with some emphasis on higher risk crops.

Class C (Makara)

Areas of the Makara Stream flats where only medium frequency flooding and siltation occurs and where utilisation is more limited than in Class B due to accessibility and the width of the flats. The area in this class has a 5-year return period level of protection.

Class C (Wharemate)

Areas of very severe and frequent flooding and ponding with resultant poor drainage. Situated in the Wharemate area, this area will have greater than 5 year protection due to the dams being built for 20 year return period protection.

Class D (Makara)

Areas of low frequency flooding and siltation in the lower Makara and Silver Range Stream areas where protection from 5-year return period floods from the upstream dams will provide 20 year return period protection with the large channel that exists making the land suitable for high risk cropping.

Class D (Silver Range)

is being provided at only a 1-2 year protection

Areas of high frequency flooding and siltation on the Silver Range Stream flats where the stopbank protection is being provided at only a 1-2 year protection standard. This area, due to the narrow stream bed and the level of protection will still be subject to risk and will be suitable only for grazing.

Class E

Areas with moderate to very sever soil erosion in the northern section of moderate to very steep hill country requiring intensive conservation measures to prevent loss and damage to land and improvements and to stabilise stream beds.

Class F

Areas of land but not in other classes receiving indirect benefit from the Scheme works and contains the balance of the catchment not included in classes A to E.

Class G

Areas of land receiving no benefit from the Scheme neither direct nor indirect and generally is the balance of properties whose boundaries extend beyond the catchment. This area also includes the area directly affected by the detention dams.

HBRIC Ltd Reporting Template

Attachment 1

RWS Scheme Execution

General

In early January the HBRIC Ltd Board confirmed the appointment of Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) of Australia as the Technical Adviser to the company on the design and construction aspects of the project.

Critical Deadlines

· Consent application lodgement to Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) completeness check – 15 March 2013

· Design and Construction shortlist decision – 27 March 2013

· Water uptake contract team in place by end of February 2013

· Final Design and Construction provider subject to fixed price/fixed time by 2 September 2013

· Final water contract terms and conditions determined concurrent with the Design and Construction decision in September

Design and Construction

· Appointment of Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) as Technical Advisor for HBRIC Ltd and any future subsidiary or SPV.

· Expression of Interest document for Design and Construction confirmed on 18 February.

Risks

Risk	Rating	Mitigation
Construction price driving above 22-25c per m3	Medium-high	D& C process – minimising interface risk – cost and price Optimisation – costs and revenue
Extra site and geotech issues identify fatal flaw	Medium – trending lower	GNS final seismic work underway $4M provision in capex build budget for foundation assessment
Landowner objections	Medium, if not proactively managed	Sales and purchase options agreements work strand

Investors

· Investor discussions are making good progress with an iwi consortium, the Crown and a number of private sector parties. The Government’s recent announcement and recent Cabinet decisions augur well for negotiating a suitable level and terms of Crown investment via the Crown agency currently being formed. Private sector interest continues to be high.

Risks

Risk	Rating	Mitigation
Failure to secure adequate public investment	Medium – low	Leveraged deal HBRIC/Crown Meeting the Crown’s investment criteria
Failure to secure adequate private investment	Low-medium Risk increases with less uptake	Iwi and farmer equity and intergenerational equity Financial model and uptake
Control - reflected in tension of environmental parameters, water price	Low

Uptake

· Meetings with approximately 150 farm advisors and famers were held on the 18^th and 19^th December 2012 to begin the dialogue on uptake following the 31 October decision by HBRC to proceed.

· A series of meeting with farmers is programmed over the coming weeks to market test the proposed water pricing

· An Arable Field Day was held on 15 February to provide landowners with a further opportunity to learn about the Scheme. Over 70 people attended.

Risks

Risk	Rating	Mitigation
Rate of uptake varies from base case	Medium	Education Incentives Sales team
Price escalation	Low	Price tagged to CPI or similar indice adjustment in deed
Water user agreement – take or pay – volumetric charge versus capex charge disincentivises uptake	Medium	Contractual form needs careful pitch towards the end of a sale process Intergenerational equity and option to invest
Distribution and commissioning	Medium	Optimisation with D&C process User groups

Consents

· Draft resource consent conditions are in a penultimate form and have included input by various collaborative parties including DoC, Iwi, Pan Sector Group and the RWS Stakeholder sub-group.

· Note that within the RWS Stakeholder Group 2 work strands are underway – draft consent conditions for the infrastructure impact mitigation and offsets, and an on-farm work stream

· Pre-application work is underway with the EPA. The EPA has appointed its technical experts who will provide the future Board of Inquiry with independent technical advice. They include:

Mark St Clair Hill Young Cooper EPA Technical Adviser

Graeme Profitt PDP EPA Technical Adviser

Kyle Christiansen PDP EPA Technical Adviser

Nerena Rhodes PDP EPA Technical Adviser

Shirley Hayward PDP EPA Technical Adviser

· The Tukituki Plan Change is being tabled with HBRC for adoption on 27 February with a full s.32 analysis.

Risks

Risk	Mitigation
Not obtaining required resource consents	Draft consent conditions and strategic partner support – Iwi, DoC, Pan sector
Nutrient management regime and limits made more stringent through BoI/EPA	Leading science on: Nitrate toxicity and Tukituki in-stream management model Provision of periphyton freshes – flow optimisation
Dam design envelop constrained removing innovation and optimisation
Consent granted is less than 35 years, or other constraints imposed e.g. smaller dam

Communications

In this period:

Key Messages Newsletter	CHB Mail, Napier/Hastings Mail/Wairoa Star	Dec 2012
RWS progress to date	Opinion piece HB Today	Dec 2012
Media Release	Staff secondment to HBRIC Ltd	Dec 2012
Radio Live Farming Programme	Economics, Richard Lowe, Andy McFarlane	Dec 2012
Media Release	Draft Tukituki Plan Change	Dec 2012
HB Today Wednesday Write-in	Stock Exclusion Rules in Draft Plan Change	January 2013
Radio NZ Manu Korehe News	Roger Maaka/Mike Mohi – Māori and social impact	January 2013
Arable Field Day	Tikokino – 70 farmers in attendance	15 February 2013

Financials

Table 1 sets out the January 2013 Financial Report for HBRIC Ltd.

The report sets out the actual costs incurred for both the month and the year to date against the full budget to 20 Jun 2013.

Also provided for completeness is the full project budget for the next phase of the RWS Scheme to financial close (February 2014).

A summary of the key elements outlined in the report for the month of January is as follows:

Operating Income and Expenditure

· There was very minimal operating expenditure in the month of January with the only invoices received relating to Board Fees, Management Services provided by HBRC, and the costs associated with the Board Meeting and Planning Days.

Capital Expenditure

· The $36,097 of HBRC internal staff time and $77,877 of costs for Project Team Consultants covers a number of work streams including:

- A variety of optimisation and further refinement works in both the engineering and environmental work programme areas as identified in the final feasibility report. These include, among other work programmes, additional phosphorous modelling and flow optimisation modelling

- Significant EPA preparation work

- Ongoing project management

· The $30,557 of T&T costs relates to specific optimisation work identified as:

- Zone M intake and outlet designs

- Additional sedimentation works

· The $38,655 of Other Consultants costs covers off a number of small pieces of work undertaken by consultants, including flow optimisation and Ruataniwha aquatic ecology uptakes provided by Cawthron Institute

· $20,570 of costs incurred by Bell Gully for December 2012 and January 2013.

· The total year to date capital expenditure costs of $855,.021 have been funded by way of advances from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd. Once the funding agreement has been signed by MPI a claim will be submitted to recover 50% of all costs incurred to 31 January 2013.

Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarter 2 2012-13 Report

Attachment 1

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd – 2^nd Quarter Report October - December 2012

Prepared by Annie Dundas, GM Hawke’s Bay Tourism

Overall

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited has now been operating for 18 months. Membership numbers have reached 204 which we are exceptionally pleased with. Major initiatives completed this quarter include the staging of F.A.W.C! – Food and Wine Classic Hawke’s Bay, continued advertising and campaign work aimed at the family market and summer travel, the development of a new map-lead visitor guide for the region, and promotional plans around the Hawke’s Bay Trails. Please see the details within the KPI report.

Visitor Statistics

Overall results for Hawke’s Bay year end December 2012 combining Commercial Accommodation and Private Household figures show a negative result with 15,584 (-0.4%) fewer guest nights compared to the previous year. The tourism industry is still coming through the economic down-turn and compounded with strong arrivals around Rugby World Cup 2011, a negative result was expected year end 2012.

On the positive side the Commercial Accommodation Monitor for the month of December 2012 shows Hawke’s Bay guest nights up +3.1% compared to the same period in December 2011. In December this equated to 3,116 more visitor nights in the region. Hawke’s Bay compared to other regions performed strongly in December, with many competing regions in decline. (see attached numbers). Hawke’s Bay performed strongest in domestic tourism numbers with an increase of 6.0%. International visitor nights were down 1,059 nights in December compared with the previous December.

The Private Household Monitor estimated 92,014 visitors to the Hawke's Bay Region stayed 415,455 nights in private accommodation during December 2012. The number of actual visitors declined (-6,726) but those who did stay, stayed more nights (+5,420). Note this excludes those who stayed in holiday homes and baches, but includes children aged 15 or under. The major reasons for visiting Hawke's Bay were visiting friends and family (90% of total nights stayed), and general holiday or leisure (8%) of total nights stayed. Visitors to the region stayed an average of 4.5 nights in private accommodation.

International visitor arrivals into New Zealand are again being propped up by increased arrivals from China (+12.3% for December and +35.4% year end December). Australia while still the most dominant visitor market to New Zealand recorded a decline in December (-1.3%). The UK market continues to be of major concern with year end results showing 40,000 less British travelers visiting New Zealand in 2012.

Hawke’s Bay Tourism, 19 Waghorne Street, Ahuriri, Napier. PO Box 12009, Ahuriri, Napier 4144, New Zealand

WEB: www.hawkesbaynz.com TWITTER: www.twitter.com/visitorHB

FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/hawkesbaynz

logo

International Visitors to NZ	December 2012			Year end December 2012
Total	363,959	-0.1%		2,564,618	-1.4% (-36,826)
Australia	159,376	-1.3%		1,155,792	-0.1% (-634)
UK	32,800	- 5.0%		189,648	-17.7% (-40,688)
USA	24,496	-0.7%		177,680	-3.8% (-7,034)
China	20,688	+12.3%		197,024	+35.4% (+51,500)
Commercial Accommodation	December 2012			Year end December2012
Hawke’s Bay
Total visitors	44,434	-6.5% (-3,127)		443,246		-8.2% (-39,714)
Total guest nights	104,421	+3.1%		930,817		- 6.4%
International guest nights	31,105	-3.3%		236,358		-13.5%
Domestic guest nights	73,316	+6.0%		694,459		-3.8%
Average length of stay	2.35 nights	Up (2.13 nights)		2.10 nights		Up (2.06 nights)
Overall occupancy rate	37.3%	Down (37.6%)		31.1%		32.9%
Occupancy excl Holiday Parks	48.7%			44.2%
Hotels	12,616	-23.4%		144,549		-4.9%
Motels/Apartments	46,785	+7.3%		472,753		-1.7%
Backpackers	15,017	+2.2%		117,965		-9.4%
Holiday Parks	30,003	+13.8%		195,550		-15.6%
Other Regions Total Guest Nights	Dec 2012			Year end December 2012
Coromandel	98,269	-6.5%		686,150		-5.2%
Bay of Plenty	108,866	-6.5%		988,591		-14.4%
Rotorua	168,235	-1.1%		1,739,629		+1.7%
Taupo	94,341	-0.9%		961,743		-0.9%
Gisborne	38,551	-6.8%		324,495		-3.1%
Hawke’s Bay	104,421	+3.1%		930,817		-6.4%
Wellington	209,162	+13.5%		2,283,399		-6.2%
Nelson	150,707	-0.8%		1,198,673		-5.6%
Wanaka	86,673	+1.3%		651,789		-5.2%
Queenstown	264,049	+9.6%		2,527,221		+5.1%
Dunedin	69,570	-9.3%		812,030		-6.9%
Private Household Monitor	December 2012			Year end December 2012
Total Visitors	92,014 (-6,726)		-7.3%	618,646 (+12,031)			+1.9%
Total Visitor nights	415,455 (5,420)		+1.3%	2,550,439 (+49,497)			+1.9%

logo

Key Performance Indicators for Hawke’s Bay Tourism

The organisation has been working towards the goals and objectives set out in the Strategic Plan signed off by HBRC in May 2011.

In the second quarter of our second year of operation the following KPI’s have been met;

1. Hawke’s Bay Tourism - the Regional Tourism Organisation is well established and working closely with industry within Hawke’s Bay and the wider tourism community across New Zealand. The organisation continues to gain traction with sector groups within Hawke’s Bay.

2. Brand - Establishment of a “Hawke’s Bay” brand and communication tagline. The brand “Hawke’s Bay” and tagline “Get me to Hawke’s Bay” continue to be used in all communication. Extensions to the campaign include a focus on the family and boomer age markets.

3. Consumer Marketing - The focus over the key summer months has been on the family market. A series of online banner ads targeting the family market have run on key sites for November and December. Themes have been around experiences in the region for families ie Splash Planet, SkateZone, Par 2, the gannets, penguins and family style accommodation.

Australian activity - the TNZ/Wellington regional partnership campaign kicked off November 2^nd with outdoor advertising for 4 weeks in Sydney and Melbourne, print advertising in both cities for 2 weeks alongside Air New Zealand, online performance media ran for four weeks across News, Fairfax and Telstra with Flight Centre as fulfillment partner and packages covering the Classic NZ Wine Trail. PR and media were also undertaken during this period. Editorial featured in the Sydney Morning Herald. Creative messaging - “You haven’t discovered the true magic of a Hawke’s Bay Syrah until you’ve discovered Hawke’s Bay” and “Hawke’s Bay – where food and wine are made for each other”. www.newzealand.com was the call to action.

Public relations

Hawke’s Bay Tourism hosted 17 media outlets this last quarter,

· NZ Herald-Bite

· NZ Herald-Weekend

· Herald on Sunday-Living

· Dom Post-Life

· Cuisine Magazine

· Canadian Living

· Madisons Magazine-Australia

· Huffington Post-UK

· The Daily Meal-USA

· Rhein Presse-Germany

· Jasons Travel Media

· Escape Magazine-Australia

· Jane Skilton MW –Wine contributor

· Emma Jenkins MW-Wine contributor

· NZ Wine Magazine

· Cameron Douglas Master Sommelier-Wine Contributor

· Food Writers Guide/kai.co.nz

logo

Local Media

· Hawke’s Bay Today

· The Dom Post

· Newstalk ZB

· MORE FM

Media Results

· Launceston Examiner - Australia 84,000 readers

· Courier Mail-Australia – 192,000 per day readers

· Sun Herald-Australia - 1.1 million readers

· Canadianliving.com - 750 000 per month

· COTE Magazine - France

· Golf Digest-China - 350 000 per month

· Wanderlust-UK - 100 000 PER MONTH

· Conde Nast Brides UK - 11 000 per month

· Mercedes Benz Magazine-Germany - 80 000 subscribers

· Suddeutsche Zeitung-Germany - 445,637 per month

Digital Strategy

For the 12 months to year end December hawkesbaynz.com has delivered the following:

www.hawkesbaynz.com over 12 months	Dec 31 2010 – Dec 31, 2011	Dec 31 2011 – Dec 31, 2012	+/-
Visits to site	190,224	224,436	+18%
Unique Users	53,535	158,220	+195%
Page views	932,733	899,475	-3.5%
Average pages per visit	4.90	4.01	-
Average time on site	3.42	3.18	-

The new website is performing exceptionally well and unique visits have increased over 195% year on year. Search activity in the first quarter is generating solid traffic to the website per month. Search is fundamental and provides a strong base of traffic to the Hawke’s Bay website.

Research – the quarterly visitor performance monitor has been established to accurately report on all aspects of tourism for Hawke’s Bay, this is communicated to industry quarterly. A research dashboard is also being developed as a monthly tourism snapshot for all stakeholders.

logo

4. Trade Marketing

Cruise

Cruise activity is tracking well, with passenger feedback highly favourable of the region. Napier is performing strongly as a preferred arrival port according to passenger feedback. New products for cruise passengers include The Hawke’s Bay Express and shopping tours to Havelock North. It is estimated 96,010 passengers will visit Hawke’s Bay which is an increase of 2.9% on the previous year.

Product & Industry development 

The quarterly regional Industry Update and Networking function was held on December 13 with around 80 people in attendance. This included a “speed-dating segment”, which proved very popular and was a great way for operators to meet and/or update each other on what’s happening in their business coming into the busy summer season.

5. Events

F.A.W.C! - Final numbers

· 58 events in 10 Days (12 events were cancelled so started with 70)

· 35 featured chefs & winemakers

· 2,770 ticket holders attended events (excludes free events i.e. Wheely Glassy and Kai in the Bay)

· 19,321 F.A.W.C! website visits

· 74,445 page views

· 600 posters and 9000 DLE’s distributed

· 2000 fridge magnets at Food-shows/ Hot Red/City Market in Wellington

· 2000 DLE’s on Air New Zealand

· 2000 Book of F.A.W.C! programmes

· 600 free Hawke’s Bay apples given away

Based on a survey of visitors who came to FAWC!, indications are that -

· 38% of FAWC!ers went to 1 event, 32% went to 2 events and 19% went to 3 events.

As to economic value – HBT estimates that approximately 1,385 people attended FAWC! and between 30-40% were from out of town so that equates to approximately 484 visitors (if you take 35% as the average). Tourists generally spend about $120 a day – our 484 visitors spent $58,080 per day. In 10 days, that’s over half a million dollars that was spent in and around the region. Further analysis will be done by an independent authority.

HBT has been involved in the bids to host FIFA in 2015 as well as The World Cricket Cup in 2015.

A new cycling event, highlighting the Hawke’s Bay Trails is planned for Easter 2013. The objective is to raise the profile of the Hawke’s Bay Trails as easy, accessible and more about the stops enroute. We intend for this to be an annual event and will be jointly funded by both Napier and Hastings Councils.

Hawke’s Bay Tourism – Financial Statement

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd is tracking favourably in the second quarter of the financial year.

logo

Appendix A

Summary of Visitor Arrivals Year end December 2009-12

(Commercial Accommodation Monitor and Private Household Visitor Nights)

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Seven Months of the 2012/13 Financial Year

Reason for Report

1. This Annual Plan Progress Report is an abridged report and covers the first seven months of the 2012/13 financial year. The report consists of commentary on financial results to 31 January 2013 and various financial reports.

Summary of Financial Position to 31 January 2013

2. The actual result covering the Council’s general funded operations for the first seven months of 2012/13 is a deficit of $274,838. This compares with the Annual Plan budget deficit of $704,490 for the full year.

Pending Reforecasting Exercise

3. It is proposed that the reforecasting exercise will be completed for the nine months ending 31 March 2013 and will be presented to Council at the meeting on 24 April 2013.

4. This reforecasting exercise will cover the shortfall in yield on advances to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) for the Ruataniwha Water Scheme (RWS) project, and the impact of the delay in the sale of the residual cash flows in the Napier leasehold portfolio. Furthermore, the favourable effect on the operating account which arises through additional staff time being charged to the RWS capital project will also be outlined.

Comment on Financial Results for Seven Months to 31 January 2013

Groups of Activities

5. This report establishes that the net expenditure on groups of activities for the first seven months is 56% of the budgeted net funding requirement, as against an equal monthly pro-rata comparative of 58%. The comparative figure for the seven months to 31 January 2012 was 54%.

6. Strategic Planning shows a net expenditure of 63% of budget which is slightly ahead of the expected pro-rata percentage. This is due to the increased costs for the Tukituki Plan Change.

7. Land Drainage & River Control shows a net expenditure of 51% of budget which is slightly behind the expected pro-rata percentage. A number of projects are still to be completed over the summer and autumn months which will see the net expenditure increase.

8. Regional Resources shows a net expenditure of 54% of budget which is running slightly behind the expected pro-rata percentage. This is mainly due to the timing of projects with increased costs expected as the projects progress especially in regards to consultancy and lab testing. Science project leaders advise that a large portion of time has been spent on the Tukituki choices project during the first quarter of the financial year but it is anticipated that the other science projects included in the budget will accelerate during the reminder of the year and should be completed by year end.

9. Regulation shows a net expenditure of 78% of budget. Expenditure on regulation is close to budget at 55%, however billing for the compliance project is below budget as the majority are billed at the end of the year.

10. Biosecurity shows a net expenditure of 56% which is very close to the pro-rata percentage. Due to the timing of Biosecurity projects costs should increase in the summer and autumn months and then drop off again before year end.

11. Emergency Management shows a net expenditure of 19% of budget. Expenditure is only 43% as against a pro-rata of 58%. There are some large exercises still to be run such as fault line mapping, tsunami inundation mapping and CDEM group exercises. These projects will progress substantially later in the year.

12. Transport shows a net expenditure of 28% of budget as against a pro-rata of 58%. This is due to lower than budgeted expenditure on the Regional Land Transport project which has a high component of general funding. The decrease in expenditure relates to reduced consultancy spent on the one network plan and stock effluent investigations. It is envisaged that these consultancies will not be required during the 2012/13 year, but may be required to be carried forward into the 2013/14 year if these studies are required by New Zealand Transport Authority.

13. Governance & Community Representation shows a net expenditure of 48% of budget. This is down on the pro-rata budget due to the Interest Group Liaison project receiving a grant of $72k to cover the expenses and honoraria of Maori representation on the Regional Planning Committee. It would appear that between $40k - $45k of this grant will not be spent during 2012/13 but will be carried forward into the 2013/14 year.

Operations Group

14. Operations Group reports a profit of $191,875 for the seven months to 31 January 2013. $122,000 of the surplus relates to Council activities that will be credited to the river control and flood protection schemes at the end of the financial year.

15. If these activities were excluded, the Operations Group result would be $70,097 which is 67% of the budgeted surplus.

Regional Income

16. Total regional income receipts represent 56% of forecast for the first seven months of the financial year, as against a pro-rata of 58%. The main issues in regional income are:

Investment Company

16.1. The returns budgeted to be received from investments in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro water investments will not be achieved for the 2012/13 year. The LTP budgeted for a minimum return of 6% on the advances to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) for investment in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro projects. At its meeting on 31 October 2012 HBRC resolved that no interest would be paid on the advances required for phases 1 & 2 of the RWS project.

Other Investments

16.2. Napier leasehold land rental revenue has been budgeted at $935,000 for the six months ending 31 December 2012. It was assumed in the LTP that HBRC would have sold the Napier leasehold cash flows by 1 January 2013. As negotiations are still underway for the sale of these cash flows the rental income from leasehold property will continue beyond the first six months of the 2013/14 financial year. Accordingly, it can be seen that the leasehold revenues on the operating statement are above the LTP budget.

16.3. Interest on investment term deposits is tracking at 33% instead of a pro-rata of 58%. The main reason for this is the LTP interest budget assumed that cash available for investment would increase by between $45m-$50m from 31 December 2012 as a result of the sell down on Napier leasehold land cash flows. Because the sell down has not taken place at this stage of the financial year, the balances available for investment are less than set out in the LTP.

Other Activities

16.4. The Disaster reserve interest and dividends shows a large negative for the seven months. This is due to the increasing cost of commercial insurance cover for disaster damage being paid within the first three months of the financial year but being funded from dividend and interest from the Regional Disaster Damage reserve over the 12 months period.

General Funding for Capital Projects

17. The general funding requirement for capital projects is $157,447 or 48% of budget due to Targeted rates exceeding expenditure.

Healthy Homes – Summary Activity Report

18. The increased demand for insulation loans has been driven by supplier marketing.

19. Loan to grant ratios were originally estimated at 50/50, with access to rants now being open to the public the ratio is now 65/35 and will influence re-forecasting in April.

20. Planned cash flow for the project currently does not reflect the higher level of grants compared to loans and will be revised.

21. February to April historically have lower demands which may moderate the higher planned activity to date.

Volumes

Loan Type	7 Months to 31 January 2013
Loan Type	LTP Budget Volumes	Pro Rata Target Volumes	Actual Volumes	Actual Over Budget Target (58%)
Insulation Loans	600	350	528	88%
Clean Heat Loans	450	263	254	56%
Clean Heat Grants	300	175	494	165%
Totals	1,350	788	1,276	95%

Expenditure (excluding GST)

Loan Type	7 Months to 31 January 2013
Loan Type	LTP Budget $000	Pro Rata Target $000	Actual $000	Actual Over Budget Target (58%)
Insulation Loans	1,140	665	916	80%
Clean Heat Loans	1,255	732	660	53%
Clean Heat Grants	183	107	312	171%
Totals	2,578	1,504	1,888	73%

Non-recoverable Costs of Consent Appeals and Direct Referrals to the Environment Court

22. For the year to date costs for appeals and referrals to the Environment Court have amounted to $65,003. This includes staff time and external costs.

23. Three appeals have been finalised. The AFFCO consent order has been signed off by the Environment Court. The Twyford appeals have been withdrawn. The NCC waste water discharge has been settled.

24. Drafting of evidence has proceeded on the Mexted et al appeals. There was some possibility of a revised proposal being submitted which may have helped resolve the appeals. However these have not been advanced to date. A separate appeal was lodged with the High Court over the extent of the evidence provided by the appellants (going beyond the scope of their submissions and grounds for appeal). This was decided in favour of the appellants.

25. The appeal against the Napier City Council waste water outfall is now settled. The Environment Court sat on 6^th December to reconsider the validity of the appeal (as directed by the High Court). The entire matter was settled on the day. The case was settled by amending the conditions relating to timing of flushing the BTF system. NCC and HBRC agreed to meet Mr Church’s costs in order to achieve this settlement. ($1,772.61 + GST each).

26. The following table summarises costs for appeals that were still ongoing at the start of this financial year. Costs for the 2012/13 year to date are shown in the shaded column. Costs for previous years are also shown and these are summed to provide a running total for each appeal.

Appeal Summary as at end of January 2013
Appeal Name	Date of Council Approval to Defend Appeal	Estimated Cost of the Appeal as Advised to Council	Actual Costs of Appeal (Appropriate Years)				Comments
Appeal Name	Date of Council Approval to Defend Appeal	Estimated Cost of the Appeal as Advised to Council	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13 to date	Total to date	Comments
Twyford / Raupare (402109)	Wed 25 May 2011	Noted $150,000.00 on similar appeal	$416 ext $22,506	$25,050 ext* $49,450	$3,182 ext $5,201	$77,157	Appeal withdrawn. Council working with Twyford groups to explore water management options. A consent was granted (7/2/13) enabling augmentation of Raupare stream trial this year.
AFFCO (402046)	Wed 23 Sept 2009	Not estimated	$64,095 $81,321	$39,783 ext $46,307	$4143 ext $4,820	$132,448	Appeal has now been settled.
Mexted, Williams and Malherbe (402051)	Thurs 10 June 2010	Not estimated	$6,431 ext $8,366	$38,513 ext $49,956	$22,389 ext $24,256	$82,578	Appeal ongoing - Environment Court scheduled & deferred. High Court appeal lodged & heard, with finding against Mexted et al. Revised approach possible but no plans provided to date.
NCC BTF Waste water outfall (402113)				$24,320 ext $28,043	$25,345 ext $30,726	$58,769	High Court referred matter back to Environment Court to reconsider whether lodgement was within time. Mr Church agreed to a settlement.
*External costs			$70,942	$127,666	$55,059	$253,667	Sum to date for external legal and consulting advice
Total costs			$112,193	$173,756	$65,003	$350,952	Total incl internal staff time & external costs for the life of these appeals.

Balance Sheet

27. Public Equity, which reflects the net value of all the Council’s assets and liabilities, has decreased by 669,000 or 0.1% since the beginning of the year. The loss on sale of leasehold land of $2.1m has been offset by $2.9m received from Napier Port for the interim dividend.

28. Non-current property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and infrastructure assets have increased by $6,863,000 or 4.2% since the beginning of the year reflecting the purchase of fixed assets and construction of infrastructure assets in the period offset by depreciation and amortisation charges. Substantial payments for infrastructure were made to capital projects for Healthy Homes ($1.6m), Cycleways ($0.4m) and Ruataniwha Water Scheme ($1.4m).

29. Investment property has decreased by $13,506,000 or 20% since the beginning of the year reflecting the disposal of endowment leasehold land properties.

30. Accounts receivables have increased from the beginning of the year by $5,096,000 but are down on this time last year. The main component of this is rates receivable which is $2.6m down on last year.

31. Borrowings have decreased by $987,600 due to scheduled repayment of loans. No loan draw downs have occurred this year.

32. Trade and Other Payables have decreased since the beginning of the year by $2,283,000 as year end invoices have been paid and accruals have been reversed.

33. Income in advance shows significant movement of $5,876,000 due to the accrual of rate revenue in advance prior to the issue of rates invoices for the year in October.

34. Total cash, cash equivalents and financial assets (summarised on the Financial Summary page) show an increase of $3,884,000 since the beginning of the year. This is due to strengthening operational cash flows from receipt in January 2013 of the Napier Port half year dividend and strengthening rates receipts as the due date for rates was 31 January 2013.

Cash Reserve Investments

35. The average rate of interest being earned on liquid investments is currently 4.19%. This rate is slightly higher than the rate assumed in the 2012/13 year of the LTP 4.15% for both short and long-term bank investments.

36. The pie chart in the attachment entitled “Allocation by Institution” shows the percentage of Council investments placed with various institutions. Council policy requires that no more than 25% of investments be placed with any non government–guaranteed institution of groups of associated institutions.

Decision Making Process

37. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Seven Months of the 2012/13 Financial Year.

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1 View

Financials for the Seven Months Ending 31 January 2013

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Work Plan Looking Forward through March 2013

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management	Biosecurity	Review of Regional Pest Management Strategies in accordance with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2012 has begun. Initial work includes working with stakeholders to develop a collaborative approach to the review. A discussion document is planned to seek the views of the wider public early in the 2014 calendar year.
	Land Management	Implementation plan for the Tukituki Plan Change has been developed. Land Management team has been restructured to enable effective delivery of the Plan Change, and engagement with the farmer community and industry has commenced. Operational plan for 2013/14 will be presented to Council by June setting out a proposal for the RLS scheme to support the initiative.
	Infrastructure disaster insurance	On 20 February Council agreed to rescind its notice to withdraw from LAPP, and to review its self insurance arrangements to provide the most cost effective cover for all HBRC infrastructure assets. This review will be undertaken over the next several months.
	Tutira Properties	Negotiations continuing with LINZ, Office of Treaty Settlements and Maungaharuru Tangitu Inc however the potential to transfer ownership of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve land and commercial tree crop is now unlikely to proceed. Once the wording of a draft Treaty settlement Bill is known staff will work with the necessary groups to agree details of an ongoing relationship.
	Regional Forestry project	Council has decided to postpone the implementation of this project. Staff will review carbon price forecasts and if considered favourable will seek further direction from Council. An update will be provided to the C & S Committee 6 March.
	Regional open spaces review	December 2012, the E&S Committee endorsed a framework for the management of the region’s parks. This is progressing to the next stage.
	Upper Makara Scheme	Consultation on a Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal will occur during March with a hearing early April 2013.
	Ohuia Scheme	Council has approved construction of a replacement pump station for the Ohuia Scheme, subject to general agreement from all Scheme ratepayers. Work is progressing towards completing the reconstruction prior to Winter 2013.
Asset Management	Collaboration with Department of Conservation, Greater Wellington & Horizons	A person has been appointed to indentify and facilitate opportunities for collaboration between the participating organisations. He commenced work in January and is now familiarising himself with potential opportunities.
	159 Dalton Street	Remedial work is expected to commence in late March. Legal proceedings ongoing.
Resource Management	Appeals / Declarations	Mexted & Williams Environment Court hearing still pending. There has been discussion between parties with suggested changes being made to the proposed development. Full details have not been provided. High Court appeal has been heard and found in favour of the appellant E tu Mahanga, allowing evidence on coastal hazards to be heard.


		NCC Whakarire Avenue Coastal Protection Structure Awaiting an Environment Court determination on the activity status of the proposed Whakariri Avenue coastal protection before proceeding with the application.
	Large Consent processes/applications	Poukawa Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders re notification decision. Limited notification pending.
		Tukituki and Karamu surface water takes Common expiry date for these catchments of 31 May 2013. Advice of the need to apply for new consents has been sent out. S 124 applies if these are lodged before 1 December 2012. Ruataniwha storage SCHEME. HBRC Consents staff are providing completeness checks pre lodgement and upon lodging – as per agreement with EPA.
	Science Activities	Multi-team activities Staff met with scientists from NIWA and GNS Science to align CRI research with Council investigations for the “TANK” plan change. Planning for Heretaunga catchment (Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments) investigations. Support for Tukituki plan change and Ruataniwha water storage project. Groundwater Groundwater modelling for Ruataniwha water storage project and Tukituki plan change.
Resource Management		Surface Water Quantity Ongoing low flow monitoring continues to demand significant staff resources. Sites on the Tukituki River have been upgraded (new instrumentation). This infrastructure will help provide the information required once the Tukituki Plan Change is implemented. Communications at Mount Misery, a critical site used to relay radio telemetry from Northern sites to the Napier base, has been upgraded. Dissolved Oxygen monitoring equipment deployed across the Heretaunga Plains continues to collect data to inform the TANK plan change process. National Qualification for Hydrology Technicians is nearly complete, with the first round of testing underway.
		Surface Water Quality and Ecology “Water quality limits” reporting to support Tukituki plan change and RWS project. Investigating monitoring requirements for Lake Tutira for theMPI/BNZ Hydrilla eradication programme, and a comprehensive lake model.
		Air & Climate Screening monitoring of PM₁₀ in Waipawa is continuing. An HBRC sponsored Envirolink application for a project on PM₁₀ offset modelling has been approved and is underway. Ongoing support (climate information) is being provided for plan changes and the RWS project as well as for drought assessment in the current dry conditions.
		Land Science Ongoing regional soil mapping (S Map). Currently mapping south eastern coastal strip. First stage of field work completed. Ongoing Taharua catchment investigation. Awaiting report on loss of ecosystem services investigation arising from April 2011 storm. May provide insight into the value of ‘Trees on Farms’. Characterisation of wetlands in the Heretaunga catchments has begun. Aerial investigation complete. Regional soil quality monitoring continuing as part of Land SOE requirement. Field work investigating approximately 20 sites to be completed. This year intensive pasture is the focus of attention. Ongoing characterisation of biodiversity in the Ngaruroro catchment.
Resource Management		Ongoing assistance with RWS, Tukituki and Taharua-Mohaka plan changes. Planning for upcoming work in the Heretaunga catchment (Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments). Providing assistance with Envirolink tool ($200,000) to link Smap with land models e.g. overseer. Discussions taking place regarding setting up catchment investigations around Tutira (P sources and land use) and Wairoa (sediment monitoring).
	Biodiversity Strategy	Landcare Research facilitated workshop to develop high level outcomes. Initial analysis completed to identify the key areas for alignment with other national or regional biodiversity related initiatives. Collated stakeholder GIS data to present an initial snapshot for first Steering Group meeting. Draft Core Working Group and Steering Group terms of reference discussion held at the first Steering Group meeting held in early February.
	Quality Management System (QMS)	Science section achieved ISO9001:2008 certification in December after completing the second stage audit in November with external auditors Telarc. Next external audit will be in June, focusing on resource management and document control. Workflow module within Promapp implemented in January and training on this and the new version 4 of Promapp will be provided for staff in early March. Ongoing internal audits, management team review meetings and process improvements to ensure we maintain ISO9001:2008 certification.
Strategic Development	Land and Water Management Strategy	Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22 LTP.
	RPS Change to incorporate elements of Land and Water Management Strategy (Change 5)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Change 5 publicly notified on 2 October. 29 submissions received and 9 further submissions subsequently received. Hearing Panel commissioners yet to be appointed, pending recommendations from Regional Planning Committee on Panel make-up.
	Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment	Agenda item to be presented at 27 February Council meeting
	Plan Change for freshwater management in Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchment	Ongoing. 3 collaborative stakeholder meetings (i.e. the TANK Group’) held in 2012. Further meetings to be held early 2013.
	RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters (RPS Change 4)	Schedule 1 RMA process. 45 submissions and 6 further submissions received. Panel recommendations to be considered by Council on 27 February 2013.
Strategic Development	Taharua Strategy and Mohaka plan change.	Immediate next steps involve further negotiations between major landowners about N mitigation options and responsibilities. For wider Mohaka catchment, stakeholder engagement has commenced, but supporting science is progressing slowly due to science teams other commitments (esp. Tukituki-related projects), delays likely.
	Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan plus Change 1 to RRMP	Council adopted RCEP on 31 October. Coastal marine area-related content has been referred to Minister of Conservation for her approval. Following that approval, a date will be nominated by Strategic Development Group Manager and RCEP, plus its Variations 1-3 will become operative (likely early 2013).
	Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)	Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.
	Resource Management Act amendments	RM Amendment Bill released late 2012 and submissions due 28 February. Draft submission considered by Environment and Services Committee on 20 February. Further RM Amendment Bill likely in 2013.
	Regional Land Transport Programme	Work has recommenced on the Regional Cycling Strategy. A meeting of the project team will be held in early 2013.
	Bus Services	The draft Transport Procurement Strategy, which enables the procurement of bus services, infrastructure and total mobility services, will be presented to Council for adoption in February 2013. Tender documents for the urban bus contract will be available in March 2013.
	Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce	From 1 July to 31 December 2012, MSI Regional Partner has brought in $2,211,504.64 grant funding into Hawke’s Bay working with 36 businesses.
	Strategic Farming Initiative	R&D projects continue to be scoped under Land Management function. The Pan Sector group meeting held on 23 January with a focus on updating the strategic action framework and participants agreeing to share more information about their R&D projects.
	Massey Strategic Relationship	The Massey Business Development Manager, John Bell, started on 4 February. His focus over the next 2 months will be to further develop the plan for his role.
Corporate Services	Local Government Commission to undertake Constituency Review.	Hearing scheduled 28 February 2013
	Draft Annual Plan 2013/14	For adoption at 20 March 2013 Regional Council meeting
	Proposal for sale of cash flows covering Napier leasehold land	24 April 2013
External Relations	Statutory advocacy and liaison	HB LASS has been established and the first assessments for potential shared services will be presented to the Board in March.
External Relations	Liaison with Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee	Staff and Treaty representatives are liaising with OTS on the draft legislation for the permanent establishment of the Committee.
	Community engagement / environmental education	Next edition of Our Place due for circulation in week beginning 2 April. Planning underway for Draft Annual Plan consultation in April-May.
Operations/ Water Group	Ruataniwha Water storage	Updates available through monthly reports from HBRIC Ltd to HBRC.
	· Ngaruroro Water Storage	The on-farm economic analysis section of work is now to be cpm[leted as a discrete section of work prior to the end of this financial year.
	Ÿ Hawke’s Bay Trails	The final sections of the Landscapes Ride and Taipo stopbank cycleway completed.
CE’s Office	Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”	LAWF has submitted its final report to Government covering water quality and water allocation and we await the Government’s response to this. The report reinforces the key role that regional councils play in freshwater management.
	HBRIC Ltd	Ongoing, detailed in separate monthly reports from HBRIC Ltd to HBRC
	Ruataniwha Water Storage	Ongoing
	Hill Country Afforestation Proposal	Will be brought back as a revised proposal focussing on the environmental benefits for consideration as part of the 2013-14 annual plan.
	Continue involvement with Ministry for Primary Industries Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS	Ongoing
	Advisory Committee on Official Statistics	Ongoing

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Work Plan Looking Forward – December 2012 and January 2013 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager

Water Initiatives

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] The Resource Management Amendment Bill 2012 proposes amendments to section 32 of the RMA. Until that Bill passes into legislation, it does not have any bearing on the Council’s current obligations to consider alternatives, benefits and costs of a proposed plan change.

[2] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.

		Scheme depreciation reserve	Scheme disaster reserve	HBRC regional disaster reserve	Total project capital cost	Portion to be funded from additional Scheme funding	Proposed loan	Current budgeted targeted rates (2013/14)	Required additional rates	total new rates

Option 1	Reinstatement of dam	$220,000	$41,200	$565,700	$1,204,034	$377,134	$360,000	$31,321	$44,000	$75,321
Option 1a	Reinstatement of dam plus desilting ($25,000/year)				$1,204,034	$376,886	$360,000	$31,321	$60,000	$91,321

Option 2	Stopbanking 5 year protection	$220,000	$41,200	$467,900	$1,041,034	$311,934	$310,000	$31,321	$45,000	$76,321
Option 3	Stopbanking 10 year protection	$220,000	$41,200	$577,700	$1,224,034	$385,134	$340,000	$31,321	$50,000	$81,321

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd - Resolutions and Proxy for First Annual General Meeting	7(2)(b)(ii) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of that information is necessary to protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2013-14 Statement of Intent (1.00pm)	7(2)(i) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

1	Change 4 Hearing Minutes	Under Separate Cover
2	Change 4 Hearing Panel Recommendations	Under Separate Cover
3	Change 4 as Amended by Hearing Panel Recommendations	Under Separate Cover

1 View	Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarter 2 2012-13 Report
2 View	Hawke's Bay Tourism Financial Results 1 July to 31 December 2012