Agenda of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy

Joint Committee

Date: Tuesday 6 June 2017

Time: 10.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee held on 28 February 2017

4. Actions from Previous Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee 3

Decision Items

5. Joint Committee Terms of Reference 7

Information or Performance Monitoring

6. Stage 3 Progress Update 19

7. MCDA Methodology Review 37

8. Cultural Values Assessment 41

9. Project Manager Update 43

10. Current Coastal Projects Update 45

11. Funding Model Update 47

12. Other Matters for discussion

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 06 June 2017

Subject: Joint Committee Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. By resolution of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council at their respective first meetings following the 2016 Local Elections, the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (“Joint Committee”) was re-established with appointed Councillors and a Terms of Reference.

2. The Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”) reviewed the existing Terms of Reference. Changes were made to more accurately reflect how the Strategy has developed and evolved since the Terms of Reference were first confirmed in late 2014.

3. TAG advises that Hastings District Council and Napier City Council have formally adopted these Terms of Reference within their respective Councils and it is proposed to get the Hawkes Bay Regional Council to adopt them at their June 2017 Council meeting.

4. The Mana Ahuriri Incorporated representative has verbally agreed to the Terms of Reference and this should be formalised at the 6 June 2017 meeting.

5. Attachment 1 to this report is the Terms of Reference.

Recommendations

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

1. Receives and notes the Joint Committee Terms of Reference report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee - Terms of Reference

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 06 June 2017

Subject: Stage 3 Progress Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update to the Joint Committee on progress made in the various work streams that form Stage 3 of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120. These are:

1.1. Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panel Process

1.2. Cultural Values Assessment

1.3. Social Return on Investment (SROI) / Social Impact Assessment

1.4. Community Consultation

Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panel Process

2. At the time of writing, from the total programme of 10 workshops the Northern Panel has completed Workshops 1 – 5 while the Southern Panel has completed Workshops 1 – 6.

3. In addition, a Supplementary Workshop was held at the EIT on 27 April 2017. This was held as an optional addition to the 10 workshop programme, and was focused on enabling a discussion on managed retreat as a concept, and given panel members access to an expert panel to discuss a range of technical queries that had arisen through the panel process to date.

4. The work of the panels is progressing well, albeit at pace. Some key points to note:

4.1. Des Ratima, Kaumatua for both Panels, has recently stepped aside from the role citing time commitments. Given we are now half way through the process, TAG have opted not to seek a replacement at this time. The Mana Whenua representatives on both Panels have stepped up to provide tikanga advice and procedure for the Panels.

4.2. TAG have opted for a change to the focus of Workshops 6, 7 and 8, and an extended duration for Workshop 8. Further discussion on this change is provided in the report in this agenda titled “MCDA Methodology Review”. The revised Workshop Programme for both Panels is provided as Attachment 1 to this paper.

4.3. Living at the Edge have conducted evaluation surveys of Panel Members after each Workshop. They have summarised the results from Workshops 2 – 4 in a report, which is provided as Attachment 2 to this paper.

Cultural Values Assessment

5. A Cultural Values Assessment is currently underway. A specific update and presentation on this work will be given to the Joint Committee through a separate item in this agenda.

Social Return on Investment (SROI) / Social Impact Assessment

6. At the last meeting of the Joint Committee, Wayne Mills from Maven Consultants presented the findings of his SROI / Social Impact Assessment in the Southern Cell priority coastal units of Clifton, Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clive / East Clive.

7. This work will be used primarily to assist the Assessment Panels to undertake an informed consideration of social impacts as part of the option evaluation process. It will also be used to inform the Funding Model development.

8. Mr Mills has since retired, and Cerasela Stancu from Maven has taken over this work in order to complete a similar assessment for the Northern Cell priority coastal units of Whirinaki, Bayview, Westshore and Ahuriri / Pandora.

9. This work is progressing well, with over 30 interviews conducted to date. The Northern panel will receive a presentation on the findings of this work at their Workshop 6 on June 16.

Community Consultation

10. There are four community discussion meetings (2 Northern Cell and 2 Southern Cell meetings) programmed as part of the Assessment Panel Process.

11. The purpose of these meetings is to:

11.1. Assist Assessment Panel Members to report back to and engage with the communities they represent;

11.2. Inform the community about the work of the Assessment Panels and coastal hazards information generally; and,

11.3. Seek feedback from the community on key decision points at critical junctures in the process.

12. The first of these meetings was held for the Southern Cell at Haumoana Hall on 17 May 2017. Some 50 people attended. A summary of the feedback received from attendees is provided as Attachment 3 to this paper.

13. The next meeting will be held on 6 June 2017 at the Westshore Surf Life Saving Club. It will follow the same format, with some improvements to respond to feedback and lessons learned from the first meeting.

14. A follow up meeting will be held in the Southern and Northern Cells in August / September where the initial findings of the Panels will be presented and tested with the communities.

15. There has also been some discussion amongst the Panels about holding a similar feedback meeting on marae. This is a work in progress, and TAG are working with Panel Members to determine timing and logistics of this.

16. In addition to the above, the project website (www.hbcoast.co.nz) continues to provide a tool for communications and information dissemination. As a recent addition to the website, a “Panels” tab has been added. This provides information on each of the workshops held by both Panels and makes available the materials presented at each workshop, including confirmed minutes.

Recommendation

1. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the “Stage 3 Progress Update” report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1	Revised workshop Programmes
⇩2	Feedback to TAG Workshops 2 - 4
⇩3	Feedback from Southern Cell

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 06 June 2017

Subject: MCDA Methodology Review

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update to the Joint Committee on the implementation and refinement of the decision making framework developed in Stage 2 of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (“Strategy”).

Background

2. At the last meeting of the Joint Committee on 28 February 2017, the Committee adopted the final Stage 2 Decision Making Framework Report prepared by Stephen Daysh from Mitchell Daysh.

3. The report set out the process by which decisions on responses to coastal hazards risks could be reached:

3.1. Two Evaluation Panels are formed to represent the interests of communities and agencies exposed to coastal hazards risks;

3.2. The Evaluation Panels work through a structured decision making assessment process to develop and evaluate potential options / pathways for responding to identified risks over time in priority coastal units;

3.3. Preferred options/pathways are confirmed through the application of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (“MCDA”) and other methodologies;

3.4. Preferred options/pathways are recommended back to each Council for final decision making.

4. As noted in earlier reporting on this matter, alignment has been sought between the Decision Making Framework Report and the Ministry for Environment national guidance on coastal hazards and climate change responses. The Report was not able to reference this guidance document directly however, as the guidance has not (and is still not, at the time of writing this report) been made publicly available.

5. The Assessment Panels have now completed 5 (Northern) and 6 (Southern) workshops of the 10 workshop programme set out in the Decision Making Framework Report.

6. Workshops 1 (launch) and 2 (technical overview – what we know) established a baseline level of knowledge about the process and task at hand.

7. In Workshop 3, the Assessment Panels completed site visits to the coast to familiarise themselves with the geography, character and risk profiles.

8. In Workshop 4, the Panels were presented with a vulnerability assessment, and confirmed the following Priority Units for assessment:

Northern Cell: Whirinaki, Bay View, Westshore and Ahuriri / Pandora

Southern Cell: Clive/East Clive, Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton

9. A “long list” of potential options to respond to the identified coastal hazards risks was also developed in Workshop 4.

10. In Workshop 5, the Panels were presented with a refined and developed set of options, and confirmed an initial “short list” of options for each Priority Unit.

11. Looking ahead, the Panels will be asked to evaluate and “score” (through an MCDA approach) the shortlisted options for each Priority Unit.

12. As the Assessment Panels have advanced their work, some further refinement of the detailed application of MCDA (and other methodologies) has become necessary to respond to the following challenges:

12.1. How to ensure that the use of MCDA and other methodologies is understandable and logical in process and outcomes, bearing in mind the wide range of backgrounds, experience and expertise among Panel Members;

12.2. How to keep the option scoring process manageable, particularly considering the large number of potential options currently being considered by the Panels;

12.3. How to deal with potential combination options, both as hybrid options (e.g. planting + beach nourishment + beach scraping) and spatial combinations within units (e.g. within the Clifton Unit, a combination option of a sea wall at Clifton Rd plus a wetland at Maraetotoara River mouth could be considered); and,

12.4. How to consider time and uncertainty through MCDA and integrate the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning approach i.e. the concept of different options being required at different times in response to changing risks.

13. In consideration of the above factors, the following updates have been identified through a methodology review process undertaken by TAG, with support from Mitchell Daysh and Edge:

Methodology Update One: Options Screening and Shortlisting

14. Taking the Southern Assessment Panel as an example, the current “shortlist” of options in each of the Priority Units is as follows:

Priority Unit	Shortlisted Options
Clive / East Clive	14
Haumoana	16
Te Awanga	14
Clifton	10
Total	54

15. This is too many options to practically assess through MCDA; a process is required to refine the shortlisted options down to a manageable number.

16. For this shortlisting process to be effective, it must be transparent, well informed with technical advice, have a high degree of input and ultimately ownership by the Panels, and ensure there is no residual feeling (either within the Panels or the community) that an option has been unfairly excluded.

17. Taking these matters into account, the following process has been developed:

17.1. A Technical Team formed by Tonkin & Taylor, TAG and with input from Edge are convened to “screen” the current short list of options in each Priority Unit;

17.2. Options are reviewed for practicability / efficacy / implementation matters;

17.3. A revised shortlist (approx. 4 to 6 options per unit) is presented (with rationale) back to Panel Members for consideration, which will include practical and logical combinations, and will represent a best “fit for purpose” package of options for each Priority Unit;

17.4. Panel Members debate/challenge and ultimately must agree on the final options shortlist.

18. This suggested process has been presented to and confirmed by the Southern Panel at their Workshop 6, to be followed by the Northern Panel at their Workshop 6 on 16 June.

Methodology Update Two: Workshop Programme Updates

19. To integrate the additional shortlisting process outlined above, TAG have implemented a minor change to the Assessment Panel Workshop Programme.

20. This change sees Workshops 6, 7 and 8 being refocused, and Workshop 8 becoming a full day session (from an evening session).

21. This change does not alter the total number of workshops, or the timeframe, but allows more time for the Panels to finalise a realistic short list of options and the approach to assessing them.

22. An updated workshop programme for both Assessment Panels is provided as an attachment to this agenda in Item 6.

Methodology Update Three: Option Presentation

23. TAG will further develop the shortlisted options to be presented graphically; options will be shown on maps with aerial overlays to indicate where they would actually be located within the Unit (on the ground or in the sea). This will better enable combination of options (hybrids and spatial combinations) to be presented and understood, and enable Panel Members to better understand (and score) options as they would occur in each Priority Unit.

24. Either as transparent overlays, or using a GIS tool, options over time (i.e. a pathway) can then be shown.

Methodology Update Four: Identifying Preferred Options

25. One of the unique challenges of this project is dealing with long timeframes and deep uncertainty. With the benefit of the work the Panels have completed to date, TAG are now finalising the approach to scoring options / pathways using MCDA.

26. Two options are being trialed through TAG:

Pathways

26.1. A series of recommended pathways is developed for short term, medium term and long term responses in each Priority Unit.

26.2. These are scored through MCDA as a complete pathway over time.

26.3. A preferred (highest scoring) pathway is identified for each Priority Unit.

Options Over Time

26.4. Discrete options (e.g. sea wall) are scored in three different time bands: short term, medium term and long term.

26.5. The preferred (highest scoring) option in each time band is selected, in turn forming a pathway over time.

Conclusion

27. The complexity and challenge of the task ahead is highlighted. While the Stage 2 Decision Making Framework Report established a solid foundation for the Assessment Panel process, TAG are continuing to refine the detailed application of MCDA in the unique context of this Strategy.

28. Part of this refinement involves actively trialing and testing different approaches, and through this process TAG are zeroing in on a method for the Panels to identify preferred coastal hazard adaptation options over time in each of the Priority Units.

Recommendation

1. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the “MCDA Methodology Review” report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 06 June 2017

Subject: Cultural Values Assessment

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update to the Joint Committee on progress with the Cultural Values Assessment being conducted in support of Stage 3 of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

Background

2. In the last meeting of this Committee on 28 February 2017, a proposal was discussed to undertake a desktop Cultural Values Assessment to support the Northern and Southern Assessment Panels in their work.

3. The issue at the time was that the Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”) were seeking to fill an information gap regarding the extent of cultural sites of significance and cultural values more broadly, that are at risk from coastal hazards and/or that may be impacted by measures implemented to respond to those hazards.

4. Through other workstreams, particularly the Social Impact Assessment/Social Return on Investment, information was being compiled and developed to assist the Assessment Panels to “score” options against set criteria as part of the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis process.

5. While there are Mana Whenua Representatives on both the Northern and Southern Panels, a similar body of information to support the scoring of options against cultural criteria had not been developed.

6. TAG had made efforts to gather this information. For example, in June 2016 letters went to the Chairs of the 7 marae in the area of the Strategy, namely:

· Petane Marae

· Matahiwi Marae

· Pukemokimoki Marae

· Tangoio Marae

· Kohupatiki Marae

· Ruahapia Marae

· Waiohiki Marae

7. The letters provided maps showing the new hazard extents, and the information held about important sites (e.g. location or marae, location of archaeological sites). The letters sought feedback on whether there were additional values or sites that should be included. Peter Beaven and Mike Adye attended a number of follow up meetings, and follow up letters and conversations took place; however, while it was an important engagement and exchange of information, this approach was not effective at producing specific information that could be assist the Panels.

8. To address this shortfall, it was agreed with the Joint Committee that TAG would engage an independent contractor to undertake an assessment of all relevant existing sources that describe/identify cultural values along the coast (considering both on-shore and off-shore sites and values) between Clifton and Tangoio.

9. Aramanu Ropiha was subsequently nominated by the Joint Committee members from Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust Incorporated, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and He Toa Takitini, to undertake this work.

10. In further discussion with Aramanu Ropiha, as her work has progressed, the process has evolved somewhat from a strictly desktop review, and it is now proposed that a Hui-a-Hapu is called prior to her report being finalised and presented to the Panels.

11. Aramanu Ropiha will be in attendance to provide an update on her findings to date, and to discuss the process forward to finalise her report.

Recommendation

1. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the “Cultural Values Assessment” report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 06 June 2017

Subject: Funding Model Update

Reason for Report

1. To update the Joint Committee on the development of the funding model. The current stage of the process is to develop a scope of works with an appropriate provider for the Joint Committee to consider possible funding options.

Background

2. Following the adoption of the Funding Model framework developed by Maven (Mr Wayne Mills) in Stage 2 of the Strategy, the Joint Committee tasked the Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”) with developing a working paper on the detailed implementation of that model.

3. TAG subsequently formed a Funding Sub Group, formed by members of TAG and with additional members from each of the Partner Councils with particular financial expertise.

4. Funding Sub Group members include Hastings District Council representatives Bruce Allan (CFO) and Mark Clews (Principal Advisor District Development), Napier City Council representatives Caroline Thomson (CFO) Ian Condon (Revenue & Treasury Manager) and Dean Moriarity (Team Leader Policy Planning), Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Representatives Trudy Kilkolly (Financial Accountant) and Graeme Hansen (Group Manager Asset Management), who has replaced Mike Adye as Chair of the Funding Sub Group following his retirement in 31 March 2017.

5. The Funding Sub Group had three meetings to date; the third meeting saw the introduction of an independent consultant, Philip Jones of PJ & Associates who has extensive Local Government, Rating and Risk experience with all represented Councils and has recently worked on a similar coastal issue in Waihi.

6. The key outcomes from the Funding Sub Group meetings held to date are;

6.1. There needs to be one organisation responsible for the contributory fund and ideally all issues associated with the coast. This organisation would need to have available to it appropriate advice and expertise to assist with decision-making. HBRC has been identified as the most appropriate body to fulfil this role.

6.2. Legal advice was obtained on potential council controlled organisation (CCO) model structures but this was dismissed due to the risk it would not survive the test of time without specific legislation. There was also discussion on linking through the Triennial Agreement.

6.3. Central government is very much in the early stages of their thinking on this issue. Treasury, MFE, DPMC, NZTA and others are aware of the range of issues, but no clear direction has been established. Therefore, any policy from these sectors is unlikely to be on the near horizon.

6.4. Coastal issues are a New Zealand wide issue so there is an expectation that Central Government should be taking a leading role. There is a perception that Central Government should be substantially contributing to the bulk funding for this activity, with Local Councils providing guidance on local share contributions. The Funding Sub Group is keen to work closely with Central Government, in an effort to influence policies where possible.

6.5. Also discussed was the need to be cognisant of the future potential to include our whole region, this includes Central Hawkes Bay and Wairoa, in the funding model as they could at some point have similar coastal issues over the term of the 100 year strategy. While not currently included in this Strategy any proposed funding structure needs to be flexible to accommodate such changes over time.

6.6. It was agreed that independent and focused input was required to develop these concepts further and that this could best be provided by an external consultant. The Funding Sub Group has provided a brief of the strategy to Philip Jones of PJ & Associates and have recently received a draft Scope of Work.

6.7. The challenge for the Funding Sub Group and Consultant is to determine the range of funding options available, determine a mechanism to cater for public/ private good funding contributions and an ability to fund and contribute to a wide range of works likely to be delivered over an extended timeframe over various Councils areas of responsibility. It is expected the PJ & Associates offer of service will provide guidance on the above matters to the Funding Sub Group, and ultimately to the Joint Committee and Partner Councils.

6.8. The primary timeline for this work is to feed into draft 2018-28 Long Term Plans, however panel groups need funding related information prior to this time to assist in determining the likely community costs for various strategy options.

6.9. The Funding Sub Group are somewhat limited in direction until the recommended option or options and economic analysis is completed to assess what funding is potentially required for each area. We will have a better understanding following workshops planned for July/August 2017. This will be relevant to the timeline of the funding, ie, short, medium or long terms, sources of funds ie; Central Government, Ratepayer, Banking Institutions or Local Government contributions. We are also required to identify what the benefits received under Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act (2002) are. The Local Authority is required to consider;

6.9.1. Distribution of benefits - who gets the benefit whole/part of community or individual.

6.9.2. Period the benefits are expected to occur.

6.9.3. Extent actions or inactions contribute to need to undertake the activity (exacerbators).

7. While the focus is currently on funding from within the region, there may be Central Government funding available and this will be identified as part of the process.

8. Using the process above to identify the benefits, it is likely to result in the allocation of benefits to groups of properties. These benefits are likely to result in the use of Targeted Rates. Targeted rates are set using the provisions of section 16, 17 & 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

9. A targeted rate is a rate that is set to fund a particular activity or group of activities, and may be set and assessed on a particular category or categories of rating units. Therefore, in this Strategy situation a local authority would be more likely to set and assess a targeted rate where it believes;

9.1.1. There is some benefit to funding the service separately from others and separately funding it in this way carries little or no transaction cost. Refer section 101(3) (a) (v) (LGA).

9.1.2. Some categories of ratepayers should not pay the rate or that some categories should pay a different amount to another. Refer section 101 (3) (a) (ii) (LGA).

10. The HBRC rating system is based primarily on targeted rates with direct/indirect benefits and many differentials, hence is considered the preferred council to financially manage this project.

Coastal Strategy Funding Governance

11. A legal opinion was sort from Sainsbury Logan & Williams, attached. The advice confirmed the establishment of the fund under one Council, which the Funding Sub Group identified to be HBRC. It is legally possible under the Local Government Act 2002 for these funds to be ring-fenced and governed jointly by a governance group from the three Partner Councils. Possible options are included in the advice.

12. The Funding Sub Group agreed that each local Authority should delegate to the Committee the power to determine which project should be funded and in what proportion by the contributory fund, however there may wish to be some consideration about materiality associated with any of these decisions. Therefore, the Terms of Reference may need to be constructed such as there is a cap on the delegated authority of the group.

Recommendation

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives and notes the “Funding Model Update” report.

Authored by:

Trudy Kilkolly

Financial Accountant

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Legal Advice - Coastal Strategy Funding & Governance