Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 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 466 DP 9059 CT 150/81 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.2 Lot 40 DP 7201 CT B4/941 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.3 Lot 2 DP 14400 CT G1/1304 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.4 Lot 417 DP 11432 CT B4/1127 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.5 Lot 102 DP 12692 CT E1/67 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.6 Lot 56 DP 11779 CT C3/432 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.7 Lot 65 DP 10912 CT D4/920 - Transfer 1.1.8 Lot 92 DP 7201 CT B4/813 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.9 Lot 1 DP 4307 CT 55/200 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.10 Lot 173 DP 10990 CT C1/369 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.11 Lot 202 DP 11967 CT D1/89 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.12 Lot 336 DP 8803 CT C2/494 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.13 Lot 220 DP 11194 CT B3/82 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer 1.1.14 Lot 35 DP 14447 CT G2/661 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.15 Lot 9 DP 13899 CT F4/431 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.16 Lot 66 DP 14450 CT G2/724 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase 1.1.17 Lot 2 DP 10513 CT C1/1352 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase - Transfer	4022 4023 4024 4048 4025 4049 4027 4047 4028 4029 4030 4031 4060 4050 4063 4051 4065 4053 4059 4054 4055 4064 4056 4057 4058 4061 4062	29 September 2016 29 September 2016 29 September 2016 13 October 2016 5 October 2016 13 October 2016 10 October 2016 13 October 2016 10 October 2016 10 October 2016 10 October 2016 10 October 2016 14 Nocember 2016 13 October 2016 16 November 2016 26 October 2016 17 November 2016 2 November 2016 14 November 2016 2 November 2016 2 November 2016 16 November 2016 7 November 2016 9 November 2016 10 November 2016 16 November 2016 16 November 2016
1.2	1.2.1 W. Wright B. Horrocks B. Strachan D. Norman I. Lilburn M. Tere M. Neal N.Faulknor R. Duncan R. Webb W. Lorentz J. Hole I. Gosling P. Freeman H. Moffitt (Delegations under Section 33G(a) of the Maritime Transport Amendment Act 2013)	4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046	14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016 14 October 2016
1.3	Waipatiki campsite purchase Deed of Nomination between Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council	4026	11 October 2016
1.4 HB	Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited Proxy	4052	26 October 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 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.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

Subject: Adoption of Standing Orders

Reason for Report

1. The Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, Part 1, Sec 27) requires that “(1) A local authority must adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees” and further, states:

“(2) The standing orders of a local authority must not contravene this Act, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.

(3) After the adoption of the first standing orders of the local authority, an amendment of the standing orders or the adoption of a new set of standing orders requires, in every case, a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.

(4) A local authority or committee may temporarily suspend standing orders during a meeting by a vote of not less than 75% of the members present and voting, and the reason for the suspension must be stated in the resolution of suspension.”

2. This report is provided to enable Council to adopt its Standing Orders based upon the 2016 template provided by Local Government New Zealand.

Discussion and Suggested Amendments

3. A query was raised in relation to 3.2 Process for adoption and alteration of standing orders, and whether a simple majority vote is all that is required. Schedule 7 of the Local Government states that “3. After the adoption of the first standing orders of the local authority, an amendment of the standing orders or the adoption of a new set of standing orders requires, in every case, a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.” It is the staff recommendation that 3.2 is therefore correct, and a vote of not less than 75% is required for the adoption of this ‘new’ set of Standing Orders.

4. In relation to 9.1 Preparation of the agenda, it is suggested that the wording be amended to read: “When preparing business items for an agenda the chief executive or Group Manager responsible will consult the relevant Chairperson.”

5. This Council’s practice has been to provide the Agenda and all supporting documents (attachments) to elected representatives via electronic means first, immediately followed by provision of hard copies. It is suggested, therefore, that the second paragraph of 9.10 Distribution of the agenda be amended to read “The chief executive will provide the agenda, and other materials relating to the meeting or other Council business, to members by electronic means at least 3 clear working days before the meeting – except in the case of an extraordinary meeting, in which case SO 8.4 applies.”

6. Standing Order 9.12 Items of business not on the agenda which cannot be delayed and 9.13 Discussion of minor matters not on the agenda represent a change to the way Council has accepted and considered “General Business” in the past. It is suggested that 9.12 and 9.13 are adopted as written and Council meeting processes changed to reflect that. In practice this will mean that items not on the agenda are brought to the meeting only on matters relating to the general business of that meeting, and will be accepted for discussion by resolution of the Council or Committee only where discussion cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

7. Meeting Procedures – Opening and closing (pg. 25) provides for the Chairperson to choose how a meeting is opened. It is suggested that this is adopted as is, providing the choice of opening the meeting with the Council Prayer, karakia or other means to the relevant Chairperson.

8. SO 12.3 Leave of absence outlines the process for granting a member leave of absence. It is suggested that in order to protect members’ privacy this be amended to read “The Chairperson will grant a member leave of absence following an application from that member. The Chairperson will advise all members of the Council, the Chief Executive and the Governance Manager whenever a member has been granted leave of absence, and the period of that leave, under delegated authority. Meeting minutes during the period of leave will record that a member has leave of absence as an apology for that meeting.”

9. SO 15 Deputations, 15.1 Time limits specifies that speakers can speak for up to 5 minutes. It is suggested that this be amended to read “Speakers can speak for up to 10 minutes, however the Chairperson has the discretion to extend the speaking time with the agreement of the majority of members present.”

10. SO 18.3 provides for the Chairperson to have a Casting Vote, however it has been suggested that no Casting Vote provision be made. If agreed by a vote of not less than 75% then the SO 18.3 will be amended to read “Chairperson has no casting vote. The Chairperson or any other person presiding at a meeting has a deliberative vote, however in the case of an equality of votes, has no casting vote.

11. SO 23.3 Requirement to give notice and SO 26.1 Notice of intended motion to be in writing specify that written notice must be given to the CE “at least 5 working days before the meeting” and it has been queried whether a shorter timeframe is sufficient. Staff recommend that the “at least 5 working days before” remain, in order to allow staff to meet the statutory timeframes for 9.10 Distribution of the agenda.

12. Also in relation to SO 23.3 and 26.1, it has been suggested that rather than requiring a “scanned electronic signature” for notices sent via email, that the wording be amended to “Notice can be sent via email and include the email signatures of members.”

13. In relation to 27.2 Matters recorded in minutes, this is a list of what must be included in the Minutes in accordance with the legislation rather than an exhaustive list of what ‘might’ be included in accordance with Council or Committee practices, therefore no amendment recommended.

Decision Making Process

14. 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 contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

14.4. The persons directly affected by this decision are the elected representatives on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and its committees.

14.5. In accordance with the LGA Council has no options other than to adopt a set of Standing Orders.

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

14.7. 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:

1. Agrees that in accordance with the Local Government Act, Council is required to adopt a set of Standing Orders, and can therefore make this decision without consulting directly with the community.

2. Adopts the HBRC Standing Orders as attached, and including amendments agreed by at least 75% of those present and voting at the 30 November 2016 Regional Council meeting; being:

2.1. 9.1 Preparation of the agenda. When preparing business items for an agenda the chief executive or Group Manager responsible will consult the relevant Chairperson.

2.2. 9.10 Distribution of the agenda. The chief executive must send the agenda to every member of a meeting at least two clear working days before the day of the meeting, except in the case of an extraordinary meeting (see Standing Order 8.4). “The chief executive will provide the agenda, and other materials relating to the meeting or other Council business, to members by electronic means at least 3 clear working days before the meeting – except in the case of an extraordinary meeting, in which case SO 8.4 applies.

2.3. 9.12 Items of business not on the agenda which cannot be delayed. A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting: (a) the reason the item is not on the agenda; and (b) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the chief executive or the Chairperson. Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.

2.4. 9.13 Discussion of minor matters not on the agenda. A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.

2.5. Meeting Procedures – Opening and closing. Local authorities may, at the start of a meeting, choose to recognize the civic importance of the occasion through some form of reflection.

2.6. 12.3 Leave of absence. The Chairperson will grant a member leave of absence following an application from that member. The Chairperson will advise all members of the Council, the Chief Executive and the Governance Manager whenever a member has been granted leave of absence, and the period of that leave, under delegated authority. Meeting minutes during the period of leave will record that a member has leave of absence as an apology for that meeting.

2.7. 15 Deputations, 15.1 Time limits. Speakers can speak for up to 10 minutes, however the Chairperson has the discretion to extend the speaking time with the agreement of the majority of members present

2.8. 18.3 Chairperson has no casting vote. The Chairperson or any other person presiding at a meeting has a deliberative vote, however in the case of an equality of votes, has no casting vote.

2.9. 23.3 Requirement to give notice. A member must give notice to the chief executive at least 5 working days before the meeting at which it is proposed to consider the motion. The notice is to be signed by not less than one third of the members of the local authority, including vacancies. Notice can be sent via email and include the email signatures of members. If the notice of motion is lost, no similar notice of motion which is substantially the same in purpose and effect may be accepted within the next twelve months.

2.10. SO 26.1 Notice of intended motion to be in writing. Notice of the intended motions must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the intended motion be considered, and must be delivered to the chief executive at least 5 clear working days before such meeting. [Notice of an intended motion can be sent via email and include the email signature of the mover.] Once the motion is received the chief executive must give members notice in writing of the intended motion at least 2 clear working days’ notice of the date of the meeting at which it will be considered.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

Proposed HBRC Standing Orders for Adoption

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

Subject: Appointment of an Additional Council Member to the Regional Planning Committee

Reason for Report

1. At the first inaugural meeting, Council resolved that it:

1.1. Leaves the matter of Options for an additional member appointment to the Regional Planning Committee to lie on the table until the 30 November 2016 Regional Council meeting.

2. The remainder of this report is a virtual replica of relevant content from the earlier staff report presented to Council on 9 November regarding the Council’s governance structure for the 2016-19 Triennium.

Background

3. In August 2015 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act (RPC Act) came into effect – four years after the Council had initially established the RPC. The RPC Act’s purpose is to improve Tāngata Whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 for the Hawke’s Bay region. The RPC Act also establishes the Regional Planning Committee as a joint committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

4. Given the workload to be undertaken by the Regional Planning Committee it is proposed to increase the meeting frequency for this committee as part of the drafting of the Meeting Schedule for 2017. Previously, the RPC’s meetings have been at approximately two monthly intervals.

5. Enactment of the RPC Act prompts at least two matters which both require further consideration by the incoming Council:

5.1. the future respective roles of the RPC and the HBRC Maori Committee; and

5.2. appointment of an additional member to retain equal numbers with Tāngata Whenua RPC membership.

Appointment of an Additional Council member to the Regional Planning Committee

6. The RPC Act provides for an equal number of Tāngata Whenua members and Council members. With Pare Hill having been recently appointed by the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua as its RPC representative, there will be ten Tāngata Whenua RPC members. Section 11(1)(j) of the RPC Act anticipates ten council members appointed by the Council, but does not prescribe any parameters or process for making such an appointment. Given there are only nine councillors, the tenth position will require an appointment in accordance the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[1]} That clause requires Council to be satisfied that the person appointed “has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee.”

7. For the avoidance of doubt, any such appointment is ultimately for the Council to make – not the wider membership of the RPC.

8. The RPC’s work focusses on overseeing the review and development of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act. Principally, those documents are the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans (i.e. the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan).

9. Given the scope, purpose and matters involved in the RPC’s work, staff consider the key skills, attributes and knowledge required for the role would include (in no particular order):

9.1. Understanding of the Regional Council’s policy development and decision-making roles and responsibilities under the RMA.

9.2. Understanding of the difference in governance role and operational/management roles as it relates to plan and policy making under the RMA.

9.3. Understanding of typical meeting protocols and processes used by local authorities.

9.4. Understanding of the relevant legal frameworks for the preparation and review of the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans/plan changes under the RMA.

9.5. Current certification as a RMA hearings commissioner through ‘Making Good Decisions’ programme.

9.6. Familiarity of land, freshwater, coastal and air quality management issues in Hawke's Bay.

9.7. Availability to prepare for, and participate in regular meetings of the RPC on an ongoing basis (neither the use of short-term replacements nor a short-term appointment is considered desirable) given the RPC’s work programme overseeing a number of policy projects spanning several months, or in some instances years.

10. Staff do not consider it is essential for the appointee to have technical or scientific expertise given the role is not an operational technical role, but rather a governance-oriented role.

11. Assuming the Council agrees with the assessment of desirable competences outlined above, staff welcome any suggestions of names of persons who could be approached to enquire about their interest, availability and skills to become a member of the RPC.

12. It is considered premature to appoint a specific named individual to the Committee at this time. This is largely due to interest, availability (and Council’s affordability) of any such person not yet being known. Furthermore, potentially some would-be candidates could be conflicted given the RPC’s role and foreseeable work programme.

13. Until revisions to the RPC’s Terms of Reference are confirmed, staff do not recommend trying to second-guess what the future work of the committee will (or won’t) entail and therefore what skills, attributes and/or knowledge the tenth member should have to suit the unknown future role of the RPC relative to work of HBRC’s other committees during the 2016-19 triennium.

Options for additional member appointment

14. There are a number of options how the Council might approach the task of appointing a tenth member to the RPC. The key options which staff have identified are outlined below. There may be slight variations on any of these options, but the fundamental processes are as follows.

14.1. A - Expressions of interest: Council calls for expressions of interest, then follows a selection process to identify most suitable candidate.

14.2. B - Role-based selection: Council appoints a person based on a role that person currently holds (or previously occupied) in a related field, profession or organisation.

14.3. C - Next highest polling council candidate: Council appoints a person based on their relative ranking (being 10th place) based on the October 2016 results for HBRC elections, but this is not as straightforward as it might seem due to HBRC’s elections being constituency-based and not ‘at large.’ Either way, this option would require further consideration of the candidate’s “skills, attributes and knowledge to assist the RPC’s work” as per the LGA’s requirements.

15. By way of example for another region, the Government must appoint up to six people as members of the Environment Canterbury transitional governing body. The responsible Ministers “must appoint members who will complement the knowledge and expertise of [Environment Canterbury’s] elected members so that, collectively, the members of the transitional governing body will have knowledge of, and expertise in relation to, the following matters: (a) the management of freshwater; and (b) local authority governance and management; and (c) tikanga Maori, as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (d) the Canterbury region and its people.”^{^[2]}

Financial and resource implications of appointing a tenth member to RPC

16. Governance and committee meeting expenses are provided for in Project 840 (Community Representation and Regional Leadership).

17. The tenth member’s attendance at future RPC meetings will incur additional costs. Those costs will include payments for the member’s travel and attendance at RPC meetings. For equity reasons, staff consider the tenth member would be entitled to the standard meeting fee ($400 per meeting day) plus mileage. The fee of $400 per meeting day is recommended by the State Services Commission and is already in place for the RPC’s tangata whenua members. However, it should be noted that there is a likelihood for some persons who have the skills, attributes and/or knowledge to assist the work of the RPC will have normal day jobs payable at hourly rates in excess of a member’s standard meeting fee.

Decision Making Process

18. 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:

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

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

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

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are councillors and those members of staff and the public participating in and contributing to Council and Committee meetings.

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

18.6. 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:

1. Receives and notes the “Appointment Of An Additional Council Member To The Regional Planning Committee” staff report.

2. Considers Options A, B and C for additional member appointment to the Regional Planning Committee outlined in the report and identifies a preferred option; being Option _____.

3. Notes that, based on the Council’s preferred option, staff will prepare a preliminary shortlist of potential candidates for further consideration by the Council at a meeting in early 2017.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

Subject: Review of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided in response to Council’s resolutions at the Regional Council meeting on 9 November 2016 following.

1.1. Agrees to commission an independent review of key contractual, legal, financial, economic and environmental elements of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, including the impacts and consequences of implementing Plan Change 6 with and without the Scheme, as well as withdrawal from the scheme.

1.2. Requests that the Group Manager Strategic Development leads the review process and reports back to the Council meeting on 30 November 2016 with detailed advice on the packages of work to be included in a review, resource implications, expected timeframes for delivery and whether commissioning external advice on any particular aspects is likely to be required.

Proposed Review

2. The RWSS involves significant interrelated commercial, economic, social and environmental considerations for the Hawke’s Bay Region and for the Council. The scheme also has strong dependencies with Plan Change 6 of the Regional Resource Management Plan. A decision to either proceed with, abandon or shelve the scheme requires careful consideration of a number of interdependent matters. Councillors have identified a number of these issues which they would like re-assessed and brought back for further consideration, and the views of the community have also been sought on issues for consideration.

3. The matters proposed by some Councillors and members of the public for review include aspects of the business case, the operation of the scheme’s resource consents, and an assessment of impacts on land users in the catchment and the HBRC in implementing Plan Change 6 in the absence of the RWSS.

4. Over the course of the last 6 years a large number of reports have been prepared for councillors on economic and environmental aspects of the RWSS. Most of the issues that councillors and members of the public have identified for further review have already been canvassed, and in some cases multiple times. As such it is possible to review, summarise and where necessary simply update this work and present it as part of an overall review document. In a few areas further analytical work will need to be undertaken, including by independent parties. A suggested approach to this division of labour is set out below.

Proposed Approach

5. It is not intended that this review will recommend to councillors whether to proceed, abandon or shelve the RWSS. Rather the review is intended to support councillors in making further decisions on the way forward, and to support public consultation on the choices to be confronted. The starting point is that there is no ‘right or wrong’ answer that the review is seeking to determine, rather there is a balance of costs and benefits, and risks and opportunities, associated with the scheme that requirements judgement.

6. The approach proposed is to ensure the costs and benefits of the scheme, as well as risks and opportunities with decisions to proceed, abandon or shelve the scheme, are clearly identified and articulated in order to facilitate informed decision making.

7. The review will place an emphasis on objectively describing the issues, clarifying areas of identified concern with both proceeding or not proceeding with the scheme, and refrain from advocating for a particular outcome.

Independence

8. Several public submitters have expressed concern about the independence of a review utilising staff and advisors that have been involved in the scheme to date. Councillors face a choice as to whether to minimise costs and delay by using internal staff and existing advisors wherever possible, or whether to maximise independence and a fresh look at the issues by using entirely new external advisors.

9. Undertaking a full review of all of the contractual, legal, financial, economic and environmental elements of the scheme by only individuals that have not been involved to date will be enormously expensive and time consuming. Based on the issues identified for review, including science, modelling and extensive research, the costs could be expected to be upwards of $1 million and take between 6 and 12 months. There would be questions as to where this review would stop and how much of the vast engineering, science and commercial analysis that would need to be redone.

10. In light of the costs and delays of a full, completely independent review staff recommended a hybrid approach is taken that leverages the knowledge of internal staff and existing advisors to the greatest extent and ‘fresh’ eyes are used by exception where councillors identify this as being necessary. This approach would involve using:

10.1. HBRC staff familiar with aspects of the scheme to review and summarise information that has already undergone extensive peer review (environmental impact assessment)

10.2. HBRIC staff to inform HBRC staff and independent advisors where information is held solely by HBRIC (eg. contractual information)

10.3. Existing external advisors where there is substantial investment in knowledge has already been made (eg. Deloitte)

10.4. New external advisors where new information requires advice not previously sought (eg. legal).

11. To ensure there is independent scrutiny of the process it is also proposed that an external reference group is appointed to assist the Group Manager Strategic Development in overseeing the workstream and the compilation of the final report to the Council. It is proposed that such a group would have an appropriate mix of skills and experience to objectively test the review conclusions. Guidance on the composition of this reference group is sought from councillors at the 30 November meeting.

12. This hybrid approach is expected to involve external consultancy costs of approximately $100,000, approximately 460 to 580 hours of internal staff time, and approximately 210 hours of HBRIC staff time at a cost of around $32,000.

Public Consultation on Review Scope

13. On Thursday 17 November the Council placed an advertisement in the Hawkes Bay Today seeking public suggestions for topic areas for this review by way of email. Councillor Bailey also invited suggestions and has forwarded these to Council staff. At the time of writing 26 individual emails had been received. Submitters generally expressed appreciation for being offered the opportunity for input.

14. A summary of all suggestions, and copies of the submissions, will be provided to councillors at the Council meeting on 30 November. An interim summary of the key suggested topics is provided in the following table.

Issue	Count	Review Issue No.
Insufficient storage rainfall inflows	8	23
Impacts of intensification on nutrients and ecology (1 on terrestrial)	6	12
Questionable economic impact forecasts	6	8 and 9
Inadequate business case for investment	5	4
Independence of review	4	N/A
Benefit of flushing flows	3	15
Gravel management behind dam	3	21
Questionable social benefits	3	Indirectly 9 and 10
Decommissioning of dam	3	21
Climate change impacts on flows and land use constraints	3	Partially 23
Fairness and transfer of wealth	3	Indirectly 9 and 10
Adequacy of offsets and mitigation	2	15
On-farm storage alternatives	2	19
Risks to the Port of Napier	2	5
Obligations for N mitigation by RWSS water users	2	12, 16 and 17
Seismic risk to dam	2	21
Insufficient water uptake	1	6
PC6 without RWSS	1	13 and 14
Land use change assumptions	1	8
Financial risks to ratepayers	1	5
Updated capital costs	1	4
HBRC environmental flows	1	N/A
Groundwater impacts	1	12
Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant agriculture	1	N/A
Land swap ethics	1	Partially 1

Proposed topics

15. At the council workshop on 26 October Councillor Beaven identified potential topics for review. These have been considered alongside feedback from the public at the time of writing and following internal consideration by staff. Some of the topics have been refined and all proposed topics, including who will undertake the work, are set out below. Feedback from councillors is sought at the meeting on 30 November on any omissions or topics that can be amended or deleted. Feedback is also sought on the proposed providers of the work.

Issue for Review	HBRC In-house Staff Time Estimated hours	HBRIC Staff Estimated hours	External Provider (NB. Not all have been approached for availability)
Legal
1. Assessment of the prospect of DoC/HBRIC succeeding in the Supreme Court land swap appeal and any consequential impacts on the ability to acquire conservation land under the Public Works Act. Comment: Due to be completed by and presented to the Council meeting of 30 November 2016.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~6 hours	N/A	Sainsbury Logan Est. ~$5000
2. Advice on the process steps available to HBRC, and any associated legal risks, to withdraw or shelve the RWSS in the event HBRC determines that either the Conditions Precedent are not met, or as a result of any other policy matter determined by HBRC. Comment: Some legal advice may need to be provided under privilege and not provided for public disclosure.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~10 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Sainsbury Logan Est. ~10 hours	Sainsbury Logan Est. ~$5000
3. Advice on all anticipatable costs and liabilities for both HBRC and HBRIC arising from abandoning or shelving the RWSS in the event HBRC determines that either the Conditions Precedent are not met, or as a result of any other policy matter determined by HBRC. Advice on the residual value of RWSS-related assets, including intellectual property, in the event HBRC abandons or shelves the scheme.	Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups Est. ~10 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Bell Gully and PWC Est. ~20-30 hours	Bell Gully Est. ~$10,000 PWC on balance sheet and tax matters Est. ~$10,000
Financial
4. Review forecast revenue and expenditure (including finance and insurance costs) for RWLP, and dividends, returns on equity for HBRC and private investors arising from the scheme’s cashflow model based on: a) current contracted volumes of water, and b) low, c) medium and d) high uptake contracted rates of remaining volumes and consequential impacts on spot market sales, over first 35 years of the project. Advice on the return on, and terms of, debt provided by Crown Irrigation Investments Limited.	Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups Est. ~20-30 hours	HBRIC/BNZ staff time to assemble and provide information to Deloitte Est. ~40 hours	Deloitte Est. ~$15,000
5. Assessment of impacts on a) HBRC’s Long Term Plan, b) HBRIC’s balance sheet and c) the Port of Napier from scenarios of HBRIC dividends to HBRC falling below 6% cash returns for estimated periods.	Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups Est.~20-30 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Deloitte Est. ~10 hours	Deloitte Est. ~$5000
6. Peer review of forecasts of contracted water uptake and spot market demand Comment: This information is expected to be necessarily aggregated to protect commercial information provided in confidence.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~6 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Opuha Water Limited. Est. ~10 hours	Opuha Water Limited? Est. ~$5000
7. Advice on the barriers to faster uptake and/or reasons for landowners in the command area not contracting water, acknowledging the HBRC Condition Precedent threshold of 40Mm3 is deemed by HBRIC to have been met. Comment: This information is expected to be necessarily generalised to protect commercial information provided in confidence.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~6 hours	HBRIC staff time (Duncan McLeod) Est. ~15-20 hours	N/A
Economic
8. Peer review and sensitivity analysis of the RWSS Farm Profitability (Macfarlane Rural Agribusiness) Report Comment: This report is recommended for peer review in light of the extent of critical comment it has drawn.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~10 hours	N/A	Stuart Ford, Agribusiness Group Est. ~$10,000 Macfarlane Rural Agribusiness to liaise with Stuart Ford Est. ~$2,000
9. Summarise Butcher Report conclusions, scenarios and assumptions Comment: This report relies in part of the above report and so may need some updating following the peer review above. The previous version of this report was peer reviewed by Nimmo Bell and therefore it is not recommended that this report be further peer reviewed but rather the range of outcomes forecast, assumptions and limitations in the analysis be summarised for reporting to councillors and the public. However, should councilors wish to have the work more fundamentally reconsidered there are economists available to contract to undertake the work.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~10-20 hours	N/A	N/A
10. Collation of views of downstream production demand from meat, dairy and horticulture processors and exporters, as well as impacts on Port of Napier, from RWSS related production Comment: Given dynamic market conditions it is recommended that the most recent views on the value of the scheme be canvassed with major supply chain participants. This work will have broader benefits of engaging these businesses in a discussion on the value of water.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~50 hours	N/A	N/A
11. Summarise conclusions, scenarios and assumptions in Nimmo Bell Report on alternative investments Comment: It is not proposed that this work be redone but rather the key conclusions, assumptions and limitations in the analysis be summarised for reporting to councillors and the public.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~10-20 hours	N/A	N/A
Environmental
12. Assessment of on-farm management practices, including stocking levels and associated land-use constraints, required to meet the nutrient leaching and groundwater water quality requirements of Plan Change 6 and the Regional Policy Statement. Estimate of current compliance within existing land uses and the extent of headroom for intensification will be provided. Comment: This has been the subject of ongoing work but a complete picture has not yet been assembled. It is recommended that this work be built upon further and have ongoing value to support PC6 implementation.	Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups Est. ~40-60 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Ian Millner Est. ~10 hours	Ian Millner, Rural Directions Est. $10,000
13. Assessment of high level implications for HBRC resources and approach to implementing PC6 should RWSS not proceed, including for the management of Tranche 2 water. Comment: Extensive analysis and forecasting of detailed PC6 implementation resource requirements will be undertaken in 2017 in preparation for the next Long Term Plan. It is only proposed to undertake a high level assessment for the purposes of this review.	Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups Est. ~40-60 hours	N/A	Ian Millner, Rural Directions Est. $5000
14. Assessment of the impact on irrigation security and resultant farm-gate production in the Tukituki catchment arising from the increased minimum flows in PC6 if the supplementary flows required under RWSS consents are not available. Comment: This work has been undertaken previously and it is recommended that it be reviewed and updated. The work will have ongoing value given that 2018 increases in minimum flows will occur without the scheme regardless of the outcome of this review.	Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups Est. ~20-30 hours	N/A	Stuart Ford, Agribusiness Group, or Simon Harris Consulting Est. $5,000
15. Review efficacy of flushing flows and associated estimated impacts of losses to groundwater within the river course Comment: This work has been undertaken previously for HBRIC. It is recommended that HBRC science staff peer review this and provide comment to councillors.	Resource Management (Science) and Strategic Development groups Est. ~20-30 hours	HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to RM Group Est 5 hours	N/A
16. Legal advice on the status of the PC6 DIN limits as they apply to RWSS farmers relative to other farmers in the catchment Comment: This legal advice has been previously sought. It is proposed that the advice be reviewed by relevant HBRC teams and comment provided to councillors.	Resource Management (Science, Consents, Land Management) and Strategic Development groups Est ~10 hours	N/A	Simpson Grierson (completed)
17. Clarification of the obligations of RWSS supplied farmers versus other farmers’ in the catchment to meet the requirements of PC6 Comment: This legal advice has been previously sought. It is proposed that the advice be reviewed by relevant HBRC teams and comment provided to councillors.	Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups Est ~10 hours	N/A	Simpson Grierson (completed)
Engineering
18. High level assessment of the available storage capacity if the scheme is altered to keep the reservoir below the DOC land and not impact on currently approved consents, and associated impacts on capital requirements, distribution, revenue and expenditure Comment: These issues have been largely addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be reviewed, collated and summarised for councillors and the public.	N/A	Graeme Hansen for HBRIC Est. ~20 hours	N/A
19. High level assessment of alternative dam sites off river main stems and assessment of specific on-farm storage options, including impacts on distribution costs and revenue, and impacts on primary production output. Comment: These issues have been addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be collated and summarised for councilors.	N/A	Graeme Hansen for HBRIC Est. ~20 hours	N/A
20. Assessment of options to reduce consenting costs for on-farm storage in Tukituki catchment. Comment: This is new work.	Resource Management Consents) Group Est. ~20 hours	N/A	N/A
21. Advice on the proposed approach to gravel management within the reservoir, including operating costs and consent compliance, seismic risks to dam integrity, and any issues arising from future decommissioning of the dam Comment: These issues have been largely addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be reviewed, collated and summarised for councillors and the public.	N/A	Graeme Hansen for HBRIC Est. ~20 hours	N/A
22. Constraints on reliability of supply for water users arising from constraints in the distribution network and from the dam outlet Comment: This information is generally known to HBRIC and advice is expected to be necessarily high level and generalised to protect commercially sensitive information.	N/A	Graeme Hansen for HBRC Est. ~20 hours	N/A
23. Summarise reports and peer reviews of synthetic in-flow model and assumed climate forecasts for reservoir recharge, and associated consequences for the timing of post-commissioning revenue, scheme reliability for water users and the minimum annual low flow. Comment: Most of this work has been undertaken previously by HBRIC and been extensively peer reviewed, and it is therefore proposed that this advice be reviewed by HBRC Science and Strategic Development staff.	Resource Management (Science) and Strategic Development groups Est. ~10-20 hours	Graeme Hansen for HBRIC Est. ~10 hours	N/A
Project Management
24. Oversight, tracking and reporting on work streams. Procurement of advice and financial control.	Strategic Development Group Est. ~60 hours	N/A	$5,000 for costs associated with reference group
25. Preparation of report for Council	Strategic Development Group Est. ~30-40 hours	N/A	N/A
26. Public consultation Comment: Assumes preparation of a discussion document, web presence and a series of public meetings following the presentation of the review report to Council	Strategic Development Group Est. ~40 hours	N/A	$6000-7000
Total estimated costs	Between ~460 and 580 hours	~210 hours at a cost of approximately $32,000	~$100,000

Issue for Review

HBRC In-house Staff Time

Estimated hours

HBRIC Staff

Estimated hours

External Provider

(NB. Not all have been approached for availability)

Legal

1. Assessment of the prospect of DoC/HBRIC succeeding in the Supreme Court land swap appeal and any consequential impacts on the ability to acquire conservation land under the Public Works Act.

Comment: Due to be completed by and presented to the Council meeting of 30 November 2016.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~6 hours

N/A

Sainsbury Logan

Est. ~$5000

2. Advice on the process steps available to HBRC, and any associated legal risks, to withdraw or shelve the RWSS in the event HBRC determines that either the Conditions Precedent are not met, or as a result of any other policy matter determined by HBRC.

Comment: Some legal advice may need to be provided under privilege and not provided for public disclosure.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~10 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Sainsbury Logan

Est. ~10 hours

Sainsbury Logan

Est. ~$5000

3. Advice on all anticipatable costs and liabilities for both HBRC and HBRIC arising from abandoning or shelving the RWSS in the event HBRC determines that either the Conditions Precedent are not met, or as a result of any other policy matter determined by HBRC. Advice on the residual value of RWSS-related assets, including intellectual property, in the event HBRC abandons or shelves the scheme.

Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups

Est. ~10 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Bell Gully and PWC

Est. ~20-30 hours

Bell Gully

Est. ~$10,000

PWC on balance sheet and tax matters

Est. ~$10,000

Financial

4. Review forecast revenue and expenditure (including finance and insurance costs) for RWLP, and dividends, returns on equity for HBRC and private investors arising from the scheme’s cashflow model based on: a) current contracted volumes of water, and b) low, c) medium and d) high uptake contracted rates of remaining volumes and consequential impacts on spot market sales, over first 35 years of the project. Advice on the return on, and terms of, debt provided by Crown Irrigation Investments Limited.

Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups

Est. ~20-30 hours

HBRIC/BNZ staff time to assemble and provide information to Deloitte

Est. ~40 hours

Deloitte

Est. ~$15,000

5. Assessment of impacts on a) HBRC’s Long Term Plan, b) HBRIC’s balance sheet and c) the Port of Napier from scenarios of HBRIC dividends to HBRC falling below 6% cash returns for estimated periods.

Strategic Development and Corporate Services groups

Est.~20-30 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Deloitte

Est. ~10 hours

Deloitte

Est. ~$5000

6. Peer review of forecasts of contracted water uptake and spot market demand

Comment: This information is expected to be necessarily aggregated to protect commercial information provided in confidence.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~6 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Opuha Water Limited.

Est. ~10 hours

Opuha Water Limited?

Est. ~$5000

7. Advice on the barriers to faster uptake and/or reasons for landowners in the command area not contracting water, acknowledging the HBRC Condition Precedent threshold of 40Mm3 is deemed by HBRIC to have been met.

Comment: This information is expected to be necessarily generalised to protect commercial information provided in confidence.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~6 hours

HBRIC staff time (Duncan McLeod)

Est. ~15-20 hours

N/A

Economic

8. Peer review and sensitivity analysis of the RWSS Farm Profitability (Macfarlane Rural Agribusiness) Report

Comment: This report is recommended for peer review in light of the extent of critical comment it has drawn.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~10 hours

N/A

Stuart Ford, Agribusiness Group

Est. ~$10,000

Macfarlane Rural Agribusiness to liaise with Stuart Ford

Est. ~$2,000

9. Summarise Butcher Report conclusions, scenarios and assumptions

Comment: This report relies in part of the above report and so may need some updating following the peer review above. The previous version of this report was peer reviewed by Nimmo Bell and therefore it is not recommended that this report be further peer reviewed but rather the range of outcomes forecast, assumptions and limitations in the analysis be summarised for reporting to councillors and the public. However, should councilors wish to have the work more fundamentally reconsidered there are economists available to contract to undertake the work.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~10-20 hours

N/A

10. Collation of views of downstream production demand from meat, dairy and horticulture processors and exporters, as well as impacts on Port of Napier, from RWSS related production

Comment: Given dynamic market conditions it is recommended that the most recent views on the value of the scheme be canvassed with major supply chain participants. This work will have broader benefits of engaging these businesses in a discussion on the value of water.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~50 hours

N/A

11. Summarise conclusions, scenarios and assumptions in Nimmo Bell Report on alternative investments

Comment: It is not proposed that this work be redone but rather the key conclusions, assumptions and limitations in the analysis be summarised for reporting to councillors and the public.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~10-20 hours

N/A

Environmental

12. Assessment of on-farm management practices, including stocking levels and associated land-use constraints, required to meet the nutrient leaching and groundwater water quality requirements of Plan Change 6 and the Regional Policy Statement. Estimate of current compliance within existing land uses and the extent of headroom for intensification will be provided.

Comment: This has been the subject of ongoing work but a complete picture has not yet been assembled. It is recommended that this work be built upon further and have ongoing value to support PC6 implementation.

Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups

Est. ~40-60 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to Ian Millner

Est. ~10 hours

Ian Millner, Rural Directions

Est. $10,000

13. Assessment of high level implications for HBRC resources and approach to implementing PC6 should RWSS not proceed, including for the management of Tranche 2 water.

Comment: Extensive analysis and forecasting of detailed PC6 implementation resource requirements will be undertaken in 2017 in preparation for the next Long Term Plan. It is only proposed to undertake a high level assessment for the purposes of this review.

Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups

Est. ~40-60 hours

N/A

Ian Millner, Rural Directions

Est. $5000

14. Assessment of the impact on irrigation security and resultant farm-gate production in the Tukituki catchment arising from the increased minimum flows in PC6 if the supplementary flows required under RWSS consents are not available.

Comment: This work has been undertaken previously and it is recommended that it be reviewed and updated. The work will have ongoing value given that 2018 increases in minimum flows will occur without the scheme regardless of the outcome of this review.

Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups

Est. ~20-30 hours

N/A

Stuart Ford, Agribusiness Group, or Simon Harris Consulting

Est. $5,000

15. Review efficacy of flushing flows and associated estimated impacts of losses to groundwater within the river course

Comment: This work has been undertaken previously for HBRIC. It is recommended that HBRC science staff peer review this and provide comment to councillors.

Resource Management (Science) and Strategic Development groups

Est. ~20-30 hours

HBRIC staff time to assemble and provide information to RM Group

Est 5 hours

N/A

16. Legal advice on the status of the PC6 DIN limits as they apply to RWSS farmers relative to other farmers in the catchment

Comment: This legal advice has been previously sought. It is proposed that the advice be reviewed by relevant HBRC teams and comment provided to councillors.

Resource Management (Science, Consents, Land Management) and Strategic Development groups

Est ~10 hours

N/A

Simpson Grierson

(completed)

17. Clarification of the obligations of RWSS supplied farmers versus other farmers’ in the catchment to meet the requirements of PC6

Comment: This legal advice has been previously sought. It is proposed that the advice be reviewed by relevant HBRC teams and comment provided to councillors.

Resource Management (science, consents, land management) and Strategic Development groups

Est ~10 hours

N/A

Simpson Grierson

(completed)

Engineering

18. High level assessment of the available storage capacity if the scheme is altered to keep the reservoir below the DOC land and not impact on currently approved consents, and associated impacts on capital requirements, distribution, revenue and expenditure

Comment: These issues have been largely addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be reviewed, collated and summarised for councillors and the public.

N/A

Graeme Hansen for HBRIC

Est. ~20 hours

N/A

19. High level assessment of alternative dam sites off river main stems and assessment of specific on-farm storage options, including impacts on distribution costs and revenue, and impacts on primary production output.

Comment: These issues have been addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be collated and summarised for councilors.

N/A

Graeme Hansen for HBRIC

Est. ~20 hours

N/A

20. Assessment of options to reduce consenting costs for on-farm storage in Tukituki catchment.

Comment: This is new work.

Resource Management Consents) Group

Est. ~20 hours

N/A

21. Advice on the proposed approach to gravel management within the reservoir, including operating costs and consent compliance, seismic risks to dam integrity, and any issues arising from future decommissioning of the dam

Comment: These issues have been largely addressed previously by HBRIC and this advice will be reviewed, collated and summarised for councillors and the public.

N/A

Graeme Hansen for HBRIC

Est. ~20 hours

N/A

22. Constraints on reliability of supply for water users arising from constraints in the distribution network and from the dam outlet

Comment: This information is generally known to HBRIC and advice is expected to be necessarily high level and generalised to protect commercially sensitive information.

N/A

Graeme Hansen for HBRC

Est. ~20 hours

N/A

23. Summarise reports and peer reviews of synthetic in-flow model and assumed climate forecasts for reservoir recharge, and associated consequences for the timing of post-commissioning revenue, scheme reliability for water users and the minimum annual low flow.

Comment: Most of this work has been undertaken previously by HBRIC and been extensively peer reviewed, and it is therefore proposed that this advice be reviewed by HBRC Science and Strategic Development staff.

Resource Management (Science) and Strategic Development groups

Est. ~10-20 hours

Graeme Hansen for HBRIC

Est. ~10 hours

N/A

Project Management

24. Oversight, tracking and reporting on work streams. Procurement of advice and financial control.

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~60 hours

N/A

$5,000 for costs associated with reference group

25. Preparation of report for Council

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~30-40 hours

N/A

26. Public consultation

Comment: Assumes preparation of a discussion document, web presence and a series of public meetings following the presentation of the review report to Council

Strategic Development Group

Est. ~40 hours

N/A

$6000-7000

Total estimated costs

Between ~460 and 580 hours

~210 hours at a cost of approximately $32,000

~$100,000

Timing

16. Given the breadth of issues that have identified for review the work involved is significant and completion by the end of February will be challenging. There is a proposed Council meeting on 29 March 2017 and it is proposed that the review report to this meeting, with finalisation of a review report in mid-March. However, should councillors be willing to consider receiving the findings of the review at the proposed meeting on 26 April 2017 this will improve the quality of the analysis and peer review, and reduce the displacement effect on other work programmes.

Land swap issues

17. Lara Blomfield of Sainsbury Logan & Williams, which regularly advises HBRC on environmental management law has been commissioned to provide legal advice on the prospects of success for DoC and HBRIC in the Supreme Court land swap appeal, and for any consequential impacts this appeal may have on the ability to acquire conservation land under the Public Works Act. This legal advice was not able to be completed prior to the deadline for this paper and will be tabled at the meeting on 30 November 2016.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. The external costs of this review work programme including HBRIC staff time, estimated to be between $130,000 and $150,000, will be capitalised to the RWSS project, this accounting treatment being consistent with past peer and evaluation exercises commissioned by HBRC on the RWSS. Estimated internal staff time of between 460 and 580 hours will be absorbed within existing expenditure but is expected to have an impact, albeit manageable, on work programmes in the Strategic Development and Resource Management groups.

Decision Making Process

19. 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:

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

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

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

19.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers in the region.

19.5. Options that have been considered include taking no action, but given the concerns of some councillors and the significance of the issues for the region the benefits of undertaking a review of the scheme at this time outweigh the costs.

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

19.7. 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:

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. Agrees that this review will not recommend to councillors whether to proceed, abandon or shelve the RWSS

3. Agrees that the purpose of this review is to ensure the costs and benefits of the scheme, as well as risks and opportunities with decisions to proceed, abandon or shelve the scheme, are clearly identified and articulated in order to facilitate informed decision making;

4. Agrees that the approach to conducting the review should leverage the knowledge of internal staff and existing advisors to the greatest extent possible and ‘fresh’ eyes are used by exception where councillors identify this as being necessary.

5. Agrees to the work programme detailed in this paper, with any amendments agreed by Council;

6. Requests the Group Manager reports back to the Council with the findings for the Review on either 29 March 2017 or 26 April 2017.

7. Agrees external costs of this review work programme including HBRIC staff time, estimated to be between $130,000 and $150,000, will be capitalised to the RWSS project.

Authored by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

Subject: Councillor Director Appointments to the HBRIC Ltd Board

Reason for Report

1. Councillors have indicated that they are interested in appointing two councillor directors to the Board of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC Ltd).

2. The most recent decision on the composition of the HBRIC Board – in March 2016 – confirmed that the no councillor director appointments to the HBRIC Ltd Board would be made at that time, but appointments would be revisited in 2017 post October local body elections. Council also approved the establishment of an Appointments Committee, in accordance with HBRC Policy on the Appointments and Remuneration of Directors, should a vacancy be determined for directors to the Board of HBRIC Ltd whether councillor or independent directors.

3. The purpose of this paper is to put details around the composition of the Appointments Committee and the timeline for the process.

Discussion

Appointments Committee Establishment Process

4. The relevant policy (paragraph 19) of the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors Policy for membership of the Appointments Committee is as follows:

The Council will establish a Council Appointments Committee after the triennial Council election to recommend to Council the appointment of Council and independent Directors to HBRIC Ltd. This committee will be comprised of four members who are not seeking appointment to the HBRIC Ltd Board. Where possible the committee members will include the current chair of HBRIC Ltd, a Councillor, a recently retired Councillor and an external experienced director.

5. It is not mandatory for the committee to consist of those persons and the composition of the committee can consist of other persons as determined by the Council. However, where possible the committee should consist of persons meeting the criteria set out in the policy.

6. There are two aspects to the establishment of the Appointments Committee:

6.1. The composition of the committee, with the policy as the starting point;

6.2. The appointment of specific individuals to the Committee.

7. If the composition of the Appointments Committee can be determined at this Council meeting, then legal advice suggests that the appointment of specific individuals to the committee if not resolved at this meeting can be done outside of a formal Council meeting. This would allow for the convening of the committee quite quickly and the process commencing.

8. Prior to discussion on individual appointments to the Appointments Committee the Council will need to determine which councillors wish to seek appointment as directors of HBRIC Ltd; and they will be excluded from being a member of the Appointments Committee.

Director Appointment Process

9. In the process of selecting Council directors the Appointments Committee will first determine the required skills, knowledge and experience which is necessary for an effective board. In general terms, the committee will apply similar criteria to potential candidates to those used by HBRIC Ltd in its assessment of candidates for other CCTOs. Paragraph 51 of the policy provides for the following qualities that would be sought in directors:

9.1. Intellectual ability.

9.2. Commercial experience.

9.3. Understanding of governance issues.

9.4. Sound judgement.

9.5. High standard of personal integrity.

9.6. Commitment to the principles of good corporate citizenship.

9.7. Understanding of the wider interests of the publicly-accountable shareholder.

10. However, where necessary the committee will also take into account a candidate’s potential to quickly acquire business and financial skills, as well as his or her existing skills and experience. The candidates’ skills must be relevant to the requirements of HBRIC Ltd in terms of its governance and provide as far as possible that there is a suitable cross-section of skills available at the board table which is capable of meeting the normal criteria of good governance.

11. The Policy provides that the committee may use the services of a specialist consultant in making an assessment of the suitability of candidates for a Council Director position (paragraph 19 of the policy).

12. Under paragraph 22 of the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors Policy the committee must interview all councillors who have expressed an interest in being appointed to the Board.

13. Following those interviews the Appointments Committee makes it final recommendation in a report to Council. That report must be considered at a Council meeting, and in the public part of the agenda. Council will then make its decision at the meeting.

Decision Making Process

14. 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:

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

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

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

14.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers of the region.

14.5. Options that have been considered include not appointing Councillor directors to the HBRIC Ltd Board.

14.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan, although if Council chooses to amend the existing policy this aspect will need to be re-considered.

Recommendations

That Council resolves that:

1. 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. The composition of the Appointments Committee to recommend to Council the appointment of directors to HBRIC Ltd be notified by either confirming the current policy or resolving to change the policy.

3. Those Councillors that wish to be considered for appointment as a director of HBRIC Ltd be identified.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

SUBJECT: Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Four Months of the 2016-17 Financial Year

Reason for Report

1. This report provides progress for the first four months of the current financial year to 31 October 2016 on both financial and non-financial performance measures. Further, an interim reforecasting exercise is also provided.

Reforecast of Annual Plan 2016-17

2. An interim reforecast exercise has been carried out covering proposed adjustments to the Annual Plan. The areas covered by this reforecast are:

2.1. The expenditure and proposed funding covering the water contamination investigation and inquiry.

2.2. Changes to regional income estimates due to the delay in the RWSS.

2.3. The interim reforecast exercise has increased the 2016/17 deficit from $487,000 (annual plan) to $555,000 (reforecast). Reasons for this change are covered in points 4 and 5 in this paper.

3. A further reforecasting exercise which will include groups of activity expenditure and revenues will be carried out at the normal nine-month reforecasting exercise period and reported to Council at the April 2017 Council meeting.

Water Contamination Investigation/Inquiry

4. A report to Council on 28 October 2016 established that funding for the external investigation component would be sourced from savings in current budget provisions and also using the 2015-16 operating statement surplus of $86,000. The effect of these adjustments is to increase the current year Annual Plan deficit by a further $86,000.

5. Included in Attachment 1, section (B), is a report on expenditure to mid November 2016 covering both the investigation and inquiry of the water contamination issue, whilst staff costs for the investigation phase is higher than anticipated, external costs have been contained within forecast.

Regional Income

6. HBRIC Ltd Dividend ($2,340,000 U): The HBRIC Ltd Statement of Intent for the year ending 30 June 2017 provides for a dividend payment of $9.5 million in the event that the RWSS is delayed by approximately one year. Given the delay in the finalisation of the Supreme Court judgement it is proposed to amend the dividend to be paid to the $9.5 million for the 2016-17 year.

7. Interest Paid on HBRIC Ltd Loans ($180,000 F): HBRIC Ltd have actioned borrowing of $6 million from HBRC and approvals for this have been by Council resolution and the borrowing powers included in the Statement of Intent. The interest to be paid on these borrowings for the 2016-17 year have been estimated at $180,000.

8. Ngaruroro Water Investment ($49,980 U): As this investment will not be proceeded with during the current financial year, no interest will accrue to advances made for this project.

9. Interest on Sale of Land Reserve ($1,540,200 F): The Annual Plan provided up to $40 million to be drawn down during the current financial year by HBRIC Ltd for the RWSS investment. It is anticipated that this sum will now not be drawn down due to the delay in implementation of the RWSS and it will continue to be invested by Council on bank term deposit. Interest rates achieved on these deposits are higher than anticipated at the development of the Annual Plan estimates and are currently yielding between 3.3% - 3.5%.

10. Interest on Loans for Investment ($345,000 F): The Annual Plan provided for borrowings of $11.5 million to cover investments other than the RWSS. As the drawdown of funds for the RWSS is now on hold, there will be no need to borrow to fund investments other than the RWSS during the current financial year.

11. Napier/Wairoa Rail ($167,203 U): At the time of development of the Annual Plan in March 2016 it was anticipated that interest would be earned on the Council’s proposed contributions towards this project. It is now anticipated that this project will not be underway until the 2017-18 financial year as the service is to commence when log tonnages achieve the level set out in the current business case.

12. Regional Income Equalisation Reserve ($194,984 F): This reserve was established by Council a number of years ago to offset fluctuations in regional income when the actual income falls short of the level budgeted for in the Annual Plan. There is approximately $300,000 left in this reserve and it is proposed to drawdown $194,984 in the current financial year.

13. This reforecast exercise establishes that for regional income, unfavourable movements are offset by favourable movements. Accordingly, there is no effect on the Annual Plan deficit.

Financial Report for Four Months to 31 October 2016

14. Following are three graphs showing the financial position for the first four months analysing groups of activity, regional income and total operating position actual against the reforecast Annual Plan.

The increases in the operating position in December and June and relate to receiving the interim and final dividends from HBRIC Ltd. The June balance reflects the reforecast deficit of $555k.

15. The pro-rata deficit for the first four months to 31 October 2016 is estimated at $2,549,000, the actual deficit is $2,464,000 giving a favourable variance of $85,000. The significant variations actual to pro rata budgets are:

Regional Resources ($329,000 fav)

15.1. The Regional Resource group of activity is under budget for this stage of the year. This is due to water science staff being diverted to the Havelock North Water Contamination Investigation and Inquiry for a large period of the first quarter. This has had the effect of an underspend in staff time of around $100,000 which has been charged to regulation as well as an underspend in external costs of around $230,000 for such items as lab testing and consultancy which have not progressed as much as anticipated due to the diverted staff resource.

Regional Resources ($342,000 unfav)

15.2. The Regulation group of activity is over budget for this stage of the year. This is due to internal costs for science and executive staff being charged to Regulation for work on the Havelock North Water Contamination Investigation and Inquiry. There are also some large legal and consulting costs for active consent appeals, which are in various stages of litigation. Some of these costs are potentially recoverable once the outcomes are known but there is the possibility of budget overspend in this area due to the nature and number of active appeals. The Group Manager for Resource Management has advised that a report will be brought to Council at the January Council meeting with a detailed discussion of those appeals.

16. Attachment 1 sets out the details of the financial report, being:

16.1. Section A – Operating Account

16.2. Section B – Water Contamination Investigation and Inquiry Expenditure

16.3. Section C – Balance Sheet

16.4. Section D – Capital (including borrowing)

Non-Financial Performance Reporting

17. Attachment 2 contains all of the performance measures included in the 2016-17 Annual Plan, including narratives on progress to date for each measure. Set out below is a pie chart showing a summary of variations to the Plan.

18. The “Red” variances are

Regional Resources Group of Activities

Activity 3 – Water Management

Level of Service Measure

Required Action

Progress Report ( to 31 October 2016)

Investigate and plan a programme of work to investigate the deeper parts of the Heretaunga Aquifer

Investigate the location, target depths and costs of drilling and then maintaining 10 deep observation wells across the Heretaunga Aquifer. Prepare details of this programme for consultation for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Off Track

This target needs further clarification and scope around it. I suggest we hold a brief informal meeting with the Councillors or key parties to determine their expectations. This would be best considered after the completion of the model and policy setting for the TANK plan change. An evaluation of the groundwater and surface water resource using modelling will help determine what the key management issues are and where the biggest data gaps exist.

Decision Making Process

19. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That Council receives and takes note of the Annual Plan Progress Report for the first four months of the 2016-17 financial year.

Authored by:

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	2016-17 Period 4 Financial Report
2	2016-17 Non-financial Progress Report for the 4 Months to 31 October 2016.		Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 November 2016

SUBJECT: HBRC Staff Work Programme over December 2016 - January 2017

Reason for Report

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

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
External Relations	Communications	1. December focus: Regional Parks and Trails 2. January monthly focus: Wetlands 3. Water Symposium preparation/ support
	Transport	4. Submissions on a significant variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan (adding $12 million of safety improvements on the HB Expressway) were heard on 18 November by a subcommittee of the Regional Transport Committee which had delegated authority from Council to decide on the variation. The variation was approved, enabling planning for the works to commence as soon as possible. 5. Bus service improvements commenced late September, with some starting well with increased numbers, and others more slowly. Advertising continues and we are working closely with the District Health Board to increase bus use by staff and outpatients to reduce parking pressures at the hospital. 6. HBRC is part of a consortium of regional councils procuring an improved bus ticketing system to replace an aging and unstable system. This has been several years in planning and preparation, but tenders have now been called for an interim system to serve the smaller regional councils’ needs for 5 to 7 years while a major national scheme is developed. Funding was allocated in the 2015-25 LTP, and will be significantly offset by terminating existing ticketing service contracts. Results of the tender are expected in January 2017.
	Governance	7. Initiate development of the Council’s 2016 Governance Statement (required within 6 months of Election – adoption by Council resolution on or before 8 April 2017 8. Confirm 2017 Schedule of Meetings
Corporate Services		9. Initiate work on the 2016-17 Annual Plan and Consultation Document 10. Begin re-assessment of organisational risks as at 31 December 2016
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal Hazards Strategy Development	11. Official launch of Stage 3 of the development of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy on 7^th December. This will be done with all potential panel members invited.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management	12. Hawke’s Bay has been chosen as a case study region to consider the implementation implications of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry. Staff are involved in coordinating site visits and stakeholder workshops in collaboration with MPI and the forestry sector. 13. Stakeholder group is being convened in December in Porangahau/ Maharakeke sub-catchment to begin developing an action plan to address water quality issues in those sub-catchments. This collaboration with Landcare Research, is helping the team build and refine our Priority Sub-catchment implementation approach. 14. The Land Management team will initiate a project in December in collaboration with a consultant to visit properties in the Makara and Hawea sub-catchments of the Tukituki, identified through SedNET modelling as being at high risk of sediment loss. The project will ground truth the accuracy of these predictions and talk to landholders in those areas about their soil conservation works and intentions.
	Engineering, Asset Management and Open Spaces	15. Gravel Review – Development of a River Bed Gravel Management Strategy, the last stage of the 7 year river bed gravel review, is underway. 16. Level of Service review for Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Rivers is ongoing, with a hydrologic review to be completed in December and investigation into public use of the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri and Tukituki river berms stocktake to be completed in December 17. Contract for earthworks associated with enhancement of Waitangi Regional Park programmed to be completed in December.
	Biosecurity	18. Biosecurity staff will be participating in a meeting between the Regional CEOs biosecurity sub group and Bill Kermode and Devon McLean of the NEXT Foundation on the role of regional councils in large scale predator pest management. 19. Cape to City is progressing well. A team from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment are coming to view the project and there are currently conversations ongoing with DOC staff on Predator free NZ 2050 funding opportunities. 20. Additional central government funding for pinus contorta control has been secured and staff are beginning planning and preparation for autumn 2017 control in the Napier –Taihape Road area. Chilean needlegrass will cease flowering.
Resource Management	Compliance	21. The Waihi Dam prosecution is still in progress with no final date set for hearing. 22. Havelock North water contamination Ministerial Inquiry will take up a considerable amount of time into the new year and depending on the outcome, may involve a thorough review of current practices. 23. Water meter regulations requirements come into effect and staff will be checking for compliance. 24. Low flow bans and drought will take up considerable time over summer if they come into effect. 25. Navigational Safety Bylaw process is underway with new Bylaws to be presented to Council for ratification.
Resource Management	Consents	Notified or limited notified consent applications in process 26. Twyford WP140331T –awaiting transfer of consents into global. 27. PanPac to continue with the current discolouration – notified submission period closes 19^th December 28. Fulton Hogan to establish an asphalt plant in Pandora Industrial area – notified - submission period closes 19^th December Environment Court Appeals 29. Pan Pac (CD96033Wf to extend their outfall and discharge further out to sea). Appeal heard in August 2016 decision pending. 30. CPM Asphalt (DP150070A to discharge to air from an asphalt plant). Appeal heard in November 2016 decision pending. 31. Whakatu Wool Scours Ltd has been appealed to the Environment Court. Mediation being scheduled. 32. HBRIC extended production land use area Judicial Review lodged by Greenpeace. In process.
Resource Management	Groundwater Science	33. The transient Heretaunga groundwater model has been recalibrated to simulate observed trends in groundwater levels. Calibration of the SOURCE surface water quality and flow model is also nearly complete. 34. A groundwater contaminant transport model is being developed. This model will simulate the transport and fate of nutrients in groundwater, to inform TANK decision making. 35. Groundwater models will then be integrated with the SOURCE model, for groundwater and surface water interaction to be simulated. Demonstration scenarios will be run and presented to the TANK stakeholder group in December. The integrated model will be a valuable tool to predict effects of water allocation and land management scenarios, to inform the TANK decision making process.
	Hydrology	36. Back up recorder for Folgers Lake to be installed at Tukituki at Ashcott Bridge. 37. Kahahakuri stream will have Water Quality and flows sampled as part of the Tukituki priority subcatchment sampling programme. 38. More remote raingauge sites will have satellite coverage installed to provide better communication pathways. 39. New water quality and flow site will be installed on the Papanui at Middle rd. 40. Heretaunga springs report in preparation, bringing together results from spring hunting to date. These results have already been incorporated into target oxygen and groundwater models, with the report providing a reference for methods and locations. 41. NIWA completed more research on developing the rising bubble method – a new method for measuring flows in our weedy spring-fed streams. We will present an update to the NZ Hydrological Society conference 2016. New funding will be required to advance the method further.
	Water Quality and Ecology	42. Across different catchments in Hawke’s Bay, temperature sensors have been deployed in key locations to explore potential of shading to reduce water temperature. Focus is on the Papanui and Karamu catchments, as this data will be part of a model to inform where shading can be most efficient to mitigate problems with high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen, in order to be able to prioritise. 43. Planting natives and Miscanthus at experimental sites for establishing riparian buffer and shading strips is continuing, currently we are trialling different ways for cost effective and successful plant establishment under dry conditions. 44. In a ‘Karamu solutions’ workshop held on 15^th Nov 2016, experts from NIWA, Cawthron Institutes and University Canterbury provided technical advice on management options regarding the multiple stressors in the Karamu catchment to inform the TANK stakeholder process.
	Marine & Coastal Science	45. Recreational Water Quality Programme commenced 31 October and will continue through the Christmas/NY break. 46. Following November RPC meeting a work plan looking at requirements to improve ecological health of the Ahuriri Estuary will be commenced. 47. HBRC continues to lead the redevelopment for the Recreation Water Quality Module of LAWA. 48. SoE Monitoring of Sandy Beaches will be undertaken in December. 49. A study in to the sediment quality of the Wairoa Estuary will be undertaken in December. 50. Stormwater support for the TANK plan change continues. 51. Scoping of the Marine Information Strategy continues with project partners.
	State of Our Environment Monitoring and Reporting	52. The results of Brookvale Road contamination investigations will continue to be provided to the Inquiry 53. Projects funded under Envirolink funding will commence in this period 54. HBRC technical reports will continue steadily to be made available on the http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/our-council/publications/reports-search/ reports search site
	Land Science	55. Wetland inventory mapping will continue and 9 sites being set up for our new wetland SoE pilot programme in the Tukituki catchment. 56. Sediment modelling in the TANK catchments being finalised before moving in to northern Hawke’s Bay in December. 57. S-mapping recently completed I TANK area. Moving in to Northern Hawke’s Bay in December. 58. Land owners contacted to participate in SoE soil quality programme. Field work commencing in December. 59. New Land use map ground-truthing commencing in December. 60. Assistance with Whakaki pilot project (erosion) continues.
	Air & Climate Science	61. Source apportionment of particulates collected at Awatoto. 62. PM10 screening monitoring at Clive School. 63. Climate briefings with primary industry representatives. 64. NES review – still awaiting Ministry advice on the outcome of the review.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	65. Next TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group meetings scheduled for 13 December (#25) and 9 February (#26). 66. 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. In meantime, staff presented draft submission outline to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 23 November. 67. 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. Re-oriented project is now virtually complete, subject to final reporting to MFE. Staff update report to be presented to RPC in early 2017. 68. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group has considered 55 written and verbal submissions on Draft 2016 review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Working Group’s recommendations will be brought back to the three partner councils in early 2017. 69. Part of the last remaining appeal (by Fish & Game) relating to wetlands in the RRMP and Plan Change 5 remains unresolved. Experts’ evidence has been prepared and exchanged, but Environment Court has yet to set hearing date(s). 70. Ongoing involvement in six appeal proceedings for proposed Hastings District Plan review. Remainder of 2016 and early 2017 will involve Environment Court-assisted mediation for the last of those appeals. 71. Supporting Stage 3 community engagement programme on Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Management Strategy project as required. 72. Continuing to support preparation of a plan and establishment of a Trust to implement the Regional Biodiversity Strategy. 73. Supporting preparation of planning to implement PC6 for the Tukituki River catchment. 74. Supporting review of RPC’s Terms of Reference following enactment of the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015. Meanwhile options for Council’s appointment of a tenth member to RPC remain ‘on the table’ to for the Council to consider (refer separate item on 30 Nov 2016 agenda). 75. Subject to RPC’s recommendations at 23 Nov meeting, Strategic Development Group staff will be leading potential preparation of workplan for new plan change workstream regarding regulation of oil and gas activities in Hawke's Bay. 76. Supporting review of the 2011 Charter between HBRC and Maori Committee.
	Economic Development	77. Regional Business Partner – Due to a spike in demand for services (predominantly due to co-location of agencies at the Business Hub) we will seek additional funding for Business Mentors support and Capability Voucher training. 78. Matariki Program Manager –leading the recruitment of this 1 year fixed position and co-ordinating TLA and Government funding of same. 79. Matariki Economic Development Delivery model review and recommendation – Martin Jenkins appointed and HBRC to manage and co-ordinate their work. 80. RWSS Review – Supporting the review workstreams. 81. Rocket Lab – Participation on the Rocket Launch Steering Committee to manage public interest in the test phase (summer 16/17) and to research tourism opportunities.

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

That Council receives the HBRC Staff Work Programme over December 2016 - January 2017 report.

Authored by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Paul Drury

Group Manager Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[2] Refer section 12(4) of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Napier Port Director Appointments	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.

1	2016 LGNZ Code of Conduct Template		Under Separate Cover
2	HBRC Code of Conduct as adopted 30 July 2014		Under Separate Cover