Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016

Time: 9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 31 August 2016, and the Extraordinary Regional Council Meeting held on 8 September 2016

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 31 August 2016, and the Extraordinary Regional Council Meeting held on 8 September 2016

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items not on the Agenda 11

Decision Items

7. Affixing of Common Seal 13

8. Investigation and Inquiry into Havelock North Water Contamination Event 17

9. Resource Management Act Delegations 27

10. Recommendations from the Regional Transport Committee 35

11. Recommendations from the Hearings Committee 37

12. Recommendations from the Finance Audit & Risk Sub-committee 39

13. Recommendations from the Regional Planning Committee 41

14. Adoption of the Audited 2015-16 Annual Report 43

15. Engagement with Tangata Whenua, including Maori Committee Role and Functions 47

16. End of Triennium Wrap-up and Interim Election Delegations 51

Information or Performance Monitoring

17. HBRIC Ltd September 2016 Update (10.45am) 55

18. Collection of Rates 61

19. Monthly Work Plan Through October-November 2016 65

20. Chairman's Report for September 2016 73

21. Minor Items not on the Agenda 75

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

22. Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 31 August 2016 77

23. Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 8 September 2016 79

24. RWSS Independent Engineer Panel Legal Opinion 81

25. Interim CE Remuneration Review 83

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

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 33 DP 14227 CT G1/28 - Transfer 1.1.2 Lot 22 DP 4488 CT 56/285 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.3 Lot 117 DP 14452 CT G2/761 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.4 Lot 65 DP 10912 CT D4/920 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.5 Lot 2 DP 10780 CT C2/350 - Transfer	4011 4012 4013 4014 4018 4015 4017	25 August 2016 25 August 2016 25 August 2016 5 September 2016 9 September 2016 5 September 2016 8 September 2016
1.2	Staff Warrants 1.2.1 S. Smidt (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) 1.2.2 M. Mitchell (Delegations under Sections 103(3), (103(6) and 105 of the Biosecurity Act 1993; Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908; (Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91); Local Government Act 2002 (s.171 and 172) and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1999 (s. 82A(4) 1.2.3 M. Kenah (Delegations under Section 33G(a) of the Maritime Transport Amendment Act 2013 and Schedule 7 and Local Government Act 2002	4020 4021 4019	20 September 2016 20 September 2016 20 Septemer 2016
1.3	Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981 for Soil conservation and river control purposes of the Awanui Stream project Sections 270, 271, 272 and 273 on Survey Office Plan 480252 and Section 28 on SO Plan 480252 (map attached)	4016	5 September 2016

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 Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Map

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Subject: Investigation and Inquiry into Havelock North Water Contamination Event

Reason for Report

1. This paper seeks authorisation from councillors to fund the Council’s response to, and management of, the recent Campylobacter contamination event of the Havelock North drinking water supply.

2. The Council’s response to this event involves an investigation into the cause of the contamination, including any potential breach of resource consent conditions by any relevant party, and participation in a Government Inquiry, including analysis of any historical or contemporary actions by the Council that may have contributed to the contamination. The event involves a significant commitment of science and regulatory effort by the Council, some of which has already occurred but much work lies ahead, which could not have been foreseen and budgeted for.

Background

3. On Friday 12 August 2016 the Hastings District Council received a positive test for the presence of E.coli in the Havelock North drinking water supply, which indicated possible contamination of the supply by harmful pathogens. On the same day the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board identified a developing pattern of Campylobacter infections within the Havelock North community.

4. Since this time an estimated 5,200 people have been infected with Campylobacter and two individuals have died while being sick with the bug. The event caused major social and economic disruption to the Havelock North community and at the time of writing secondary infections were still continuing, albeit at much lower levels.

5. Despite not being formally notified of this event by either the Hastings District Council or the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Regional Council staff began planning a response on Monday 15 August and commenced investigations in the field on Tuesday 16 August. These investigations are ongoing and are unlikely to be completed until later in October or November 2016.

6. The contamination of the water supply has subsequently been traced to two bores operated by the Hastings District Council on Brookvale Road, which were built in the early 1980s by the Havelock North Borough Council and pre-date the Resource Management Act. These received replacement consents for the water take and use from the bores from HBRC in 2008 which expire in 2018.

7. While a definitive link has not yet been established, the timing of the initial outbreak suggests a likely relationship between the contamination of the water supply and a storm event in the region on 5 & 6 August. Two extended power cuts during the morning of 6 August may also have been contributing factors as these coincided with heavy rainfall and surface flooding in the area, and pumps designed to remove potentially contaminated surface water from around the Brookvale well heads do not have a backup power source and did not run during the power outages.

8. Hastings District Council’s Water Safety Plan identifies flooding of “dry chambers” at the well heads as a potential source of contamination and other District Council documentation describes the chambers as being “prone to flooding”, as well as being the possible source of previous contamination events and the subject of historic concern by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

9. There are other potential pathways for the contamination, including compromised integrity of the aged well casings or via some ingress of contaminated surface water into the aquifer, including from recent earthworks in the vicinity. The Regional Council’s investigations will test these possibilities as well. Investigations to date have not revealed any evidence of contamination of the aquifer in the surrounding area, up or down gradient of the Brookvale bores and expert advice suggested early in the investigations that inadequate sealing of the well heads was a possible cause of the contamination.

10. On Wednesday 24 August the Regional Council was made aware of findings by the Institute for Geological and Nuclear Sciences that a fraction of ‘young’ water had been detected in three of Hastings District Council’s water supply bores in May 2016, including one in Brookvale Road, and that therefore these bores could “no longer be considered secure”. This information had not been provided to the Regional Council despite being received by the Hastings District Council on 18 August.

11. On Thursday 25 August the Regional Council notified the District Council that it was launching a formal investigation to determine whether any breach of their resource consents had occurred, which is currently underway.

12. In response to the contamination incident the Attorney-General has launched a Government Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013 to determine the cause of the contamination event and any fault or wrong doing by any party, and make recommendation. This Inquiry was gazetted on 15 September and directed to report back to the Attorney General by 31 March 2017.

13. Terms of Reference for this Inquiry are attached. The Government Inquiry will not determine any civil or criminal liability and does not preclude entities, such as the Regional Council, fulfilling their own statutory responsibilities to investigate aspects of this matter. However, we can expect the Inquiry were make use of the findings of the Regional Council’s Resource Management Act based investigation.

Implications

14. Primary responsibility for the delivery of safe drinking water resides with Drinking Water Suppliers, in this case the Hastings District Council, under the Health Act. These responsibilities are further set out in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards, which are regulations under this Act. Responsibility for ensuring that Drinking Water Suppliers are complying with the Act and the Standards resides with Drinking Water Assessors, in this case the Public Health Unit of the District Health Board. However, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has a number of responsibilities relevant to the contamination event. These include:

14.1. The monitoring and maintenance of water quality in the region, including the aquifer from which Havelock North’s drinking supply is drawn.

14.2. Managing activities, particularly discharges, on land that may have an adverse impact on water quality, including through any relevant resource consents.

14.3. Administering the bore permits and resource consents for the Brookvale wells and ensuring compliance by the consent holder with any conditions on the consents.

14.4. Giving effect to the 2007 National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water Sources by ensuring that no water or discharge permits are granted that adversely affect drinking water supplies, that following a plan review the Regional Resource Management Plan does not contain permitted activity rules that are likely to adversely affect drinking water supplies, and that any resource consent for an activity that has the potential to affect a drinking water supply has conditions for notifying drinking water suppliers in the event of a spill or adverse event.

14.5. Coordination of Regional Civil Defence and Emergency Management.

15. The Inquiry’s terms of reference are sufficiently wide that it can be anticipated that all of the above responsibilities, both historic and contemporary, will be scrutinised. Events that have led to the contamination event may span years or even decades. Therefore it is necessary for the Regional Council to review all of its past actions in terms of the responsibilities above with regard to the contamination of Havelock North’s drinking water supply in order to assist the Inquiry with its work. This involves reviewing a large number of historic documents, files and databases, as well as interviewing current and former staff. To ensure the Inquiry clearly understands the Regional Council’s responsibilities and how these have been discharged will require legal representation during the Inquiry’s proceedings. A number of staff may be called to give evidence to the Inquiry in person. This work will be ongoing until the Inquiry has completed its work in early-mid 2017.

16. The Regional Council’s own investigation into the event is also a major undertaking. To determine the most likely cause of the contamination event and whether this was in part or wholly the result of consent conditions not being met, necessitates that all possibilities have been thoroughly investigated. This requires considerable staff time from across science and regulatory teams, analysis of a large number of documents, interviews with a potentially large number of relevant persons, extensive use of laboratory testing, and the use of external expertise, contractors and specialist equipment. The evidence gathered will require careful legal review to determine whether a case for further action is warranted. Some of these costs may be able to be recovered in the event of a successful prosecution.

Costs and Funding

17. Costs have been estimated for both the investigation and enquiry stages of the Havelock North water contamination event. This paper sets out recommendations for the funding of each stage of the enquiry.

Investigation Stage

18. This stage covers a period of approximately five to six weeks during August and September 2016. The following table sets out the estimated costs as well as notes to provide some clarification on the major cost items.

19. Total costs are estimated at $378,000. The salary component of $177,000 is already provided for in Council budgets. Therefore the task is to identify funding for the external costs of $201,000. The Executive team have looked through their budgets and assessed whether any current budget provision can be redirected to provide funding for these external costs. The table below sets out a recommended funding solution:

Proposed Funding for Stage 1 (Investigation) of the Havelock North Water Contamination Event

Project/Cost Centre Current Budgets	$	Total $
Corporate Budgets: - Legal - Consultancy	10,000 25,000	35,000
Environmental Incident Response Project: - Contractors - Laboratory testing - Legal fees - Materials	5,000 10,000 30,000 5,000	50,000
Planning Projects: - Consultancy		50,000
*Sub-Total (current budgets)*		$135,000
- Use of 2015-16 Favourable Operating Surplus (reported to Council 31 August 2016)		$68,000
Total		$203,000

20. This paper recommends that $135,000 of current budget provision and $68,000 being the 2015-16 operating surplus, be used to fund the external costs for the investigation stage of the Havelock North contamination event.

Enquiry Stage

21. During the enquiry stage of this event Council will incur the cost of a number of staff that will be required to give evidence to the enquiry in person and also the payment of external costs, specifically legal and consultancy costs. The staff costs are provided for under current approved budgets. There may be a need later in the year to determine the extent to which staff have been diverted from their normal Council activities to service the enquiry, as this may have a negative impact on delivery of planned programmes that were budgeted to be delivered during the 2016-17 year.

22. The additional external costs, specifically consultancy and legal, have yet to be finalised. Council’s legal representatives are currently having discussions covering the enquiry process and timelines so they will be in a position to estimate the external legal costs for the enquiry. They have undertaken to provide this figure by the date of the Council meeting so Council will have information on the approximate quantum of costs to be funded.

23. The Annual Plan normally provides a $100,000 contingency, however this contingency provision for the 2016-17 Annual Plan has already been committed - $50,000 to the Ngati Kahungunu Runanga Arts and Cultural Board (Council meeting 9 June 2016) and $50,000 for consultation on environmental flow investigations (Council resolution 31 August 2016).

24. This paper recommends that Council consider using funds that have been set aside in reserves to fund the managing of a disaster event. The reserve set out by this Council for assisting in the funding of disaster events are:

Reserve	Balance as at 30 June 2016 $
Scheme Disaster Reserve	2,959,000
Regional Disaster Reserve	3,500,000
Total	$6,459,000

25. As reported to Council at the Council meeting on 31 August 2016 as part of the financial report for year end 30 June 2016, the Regional Disaster Reserve is to be maintained between $2.75 million and $3.75 million. As at the end of the financial year 30 June 2016 this reserve contained $3.5 million.

26. The Regional Disaster Damage Reserve has been set up to assist funding for:

26.1. The cost of responding to and managing an event.

26.2. The cost of reinstatement of any uninsured assets (eg, pathways on top of stopbanks).

26.3. Any difference between the deductible and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance (government covers 60% of the loss in the event of a disaster).

26.4. To fund the policy excess of $1.5 million included in the policy with private insurers which covers 40% of the loss up to $24 million in the event of a disaster.

26.5. The possibility of the cost of reinstating the level of service provided by the asset being considerably more than the optimised replacement value.

27. An important use of this reserve is to fund the response and manage a disaster event. This paper therefore recommends that the estimated external costs for the enquiry stage of the Havelock North contamination events be funded from the Regional Disaster Reserve.

Decision Making Process

28. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

28.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

28.4. All members of the Hawke’s Bay regional community are affected by this decision.

28.5. Council had a legislative responsibility to investigate the issues that were raised during the contamination investigation and has no option but to be involved in the national enquiry.

28.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

28.7. 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.

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Agrees that the external costs incurred by Council that relate to the investigation stage of the Havelock North contamination event, which are estimated at $201,000, be funded from Council’s current budget provisions of legal and consultancy up to $135,000, and the remaining $66,000 to be funded from the surplus operating position for the 2015-16 financial year.

3. Agrees that the external costs relating to the enquiry stage of the Havelock North investigation event be funded from Council’s Regional Disaster Reserve.

Authored by:

Mark Heaney

Client Services Manager

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Terms of Reference for Government Inquiry

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Subject: Resource Management Act Delegations

Reason for Report

1. At the 27 July Council meeting Cr Beaven asked staff to consider options for staff delegations to be brought back to Council to decide on resource consent applications for water bottling. Cr Beaven has noted that there is a specific desire to consider having Council make the notification decision for these consents.

The Notification Decision-making Process

2. The Regional Council has delegated a number of RMA decision making functions to Regional Council staff. This enables prompt and timely processing of resource consent applications. The delegations were last reviewed in December 2015.

3. The delegations include the determination of whether an application should be processed as a non-notified, limited notified or a notified application.

4. The decision to notify or limited notify must be made within 20 working days (s95) of an application being received. Also, the decision to grant or decline an application that is not notified must be made within 20 working days. So if there is delay in making the notification decision there is not much time left to process and finalise the decision to grant or decline.

5. If the decision is to decline (other than for the reason that there is inadequate information) the decision needs to be made by the Hearings Committee or a Hearing Panel appointed by the Hearings Committee, in which case a Hearing Panel or Commissioner needs to be appointed to make this decision.

Consent Processing

6. When an application is received it is checked by administrative staff to see that it includes all the prescribed information.

7. The application is then assigned to a Consents Planner and checked by them to assess the completeness of the application in terms of the information required to explain the activity and assess the environmental effects. It may be returned to the applicant by the Consents Planner if insufficient information is provided to process it.

8. If adequate information is provided for processing but it needs more information, it may be received and then an information request made to the applicant for the additional information. This information will often assist in informing the decision to notify or not to notify. The notification decision may be made early in the process or nearer to the point of the final decision for non-notified applications. It needs to be able to be made promptly to meet our statutory timeframes once information is available, and the delegation to staff makes this possible.

Decision to notify or not

9. There are a number of considerations when making the decision to notify or not. These are set out in RMA sections 95A to 95F. Copies of these sections are attached. In summary the considerations are:

9.1. The Council must notify an application if:

(a) It decides that the activity will have or is likely to have effects on the environment that are more than minor; or

(b) the applicant requests public notification of the application; or

9.2. It may publically notify an application if it decides that special circumstances exist in relation to the activity.

9.3. If it does not publically notify an application, it must consider whether there are any affected persons. A person is an affected person if the activity’s adverse effects on the person are minor or more than minor.

9.4. Otherwise an activity may be processed as a non-notified activity.

10. Of the consents processed by Council each year, an average of 95% are processed as non-notified applications.

11. Recent amendments to the RMA have shifted the presumption in making a resource consent notification assessment to it being considered non-notified as a default starting position.

12. As identified, the circumstances for determining whether an activity is notified principally depend on their environmental effects. If they are minor, there is no reason to notify the application.

13. The HBRC Regional Resource Management Plan provides guidance on this. Section 8.2.3 provides for controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities to be non-notified and indicates that discretionary activities may be notified because they are likely to have more than minor adverse effects on the environment.

14. The current practice is to notify water take activities where they are in a catchment or groundwater area that is fully allocated (in which case staff would advise there is no water available) or where a minimum flow may apply that is not settled and there may be more than minor adverse effects if water is taken down to that minimum flow.

15. In groundwater areas where there are currently no allocation limits (such as the unconfined area of the Heretaunga Plains), where the take won’t impact on other bores in the vicinity and where the aquifer is demonstrated to recharge annually, applications are processed as non-notified because their effects are considered to be no more than minor. This would include takes for any activity or purpose as the purpose of the take does not cause an adverse effect or impact on the water resource.

Delegations

16. Council could revoke some or all of the staff delegations and retain them at Council level. If this were done, Council would need to ensure that the Council or delegated Councillors were all appropriately trained in RMA decision making, were accessible and responsive enough to be able to take over making these decisions and be available to write the notification assessments all within the statutory timelines.

17. Councillors making these decisions would be bound by the same procedures and policies set out in the RMA and the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) as staff currently are.

18. Currently the RMA and the RRMP do not allow treating water takes for differing purposes (such as water bottling) to be treated differently. For example, a consent for the taking of water for irrigation would need to be processed in the same manner as a take for water bottling. A key point of difference would however, be in assessing the ‘actual and reasonable’ part in terms of the rate and volumes sought by the applicant.

19. If Councillors were to revoke the delegations for water bottling consents, there would need to be consideration given to remuneration for those Councillors involved to cover this, as the time associated with the extra work would not sit within the normal Council meeting cycles. This paper has not considered these details but they would need to be considered and set up appropriately.

Issues, options and ways forward

20. Staff are of the view that the delegations, as they are currently assigned, are appropriate, are working as intended and are not recommending any change.

21. Staff acknowledge that there is a level of public interest in issues associated with water bottling, however the current RRMP policy and resource consent processes do not allow for any ‘ad hoc’ policy or process to be developed that could attempt to circumvent this. In other words, the current policy and process does not allow for Councillors to come to any other decision than is being made by staff.

22. There is a risk to Council that if the decision making process becomes a political one rather than one following good planning practise, that Council is exposed to litigation by parties who may object to being required to undergo a process that the policy does not support, i.e. notification of an application for consent that would otherwise be non-notified.

23. If Council were to reconsider the delegations and ‘call them in’ there would be the need to ensure that an agile process was set up and Councillors were available to attend meetings and write reports as required, to process consents to meet statutory timeframes.

24. The issue of water bottling is live in the TANK policy development work and staff are anticipating that coming from the TANK discussion there will be some form of prioritisation of water under new allocation frameworks. This is the appropriate way to manage whether water bottling gets priority over other uses or not.

25. If Council has concerns that the state of knowledge is insufficient to be making decisions and granting water for any water takes, including water bottling, then this could be considered as a separate paper that lays out the information requirements currently asked by Council from applicants, to ensure that sufficient evidence is provided to assess the effects of any application. This may go some way to addressing perceived issues associated with the process and our understanding the resource and effects of activities.

Financial and Resource Implications

26. There would be some cost associated with revoking any of these delegations, as Councillors would need to be available and capable of making these decisions on a regular basis as noted above.

27. There would be a risk of the processing being delayed if Councillors were not available and this could have financial consequences if this leads to timeline exceedances and the need to discount the costs of application processing.

Decision Making Process

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

28.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

28.4. The persons affected by this decision are Councillors, resource consent applicants, the community, and generally all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

28.5. Options that have been considered include retaining the current staff delegations.

28.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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.

2. Agrees to retain the current delegations to HBRC staff relating to the notification of resource consents.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

RMA Notification Decision Criteria

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

SUBJECT: Adoption of the Audited 2015-16 Annual Report

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is for Council to resolve to adopt the 2015-16 audited Annual Report, and to authorise the signing of this report.

Background

2. The draft Annual Report was considered by Council on Wednesday 31 August 2016 and adopted for audit. It is now necessary for Council to consider the audited 2015-16 Annual Report, for formal adoption and publication.

3. Subsequent to Council approval, this document will be printed, covered and bound for distribution. Copies will be sent out to interested parties from 17 October 2016, if the Report is approved at this meeting.

4. Section 98 of the Act states:

(4) A Local Authority must, within one month of the adoption of its Annual Report, make publicly available:

(a) its Annual Report; and

(b) a summary of information contained in its Annual Report

(5) The summary must represent, fairly and consistently, the information regarding the major matters dealt with in the Annual Report.

5. Section 99 (2) also states that the Summary Annual Report must contain the Auditor's report on whether the summary represents, fairly and consistently, the information regarding the major matters dealt within the Annual Report.

6. The Summary Annual report for year ending 30 June 2016 will be published in the daily newspapers on Saturday 15 October 2016 if the audited Annual Report is approved at this meeting. This approach is considered to be an effective method to advise the public on Council’s performance against the LTP, and the date is within the statutory timelines for publication.

7. Both the Annual Report and Summary Annual report will be published on Council’s website no later than Monday 17 October 2016 if approved at this meeting.

8. The final audited Annual Report is provided under separate cover to Councillors only as Attachment 1.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC Ltd)

9. At the time of writing this paper, Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) was holding discussions with Audit NZ covering finalisation of the accounts for 30 June 2016.

10. It is anticipated that the HBRIC Ltd Board will have approved the audited annual statements for year ending 30 June 2016 by the date of this meeting, and HBRIC Ltd’s group accounts, including the Port of Napier Limited (Napier Port), have already been included in Council’s Annual Report.

Audit

11. Part of Audit NZ’s process for completing its audit on Council’s Annual Report is for Mr Stephen Lucy from Audit NZ to discuss any issues arising through the audit with Council’s Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee. Mr Lucy attended the Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee meeting on 20 September 2016 and stated that there was one outstanding issue he was still resolving with HBRIC Ltd and this covered the valuation in HBRIC Ltd’s accounts for the carrying value of intangible assets. This intangible asset relates to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) valuation.

12. Mr Lucy advised that he would not be in a position to provide Council with an audit report for Council’s Annual Report until he completed his discussions with HBRIC Ltd, and that it was his desire to be in a position to provide an audit report on Council’s Annual Report for tabling at this Council meeting. If this timing is too tight, and a final audit report is not available for Council at this meeting, then Council will need to defer approval of the audited Annual Report for year ended 30 June 2016 at the 26 October 2016 Inaugural meeting of the new Council.

13. The recommendations in this paper cover both instances; where the audit report has been received and the Annual Report can be approved at this meeting, and where the audit report has not been received and the Annual Report will need to be approved on 26 October 2016.

14. The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), section 98(3) states that each Annual Report must be completed and adopted by resolution within four months after the end of the financial year to which it relates. Therefore adoption on either 28 September or 26 October 2016 will meet the provisions of the Act.

Changes to the Annual Report from the draft presented to Council

15. During the final audit for this Annual Report a number of minor adjustments were required to the notes to the accounts and also to the financial statements. The more material adjustments that have been made are:

15.1. Fair value gains have been reduced by $328,000 as the valuation of Council’s house at Waihapua forestry block was included both in forestry land asset and property assets. The adjustment was necessary to correct double accounting for this asset.

15.2. An adjustment was required to reflect the correct accounting treatment of an increase of $547,000 in infrastructure assets. This relates to an increase in the value of stopbanks which was treated as a fair value gain in the draft Annual Report that should have been treated as a gain in revenue because this stopbank was transferred from private ownership to Council as part of the contract with the landowner to provide the stopbank for protection of his property.

Decision Making Process

16. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with provisions of Part 6, sub‑part 1 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed requirements contained in the sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that the decision making provisions of the Act do not apply as the Annual Report is a statutory report required to be adopted by Council no later than 31 October 2016 under Section 98 of the Act.

17. Council must, within one month after adoption of its Annual Report, make copies available to the public.

Recommendations

That Council either:

1. Adopts the audited 2015-16 Annual Report, under Section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002, and authorises the Chairman and Chief Executive to sign the Annual Report on behalf of Council;

or:

2. Approves the 2015-16 Annual Report subject to an audit report being finalised, noting that the audit report, when received, and any amendments required by Audit NZ to the Annual Report will require Council adoption at the new Council’s Inaugural meeting on 26 October 2016.

Authored by:

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Debbie Phillips

Executive Assistant

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Subject: Engagement with Tangata Whenua, including Maori Committee Role and Functions

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided in response to Council’s resolution on 31 August 2016, that Council:

1.1. Requests staff provide a report with recommendations on the future role of the Māori Committee for consideration at the 28 September 2016 Council meeting.

2. That resolution was one of several made in relation to the proposed governance structure for the incoming Council during the 2016-19 triennium. One of those recommendations is for the Maori Committee to be re-established after the local body elections.

Background

3. The Māori Committee is made up of representatives of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated’s four taiwhenua within Hawke’s Bay, as well as three councillors and has been in existence for more than 20 years. The Māori Committee has no statutory decision making role but can make recommendations to the Council on matters of relevance affecting the tangata whenua of the region, and as such is best characterised as advisory. It meets up to five times per year.

4. In 2015 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act was enacted, giving statutory responsibility for regional resource planning to the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) with joint governance between the Council’s nine councillors and Tāngata Whenua representatives drawn from the region’s Treaty Settlement Entities. Within the Tāngata Whenua membership of the RPC, discussions have occurred regarding the role and purpose of the Māori Committee now that co-governance of regional resources is now provided for through the RPC. To further explore this, a joint meeting was called by both the Chairs of the respective committees, Mike Mohi (Māori Committee) and Toro Waaka (Co-Chair RPC).

5. Following that meeting on 4 July 2016 in Napier, key items emerged that looked to the functionality of both committees and the needs of Māori externally, as well as servicing the Council and its staff.

6. At the 17 August meeting of the Corporate and Strategic Committee, it was recommended that further discussions take place with Council staff and the Maori Committee members to draft an options paper (i.e. this paper in part).

7. A meeting was then held on 12 September with members of the Maori Committee who agreed:

7.1. That there be a review of the:

7.1.1. current 2011 ‘Charter between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Maori Committee of Council’ to re-define the Māori Committee’s purpose and outputs.

7.1.2. current membership, including criteria for membership, of the Māori Committee. This is intended to be discussed within each Taiwhenua and then reported back to the first Māori Committee meeting of the new Council term;

7.2. An election of a Chair to be conducted at the first Māori Committee meeting following the 2016 elections.

Next steps

8. A review of the 2011 Charter would provide an opportunity to clarify the relevance and effectiveness of the Māori Committee for the Council over the 2016-19 triennium alongside a range of initiatives (existing and potentially new ones) that are used to engage tāngata whenua on matters relating to the Regional Council’s work programme and wide ranging projects. The 2011 Charter emerged from a review of its 2002 predecessor.

9. Meanwhile, staff are also reassessing the Council’s capacity and competency for meeting statutory requirements for working with Māori. That reassessment extends to how meeting these statutory requirements is demonstrated or exceeded within its operational and engagement activities. To date, the reassessment has looked at:

9.1. a preliminary stocktake of the Council’s current and past projects associated with Māori communities including marae and whanau

9.2. a ‘Working in Partnership with Māori’ survey which provided data on the understanding by staff of the partnership tools required when working with Māori.

10. These emerging issues are informing the Council’s current refresh of its Strategic Plan. A report will be submitted to the incoming Council outlining both these results and the proposed initiatives Council could employ to ensure that they work effectively and within the statutory requirements.

Financial and Resource Implications

11. The Council’s governance structure needs to be reconsidered by the incoming Council following October’s local body elections in any event. A refresh of the 2011 Charter is not anticipated to require a large amount of time or financial resources. Implications of an election process for Chair of the Maori Committee during next term is anticipated to have negligible extra resource implications.

Decision Making Process

12. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

12.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

12.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers, residents and tangata whenua of the region who have an interest in how Maori are involved in the Regional Council’s activities.

12.5. Options that have been considered include presenting a full and final proposal of the Maori Committee’s future roles responsibilities now; or taking a stepped approach to reviewing the Maori Committee’s roles and responsibilities during the first few months of the 2016-19 triennium.

12.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

12.7. 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.

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Agrees that if a Māori Committee is reconstituted for the 2016-19 triennium by the incoming Council, then:

2.1. the Chair of that Committee will be elected by the members present at the first meeting of the Māori Committee following the 2016 local body elections;

2.2. Council staff will work together with Māori members of the Māori Committee to review the 2011 Charter between HBRC and the Māori Committee, and that review will aim to present a redrafted Charter to the Council meeting on 30 November 2016.

3. Agrees that the Charter review will include:

3.1. a review of efficacy of the Māori Committee’s membership, the membership criteria and membership composition.

3.2. actions to improve the work of, and relationships between, the Māori Committee and the Regional Planning Committee.

4. Agrees that a review of the Terms of Reference, including roles and responsibilities of the Māori Committee, will be undertaken following completion of the Charter review process.

5. Notes that staff will present a report to the incoming Council which will outline:

5.1. results of the internal work programme stock take and the ‘Working in Partnership with Māori’ survey; and

5.2. proposed initiatives Council could implement to ensure staff work effectively with Tāngata Whenua based on a reassessment of relevant statutory requirements.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Subject: End of Triennium Wrap-up and Interim Election Delegations

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council discharges all current Committees in accordance with Schedule 7, Part 1, Section 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002:

“A committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body is, unless the local authority resolves otherwise, deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the local authority elected or appointed at, or following, the triennial general election of members next after the appointment of the committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body.”

2. It is also the purpose of this report to request that Council delegates the responsibilities, duties and powers of the Council, except for certain powers set down in the legislation that cannot be delegated, to the Chief Executive during the interim election period.

Discharge of Committees

3. It is recommended that all the Council’s Committees be discharged and therefore no resolution under Clause 30 (7) is required.

4. There are three Committees which will continue to operate following the election in October 2016 and do not require a Council resolution to do so; two of which are the Regional Transport Committee and the Regional Planning Committee.

5. In the past, the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group (CDEMG) has required a resolution of all councils to ensure that it is not discharged following a triennial election. However amendments to section 12(2) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 no longer require a resolution of Council at this time and the CDEMG is not deemed to be discharged following a triennial election.

6. For those Committee meetings which have not yet had minutes confirmed, it is also necessary for the Chairman of the relevant Committee and the principal administrative officer (Chief Executive) to confirm and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Triennium in accordance with Standing Order 2.18.2.

7. The Minutes of the meetings referred to in recommendation 2 have been distributed to all committee members as ‘Unconfirmed’.

Delegations to the Chief Executive during Interim Election Period

8. In the past, Council has delegated the power to make decisions in the interim election period to the Chief Executive, based on legal advice. It is again recommended that Council make a delegation to the Chief Executive of all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers for the period in question, except those that cannot be delegated, in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 32(1):

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

(g) Repealed

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

9. This delegation is for the limited time period between the declaration of the election result and the first meeting of the new Council, which is expected to be eight days. The public notice of the declaration of the result is expected on 18 October 2016 and the Inaugural Council meeting is scheduled to be held on 26 October 2016. The delegation period is therefore between the 19 October and the 26 October 2016.

10. It is also recommended that the delegation is subject to those matters that cannot reasonably wait until the first meeting of the new Council and that the Chief Executive is required to report any decisions to the first meeting of the new Council.

Decision Making Process

11. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

11.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

11.4. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

11.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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.

2. In accordance with Council’s Standing Orders (3.18) the Minutes of the Committee meetings listed below will be received, reviewed, and then signed by the Chairman of the Committee and the HBRC Chief Executive as a true and correct record.

2.1. Maori Committee Meeting held 16 August 2016

2.2. Corporate and Strategic Committee Meeting held 17 August 2016

2.3. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Joint Committee meeting held 19 August 2016

2.4. HB CDEM Joint Committee meeting held 22 August 2016

2.5. Environment and Services Committee meeting held 24 August 2016

2.6. Regional Transport Committee meeting held 2 September 2016

2.7. Hearings Committee meeting held 19 September 2016

2.8. Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee meeting held 20 September 2016

2.9. Tenders Committee meeting held 21 September 2016

2.10. Regional Planning Committee meeting held 21 September 2016.

3. In accordance with Council’s Standing Orders (3.18) the Minutes of the Regional Council meeting held 28 September 2016 will be received, reviewed, and then signed by the HBRC Chairman and Chief Executive as a true and correct record when they are finalised.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

SUBJECT: Collection of Rates

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of collecting the rates in 2015-16 from the ratepayers throughout the region, and to provide an analysis of outstanding rates at 30 June 2016.

Background

Rates Setting

2. The Council sets the rates by a mix of factors on 70,323 rating units in the region. These factors are Uniform Annual General Rate; Uniform Annual Charge; Fixed Amount; Land Value; Capital Value; and Area Basis. These factors are used to apply the rates on an equitable basis on the applicable rating units

3. Table 1 sets out an analysis of the 2015-16 rates classified by the factors used to set the rates. The amounts are GST inclusive.

Table 1: 2015-16 Basis of Rating

Factor	General Rate or Rating Scheme		2015-16 Rates $
Uniform Annual General Rate	UAGC	$2,121,585	$2,121,585

Uniform Annual Charge	UAC Economic Development Emergency Management (70%) Karamu Enhancement Kairakau Karamu Drain Mtc	$1,395,152 $1,033,647 $58,370 $9,963 $61,701	$2,558,833

Fixed Amount	Voluntary targeted rate for Clean Heat and insulation loan repayment	$1,488,683	$1,488,683

Land Value	General Rate Transport HPFCS Drains Porongahau Poukawa Clean Heat subsidies and administration Upper Tukituki	$1,491,893 $1,851,501 $3,348,347 $41,689 $35,567 $671,817 $792,025	$8,232,839

Capital Value	HPFCS Rivers Central & Southern Rivers & Streams Maraetotara Economic Development (30%) Wairoa Rivers & Streams	$2,406,986 $261,407 $12,022 $603,436 $178,105	$3,461,956

Area Basis Hectare	Animal Pest Plant Pest Drain Schemes Sustainable Land Management	$1,431,630 $459,138 $243,379 $649,370	$2,783,517

Total			$20,647,413

4. Table 2 sets out an analysis of the 2015-16 rates set for each district within the region.

Table 2: 2015-16 Rates Set in Each District

Districts	Rating Units	Urban	Rural	Total Rates	%
Wairoa	6,725	$168,204	$1,238,403	$1,406,607	6.81
Central Hawke’s Bay	7,678	$323,295	$2,177,537	$2,500,832	12.11
Napier	25,053	$6,233,722	$487,239	$6,720,961	32.55
Hastings	30,809	$5,253,422	$4,633,768	$9,887,190	47.89
Taupo/Rangitikei	58	n/a	$131,823	$131,823	0.64
	70,323	$11,978,643	$8,668,770	$20,647,413
Percentage of Rates Urban/Rural		58.%	42%		100%

Rate Arrears at Year End

5. The total rate arrears as at 30 June 2016 stood at $1,238,697 GST inclusive. Table 3 shows the rate arrears outstanding in each year.

Table 3: Rate Arrears as at 30 June 2016

RATES ARREARS AS AT 30 JUNE
	Rates & Penalties Set	Multiple	Others	Outstanding	Collection %
2010-11	$15,770,216	$30,819	$28,308	$ 59,127	99.63
2011-12	$16,339,403	$30,917	$37,253	$ 68,170	99.58
2012-13	$17,318,650	$34,294	$53,549	$ 87,843	99.49
2013-14	$18,161,052	$38,953	$96,910	$135,863	99.25
2014-15	$19,607,477	$40,595	$211,072	$251,667	98.72
Previous Years	$87,196,798	$175,578	$427,092	$602,670
2015-16	$20,823,802	$57,421	$578,606	$636,027	96.95
Total Arrears	$108,020,600	$232,999	$1,005,698	$1,238,697	98.85
Less Credit Balance				$1,307,791
Net Balance 30 June 2016				$69,094

6. Table 4 below shows the breakdown of balances within certain categories of $ values.

Table 4: Breakdown on Rate Arrears

Maori Multi Ownership	501	$232,998
Rural over $150	746	$305,402
Rural under $150	668	$44,750
Urban over $150	1,441	$573,732
Urban under $150	1,228	$79,560
Under $10	954	$2,255
Total Outstanding	5,538	$1,238,697
Less Credit Balances	6,151	$1,307,791
Net Balance 30 June 2016		-$69,094

7. The credit balances arise due to ratepayers paying their rates in advance by automatic payments including payments for Clean Heat/Healthy Home loans or paying amounts to the wrong Council through Internet banking.

Maori Multiple Ownership

8. Many sections of multiple ownership land are titled ''Maori'' or ''the owners'' and this Council along with Hastings District, Central Hawkes Bay and Wairoa District Councils have difficulty in collecting the rate arrears on these properties.

9. In September 2003, the Council set a policy on rates remission and postponement on Maori Freehold Land and since then, 93 remission applications have been approved.

10. The amount of rates remitted under this policy for 2015-16 amounted to $18,741.18.

11. For the remaining arrears on Maori multiple ownership, any rates still outstanding after six years are written off as being statute barred for collection purposes.

Debt Collection

12. Upon the completion of receipting as at 31 January 2016, a penalty was imposed on all the current outstanding rates and a Penalty Notice issued to those ratepayers in February 2016. These penalties totalled $176,388 and were sent to 9,108 ratepayers. ($174,910 to 9,293 ratepayers in 2014-15).

13. Prior to 2015-16 overdue ratepayer’s accounts were passed to Council's debt collection agency. A basis of 20% commission would only be paid to the agency upon collection. External debt collection fees paid for 2014-15 were $36,350.27. The collection costs for 2015-16 year are only $178.95 due to a greater responsibility for internal debt collection. Two positive outcomes have be achieved through the internal collection; one being the finance saving and the other building better relationship with our rate payers.

14. Table 5 shows the rate arrears in each district:

Table 5: Rate Arrears in Each District

	2014-15		2015-16
Napier	$ 270,406	21.65%	$ 270,637	21.85%
Hastings	$ 552,060	44.20%	$ 554,568	44.77%
Central Hawke’s Bay	$ 128,275	10.27%	$ 101,327	8.18%
Wairoa	$ 282,084	22.59%	$ 295,873	23.89%
Taupo/Rangitikei	$ 16,042	1.28%	$ 16,231	1.31%
Total	$1,248,867	100%	$1,238,638	100%

15. Many ratepayers who are in arrears are settling their rate arrears in instalments. Staff will continue to recover and reduce these rate arrears.

Decision Making Process

16. 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

That Council receives the report on the collection of rates in 2015-16 and rate arrears as at 30 June 2016.

Authored by:

Trudy Kilkolly

Financial Accountant

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 September 2016

SUBJECT: Monthly Work Plan Through October-November 2016

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities coming up over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
CE’s Office		1. Handover to returning CEO 2. Preparation of induction for incoming Council 3. Preparation for Government Inquiry on Havelock North Drinking Water Supply contamination 4. Strategic Plan Refresh process
External Relations	Communications	5. Monthly focus: Harbourmaster and coast 6. Bore security and feedlot information follow-ups 7. Support for coastal hazards, TANK Plan, Tukituki meetings, Waitangi Park signage
	Transport	8. The Hastings bus terminus move to the 200 block on Eastbourne Street is still scheduled to take place in November. Staff have been involved in the selection of a design for the new bus shelter 9. The Cycle Network Coordinator position has now been filled. Vicki Butterworth will commence the role from 26 September. 10. The driver licensing fund has been fully allocated to a range of programmes across the region. Contracts have been signed with each of the providers. If all targets are achieved, the fund will assist 410 people to achieve the next stage of their licence, with the main focus of the funding on restricted and full licences. 11. Improvements to the Napier–Hastings bus services commence on 26 September and include a revised express service from Napier to Hastings via Taradale, a Bayview trial service, Sunday services for Flaxmere and Havelock North and cheaper adult fares for trips between Napier and Hastings.
Corporate Services		12. Finance report for four months ending 31 October 2016 to November Council meeting. 13. Elections, inaugural meeting/induction of new Council.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal	14. Decision making process, Stage 3, programme of work to be finalised through workshop with all consultants on 7 October.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management	15. The NZARM conference is being held in Napier between 11-13th of October. This will require significant staff support leading in and following up on the event. Registrations are strong to date. 16. On 10 October a workshop looking at “Hill Country Resilience” is being held with stakeholders who have been participating in the East Coast Hill Country Project conversation. Paul Ryan a resilience specialist who is participating in the NZARM conference will be facilitating the workshop. 17. A primary/pan sector meeting is being organised for October with a significant agenda around TANK & Tukituki catchment activity and a consideration of sector response to more recent events. 18. Two small farmer meetings are being held in October. There are approximately 300 small farmers in the Tukituki catchment who require FEMP’s and nutrient budgets. The team is working closely with small holders and consultants to establish processes for getting these done effectively. 19. There is a Dryland Forages workshop being held at the Poukawa research Station on 27 October. We are significant sponsors of this trial and staff will be there to support and look for avenues to disseminate information.
	Engineering & Asset Management	20. Gravel Review – EMS to progress the draft final report and coordinate plan release, consultation and consenting issues for the future management regime. Morphological model for Tukituki aiming to complete by end of calendar year. 21. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Hydrologic review is under way and aim is to complete by end of this calendar year as initial stage in level of service improvement project. 22. Hastings District Council – Ongoing assistance with Iona triangle, Lyndhurst and Howard Ada Street residential developments, Omahu Industrial, Irongate Industrial. 23. Planning for construction work on the Karamu Stream realignment as part of the Whakatu Arterial Link Road. This is a significant earthworks operation with current demand for the silt. 24. Progress work on options for removing all cattle from the river berms and creating other opportunities for use of the berm area. River Leases being reviewed. 25. Westshore Beach renourishment tender is out, contract will be let in September, work to start October. 3, continue for 4 weeks. 26. Prepare Awanui stopbank upgrade contract documents for tender and construction later in the year. 27. Flood modelling of Te Ngarue Stream as joint project with NIWA (National Science Challenge). 28. Surface water 2D model for Havelock groundwater contamination potential. 29. Coastal Strategy – Engineering input. 30. Complete Lake Rotokare control structure design and drawings. 31. $15M Waipaoa River stopbank upgrade (Gisborne DC). Ongoing. 32. GDC small projects – City revetments design to complete followed by construction.
	Biosecurity	33. The plant pest team will begin working with landowners with Chilean Needlegrass on their properties 34. Cape to City will be workshopping the implications of the PFNZ 2050 announcement and the opportunities presented for predator control within the region 35. Translocations of tomtits and robins into the Maraetotara plateau will be completed for this year. 36. Planting tenders will be finalised for 2017 winter planting programmes.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Open Spaces	37. Waitangi Estuary Enhancement tenders received and awaiting tenders committee approval (Thursday 21^st September). Expecting civil works to commence October pending tenders committee decision. 38. Papakiri Stream low flow connect and Kahikanui Stream design delayed, awaiting LiDAR (survey) data. 39. Tutira Regional Park Management Plan draft nearing completion (mid October). 40. Tutira mai nga Iwi project leader appointed, Te Kaha Hawaikirangi. 41. Whakatu / Kohupatiki sediment removal trial underway. Project team established including representatives from Whakatu and Kohupatiki. 42. Staff launching investigation into use (public) of the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri and Tukituki river berms including alternative options for cattle grazing of berm land. Expected project timeframe 12-18 months.
Resource Management	Compliance	43. The Waihi Dam prosecution will not be resolved by the court for up to 12 months. 44. The investigation into the cause of the Havelock North water contamination will continue and a significant amount of time is expected to be expended on the Ministerial Inquiry. 45. A substantial amount of work will take place after the beginning of November following up on water meter regulations where water users will be required to install meters.
Resource Management	Consents	Notified or limited notified consent applications in process 46. Twyford (WP140331T - global consent to take emergency water from groundwater with stream depletion effect on the Ngaruroro) was on hold awaiting applications to transfer water into the global consent. Following discussions with Twyford Group we expect to receive transfers in September/October. 47. Ngaruroro group (expiring consents taking from Ngaruroro surface water or adjacent stream depleting groundwater) matters with final submitter have been resolved. Consents will be issued in September. Environment Court Appeals 48. Pan Pac (CD96033Wf to extend their outfall and discharge further out to sea). Settlement discussions were held but were unsuccessful. Appeal held 22– 26th August. Decision pending. 49. CPM Asphalt (DP150070A to discharge to air from an asphalt plant). Mediation was unsuccessful and this will proceed to the Court. 50. Whakatu Wool Scours Ltd hearing has been appealed to the Environment Court by the applicant. 51. All Resource Consents applications received are circulated weekly to all Councillors and can be viewed on the HBRC website.
Resource Management	Groundwater Science	52. State of the Environment reporting continues 53. A shallow groundwater survey will recommence following a delay due to the Havelock North investigation 54. The transient Heretaunga Model calibration will be completed (currently 80% complete) 55. The groundwater model and surface water models will be integrated 56. Work will begin on developing modelling scenarios 57. Work will begin on the contaminant transport model for TANK
	Hydrology	58. Assistance will continue with Havelock North investigation 59. A Water Level site will be installed in the Upper Mohaka 60. Backup water level radars and cameras will be installed on priority rivers 61. A work plan for Ahuriri hydrology and groundwater investigations for TANK will be completed 62. A Heretaunga springs report will be drafted 63. A prototype rising bubble method for flow measurement in weedy streams will be developed with NIWA Christchurch
	Water Quality and Ecology	64. Involvement in government enquiry into Havelock North water supply contamination, as required 65. Deploy temperature sensors in key locations to explore potential of shading to reduce water temperature. A focus on Karamu and Papanui as well as Tukituki and TANK more broadly. 66. Planting natives and Miscanthus at experimental sites to look at cheap approaches for establishing riparian buffer and shading strips 67. Develop a ‘Karamu solutions’ workshop with external experts to inform TANK stakeholder process 68. Explore options for web cameras at key sites for cheap data collection and to profile science investigations. 69. Repairs to Tutira buoy bottom DO sensor
	Marine & Coastal Science	70. Completion of the 2015/2016 Recreational Water Quality Report 71. Completion of the ‘Estuaries of the TANK Catchments’ – State and Trends Report. 72. HBRC lead investigation into decline of health in the Upper Ahuriri Estuary – NIWA assisted. 73. Continued support for the TANK Stormwater Working Group. 74. Presentation to the TANK stakeholder group on the state and trends of Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries. 75. Scoping of ‘Next Steps’ for the Marine Information Strategy.
	State of Our Environment Monitoring and Reporting	76. Further investigation of the Brookvale Road contamination will take please, including dye tracing of potential contamination sources. 77. Further applications will be made for funding by Envirolink. 78. It is anticipated that a new approach to publishing HBRC technical reports on the www.hbrc.govt.nz will become available.
	Land Science	79. Wairoa wetlands to be added to wetland inventory database 80. Sediment modelling moves in to northern Hawke’s Bay 81. S-mapping moves in to northern Hawke’s Bay 82. National S-map funders group convene in Wellington (HBRC are a member) 83. Land owners are contacted to participate in SoE soil quality programme sampling round 84. New Land use map ground-truthing carried out
	Air & Climate Science	85. Work continues on the source apportionment of particulates collected at Awatoto 86. Commencement of PM10 screening monitoring at Clive School. 87. Completion of a report on the modelling of outdoor burning for orchard redevelopment. 88. Attendance at a National Air Quality Working Group Meeting where the NES review will be discussed.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	89. Next TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group meetings scheduled 2 November (#24) and 13 December (#25). 90. Proposed Work Programme for Mohaka Plan Change project was presented to RPC on 21 Sept. Due to publication timing for this report, staff are unable to comment further about short-term implications of the work programme & any revisions arising at the RPC meeting. 91. Continue to await next steps regarding Minister for the Environment’s referral of application for Ngaruroro/Clive Rivers Water Conservation Order to a Special Tribunal. Special Tribunal yet to be appointed by the Minister. Meanwhile, senior staff continue to liaise with WCO co-applicants’ agents about TANK and WCO process compatibility. 92. MFE-funded project on criteria and methodology for assessing NZ’s outstanding freshwater bodies has been re-oriented. Project’s overall outputs now differ from what was originally intended, and project is now in final stages of completion. 93. Public submission period closed on 22 August on Draft 2016 review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. 55 submissions received. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group will hear submissions on 4th October, then recommend revised Strategy for adoption (post elections) by NapierCC, HastingsDC and HBRC. 94. Part of the last remaining appeal (by Fish & Game) relating to wetlands in the RRMP and Plan Change 5 remains unresolved. Despite mediation and negotiations, all parties could not reach agreement so this matter is destined to be heard by the Environment Court in late 2016 (date TBC). Parties are currently partway through a timetable of exchanging expert evidence. 95. Ongoing involvement in six appeal proceedings for proposed Hastings District Plan review. Remainder of 2016 will involve Environment Court-assisted mediation for the last of those appeals. 96. Supporting Stage 2 community engagement programme on Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Management Strategy project as required. 97. Continuing to support preparation of a plan and establishment of a Trust to implement the Regional Biodiversity Strategy. 98. Supporting preparation of planning to implement PC6 for the Tukituki River catchment. 99. Draft revisions to RPC’s Terms of Reference were presented to RPC for feedback and further revisions to be presented to RPC’s meeting in September. Revisions follow enactment of the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015. Options for Council’s appointment of a tenth member to RPC will be a matter for the in-coming Council to consider at its 9 November 2016 meeting. 100. Proposal for review of the 2011 Charter between HBRC and Maori Committee is to be considered at 28 September Council meeting (refer separate agenda item). If proposal is accepted by Council, then Policy team would support that review work during late 2016. 101. Work has commenced on a refresh of the HBRC Strategic Plan. Work programme designed so that a draft revised Strategic Plan can be presented to the new incoming Council. 102. Upcoming reports to November Regional Planning Committee meeting likely to cover: a) RPC’s revised terms of reference b) Ngaruroro water conservation order application update c) Revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy.

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required, the decision making requirements of the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Through September 2016 report.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Steve Cave

Asset Manager Open Spaces

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Mark Heaney

Client Services Manager

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager
– Land Management

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader
- Water Quality and Ecology

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist
– Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Oliver Wade

Environmental Scientist WQ&E

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Paul Drury

Group Manager Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
RWSS Independent Engineer Panel Legal Opinion	7(2)(g) 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 maintain legal professional privilege.	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
Interim CE Remuneration Review	7(2)(a) 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 protect the privacy of natural persons.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.