Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

Subject: Report and Recommendations from the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to receive and consider the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy - Joint Committee’s (the Joint Committee) recommendation, on the final report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

2. This issue arises from completion of Stage 3 of the strategy process to develop a long term vision and hazard management strategy for this section of the coast.

3. The objective of the strategy relevant to the purpose of Local Government is good quality local infrastructure and regulation for the management of coastal hazards in the study area to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of the community.

4. This report concludes by recommending that the Council receive the report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels, and agree to consider the recommendations and to commence work on issues to be contained in Stage 4 of the Implementation Strategy, including issues of funding.

Background

5. The coastline between Tangoio and Clifton is defined by a gravel barrier ridge. This ridge acts as a vital defence from the sea, without which large areas of the coast would be regularly inundated. Sea level rise and climate change present an increasing threat to the existing barrier ridge and the coastline over time.

6. In 2014 a decision was made to form a joint committee made up of representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council together with representatives from Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and He Toa Takitini. The committee was set-up to look at coastal hazards over the period 2016-2120 and produce a strategy determining options for managing coastal hazard risks, namely beach erosion, inundation through overtopping and sea level rise.

7. The Strategy has been progressed in four key stages as shown in figure 1 below.

8. Stage 1 Define the Problem - commenced in 2014 with two reports being prepared – “Coastal Hazard Assessment” and “Coastal Risk Assessment”, which estimates the extent and probability of coastal hazards occurring and the likely scale of damage that could be caused to physical assets, people and communities and the environment.

9. Stage 2 Framework for Decisions - began in May 2016 with a framework developed to support a collaborative decision making forum for a community led response to the issues (rather than the more traditional and previously used ‘top down’ planned approach). The framework combined a multi criteria assessment analysis with an adaptive pathways approach (combined with several other economic, social and cultural considerations) for communities to consider different management strategies, i.e. “the status quo” (do nothing/monitor the situation), “hold the line” (defend) or “managed retreat” (withdrawing, relocation, or abandonment) for specific areas along the coast for the whole of the 100 year timeframe. Both of these stages have previously been reported through to Council in detail at the completion of the respective stages.

10. Stage 3 Develop the Response - two cell assessment panels (one southern and one northern) were formed with community representatives from Tangoio/Whirinaki, BayView, Westshore/Ahuriri, Marine Parade, Clive/East Clive, Haumoana/TeAwanga/Clifton. Other participants included a representative from the Napier Port, Ahuriri businesses, New Zealand Transport Agency, Department of Conservation, recreational interests, and rural community. Based on a “multi criteria decision making analysis”, these assessment panels were responsible for developing and evaluating response options in Stage 3.

11. The Assessment Panels commenced their work in January 2017 and were tasked with developing informed recommendations for the Joint Committee’s consideration. The panels have now completed their task in preparing a 100 year Strategy Report for preferred response options along the coast, focussing at this stage on priority areas (i.e. those areas deemed most at risk in the short term). The Strategy final report is appended as Attachment A.

Figure 2 Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazard Assessment Cells

Current Situation

12. Table 1 below summarises the pathway recommendations, with more detail provided on pathway options covered in pages 11-23 of the Strategy report.

13. Table 2 below provides a summary of the total estimated costs for the preferred pathways range from high to low, including capital, operations and maintenance allowances for the recommended options. Pages 64-72 of the Strategy report detail the indicative costs for all of the pathways considered.

Table 1 Summary of Recommended Pathways

Table 2 Summary of Total costs (Capital, Operations, and Maintenance)

14. At the meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee on 20 February 2018 (as shown in the draft minutes at Attachment B), the Committee resolved to:

14.1. Receive the Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels

14.2. Endorse the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018

14.3. Recommend that the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council endorse and adopt the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018, and commence Stage 4 (Implementation) of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

15. Partner Council reporting on Stage 3 is expected to be completed by 3 April, 2018. Subject to the outcome of Stage 3 being endorsed, and to confirming timing for reporting back to, and seeking support from each Tangata Whenua member of the Joint Committee, Stage 4 will be able to commence, subject to partner Council’s funding commitments and Long Term Plan processes.

16. All partner Councils have committed to including $100,000 per year (uninflated) for the next ten years in their respective draft LTP’s (assuming confirmation through the LTP processes). This money is intended to cover elements of Stage 4 of the Strategy, including maintaining the Joint Committee, the planning phase of design and budget refinements, cost sharing and funding options and preparing for implementation. It is not proposed to cover major capital works. However, this funding, once confirmed, will not be available until the new financial year, 1 July 2018.

17. The ten years of funding in the LTP is intended to demonstrate leadership and a firm commitment by the partner Councils to facing up to one of the most pressing issues associated with climate change, i.e. sea level rise and its impacts on coastal erosion and inundation.

18. In the interim, budgeted costs for Stage 3 have been exceeded, leaving insufficient funds in the current financial year to proceed with any significant work in Stage 4. This exceedance has resulted from the need for more Assessment Panel workshops being held than originally intended, and a corresponding increase in inputs from external advisors.

19. The Partner Council representatives on the Technical Advisory Group consider that a “pause” is necessary, and that engaging further external advice in support of Stage 4 will need to be held over until after 30 June, 2018 and the confirmation of draft LTPs.

20. In practical terms, this means limited Joint Committee and TAG activity in Stage 4 between April and June 2018. From July onwards, technical expertise is expected to be required and engaged to, among other matters:

20.1. Guide the refinement of the funding approach towards an agreed position between all Partner Councils

20.2. Commence implementation planning, particularly around the staging of physical works programmes in accordance with priority and

20.3. Commence refining high level design and costing information for agreed physical works programmes, as part of detailed design.

21. In the interim, TAG are expecting to be able to advance work where internal resources can be dedicated in support of it, or where external funding may be available. As an example, funding and expertise may be available through the National Science Challenges programme to support the development of triggers. There are also a range of Assessment Panel supplementary recommendations that, if adopted by the Partner Councils, could be advanced.

22. Work also continues on developing the funding model and an assessment of the social costs and benefits for key communities. It is important to determine how funding decisions will be made, and in particular how private versus public costs/benefits are to be apportioned, is decided and tested with the communities that are expected to contribute so that affordability is confirmed before the panel’s recommendations can be fully committed to.

Strategic Fit

23. HBRC’s current Strategic Plan 2017 – 2021 is structured around four key focus areas, with the focus area relevant to this paper being “Sustainable Services and Infrastructure”.

24. One of the strategic goals identifies “By 2025 coastal hazards are being managed to meet foreseeable climate change risks to coastal communities out to 2100”.

25. A key objective is investment in critical enabling infrastructure being facilitated in a timely manner through strategic planning and capital raising, with attendant actions being to “Strategically plan for future coastal erosion and sea-level rise with Napier City and Hastings District Councils” by identifying and managing risk arising from climate change.

Significance and Consultation

26. The Coastal Hazards Strategy is a significant body of work that has been based on a community led collaborative planning process. The assessment panel process has been a form of consultation in its own right and during their process two open evenings were held to consult with the wider communities of interest. Pages 39-40 of the Strategy report detail the main public feedback forums.

27. In addition, a range of direct communications have occurred with Iwi (including the 7 marae in the project area and the relevant Taiwhenua, Post-Settlement Governance Entities and Ngāti Kahungunu Incorporated). Regular newsletters have also kept the wider public informed of the process at key milestones and a dedicated website (https://www.hbcoast.co.nz/) has invited interested parties to become involved.

28. Nevertheless the strategy has significant implications for the way in which the coastal environment will be managed over many decades and the costs over the hundred year life of the strategy run into potential several hundred million dollars across the region, all of which will necessitate further ongoing consultative processes.

29. The strategy will inevitably require changes to the Regional Policy statement and Regional Coastal Plan which will require consultation and potential environmental court appeals under the resource management act as will be the case with potential numerous resource consents to implement some of the works being anticipated by the strategy. Not the least however, will be the consultation needed to secure funding through the Long Term Plans and Thirty Year Infrastructure Plans.

30. Council will need to be satisfied that the level of community consultation thus far is sufficient to endorse the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Adoption of the strategy will then trigger significant further work which will entail the further consultation referred to above, but against the somewhat limiting backdrop of Council having agreed that the strategy recommendations are fundamentally the right ones to follow.

Assessment of Preferred Option/s and Reasons

Management Approach

31. Before adopting the recommendations and agreeing to initiate Stage 4 Council will want to be satisfied that the strategy approach is the right one to follow in terms of each of the pathways, at least for the short to medium term. It is noteworthy that the Pathways approach does allow some flexibility to change approach, sooner or later, depending upon how sea level rise impacts manifests themselves in reality over time. In addition it is noted that while the total estimated strategy implementation costs over 100 years at $131m -287m are significant and possibly daunting, the short term (20 year) costs are in the order of $52m and focus in general at the less invasive end of the range of management interventions, rather than harder engineering option, or pre-emptive retreat which tends to lock in these approaches, rather than fostering adaptive management over time.

32. It is also worth noting that the cost of doing nothing is estimated to run into the 100’s of millions of dollars. While the effects of erosion of land and physical assets is one of the more visible impacts of sea level rise, the stage 1 work clearly showed that recurrent inundation by storm surge overtopping of the beach barrier was likely to affect far more members of the community and inflict greater financial losses than the erosion aspect. With sea level rise and increased storminess associated with climate change, these impacts are likely to be felt further inland and at a greater frequency.

33. Accordingly the management response recommended tended to focus on options that more effectively addressed this issue, rather than necessarily protecting properties closer to the coastline by employing harder engineering solutions such as seawalls. In addition the costs of managed relocation of large sections of the community and the existing public assets inland, tended to be significantly greater than the management options available to mitigate the risk, at least in the short to medium term. Further, inundation from storm surge is not easily tracked and predicted, so relocation options potentially need to happen well in advance of actual events. Unlike erosion, once relocation has occurred there is little flexibility to change pathway, resulting in unnecessary option lock in.

34. As a general summary and therefore with some exceptions, the recommended solutions for the most part recommend less “engineered” options that attempt to capitalise on natural processes by trapping gravels and sands, to stabilise and build back the coast away from infrastructure and private assets. This reduces the impact of storm surge, but minimises option lock in and promotes more adaptive management. While these approaches will also provide some protection from erosion for some properties closer to the shore line, those properties are still likely to experience damaging storm surge effects. With the coastline being strengthened coastal landowners will potentially be able to establish harder protections on their own properties without causing significant erosion affects further along the coast, which is an issue where the coastline is located at present.

Financial

35. While the Council may agree with the overall management approach, affordability will still be a major issue in the final outcomes for the community. The more immediate financial implications have been discussed above, but while some preliminary discussions have occurred between the partner Councils regarding the development of a funding model to implement the recommended pathways, some key questions remain open.

36. This includes the mechanism(s) for collecting and funding works over the longer timeframes associated with climate change and sea level rise being agreed with the relevant parties given the challenges for funding.

37. These include, among other things:

37.1. The share of responsibilities between Councils for collecting rates in support of the physical work programmes identified by the Strategy;

37.2. The share of responsibilities between Councils for seeking resource consents and implementing works;

37.3. The detailed functioning of a ‘Contributory Fund’, particularly how targeted rates will be applied (i.e. whether rates collected from a specific coastal community are only spent in that community or whether there is an opportunity for a more general fund);

37.4. Communities to make some appropriate contribution for future works to reflect intergenerational responsibilities.

37.5. The public / private benefit assessment for each physical works programme, and the resulting apportionment of costs.

37.6. Visibility for communities / stakeholders into the organisation whose purpose is to fund coastal hazards adaptation.

37.7. Funding that is put aside for future responses to be ring fenced and immune to claw back as far as possible.

37.8. A funding framework that is durable and able to survive through future successive political cycles over a long time frame.

38. Stage 4 will need to resolve these issues in order for the Strategy to deliver the preferred physical solutions for each of the priority areas of the coast.

Policy Framework

39. One body of work that will arise from Stage 4 will be a need to review all relevant provisions of both regional and district plans to ensure there is a policy framework that supports the preferred pathways while maintaining appropriate consenting requirements through normal resource management planning processes. Regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans must however, give effect to the National Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and therefore by implication, so must the recommendation of the strategy.

40. The NZCPS states policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act in relation to the coastal environment. It recognises that activities in the coastal environment are susceptible to the effects of natural hazards such as coastal erosion and tsunami, and those associated with climate change and requires Councils to identify and prioritise areas in the coastal environment that are potentially affected. Councils must take into account the nature of the coastal hazard risk and how it might change over at least a 100-year timeframe, including the expected effects of climate change; and its effects on storm frequency, intensity and surges; and coastal sediment dynamics.

41. The NZCPS recognises that the coastal environment includes areas at risk from coastal hazards including physical resources, built facilities, and infrastructure, that have modified the coastal environment. It promotes a precautionary approach to the use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does not occur.

42. In doing so it however, promotes locating new development away from areas prone to such risks and encourages redevelopment, or change in land use, and the location of infrastructure away from areas of hazard risk where practicable, including managed retreat by relocation or removal of existing structures or their abandonment in extreme circumstances.

43. It also discourages hard protection structures and promotes the use of alternatives such as natural defences and allowing natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences, ecosystems, habitat and species to occur.

44. However, it also recognises that the extent and characteristics of the coastal environment vary from region to region and locality to locality; and the issues that arise may have different effects in different localities and range of options for reducing coastal hazard risk that should be assessed relative to the option of “do-nothing”. This should include identifying and planning for transition mechanisms and timeframes for moving to more sustainable approaches. Where hard protection structures are considered to be necessary, the form and location of any structures need to be designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment.

45. The recommended strategy attempts to meet the objectives and policies of the NZCPS as outlined above, and by and large adopts an adaptive pathway approach where the interventions tend to be based around capitalising on natural processes and protecting the natural defence system represented by the gravel beach barrier rather than hard defence structures per se. However, that is not able to be achieved in all cases and some hard defence structures are recommended, but ultimately these may need to give way to managed retreat in some cases, e.g. Clifton

Risk

46. The biggest risk associated with climate change is not acting. The NZ Coastal Policy statement requires Councils to plan for coastal erosion and inundation using a 100 year time frame. The three partner Councils have been proactive in developing a Strategy that meets legislative requirements, current best practice and the aspirations of the potentially most affected communities. The pathways approach is also intended to manage the risk around uncertainty by delaying more expensive and less flexible interventions until future stages.

Preferred Option

47. The preferred option is for Council to receive the report and agree to consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Council should also agree to commencing work on the issues to be contained in the Stage 4 implementation plan, including issues of funding.

48. In recommending this approach it is acknowledged that considerable funds have been spent by the three Councils so far, and an enormous amount of community time has been invested in developing the recommendations. The Joint Committee has overseen a robust community led planning process for developing a Coastal Hazard Strategy to meet the needs of the community for the next 100 years and the Community Panels have done good work drawing together proposals for addressing coastal hazards. Stage 4 will likewise involve considerable investment in time and money from the three Councils and with the input of the community, which should not be committed to without solid support and backing from three Councils for the outcomes being recommended in the Assessment Panel report.

49. Having said that it is also acknowledged that this has been and is a complex problem to solve, with potential solutions intended to span many decades with very substantial ongoing cost implications for the whole community and in particular those affected communities that will need to bear a substantial proportion of those costs. Officers are conscious therefore that Councillors will want to satisfy themselves that the recommendations are the most appropriate way of dealing with the hazards in the long term. Although there have been some workshops and progress reports during the development of the project, there has not yet been sufficient opportunity for Councillors to fully debate the merits of the recommendations, or to seek further information and analysis to give them the level of comfort they may need in order to fully commit to the recommended strategy at this time. Officers consider that this is necessary if the strategy is to have the longevity desired of it and in view of the necessary consultation required with the affected and broader communities who will be expected to fund the implementation.

50. The implementation phase is critical in order to deliver the preferred pathways necessary to making the community resilient to the potential impacts associated with coastal erosion and inundation in the face of climate change and sea level rise. For that phase to proceed, there needs to be some reasonable endorsement of the management approaches recommended, in order that the nature of the costs can be better estimated and benefit apportionment agreed upon as a basis for assessing affordability and assigning funding responsibilities. Accordingly consideration of the recommendations should ideally take place before the end of the financial year if momentum is not to be lost in terms of commencing stage 4 in the new financial year.

Decision Making Process

51. 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:

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

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

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

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

51.5. 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 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives the report of the Project Manager titled “Report and Recommendations from the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee” dated 28 March 2018.

2. Receives the final report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels dated 14 February 2018.

3. Endorses and adopts the report and recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell assessment panels as presented in their final report dated 14 February 2018.

4. Agrees to commence Stage 4 (Implementation) in accordance with the Partner Council LTP provisions of $100,000 per year for the next 10 years which includes maintaining the Joint Committee, commencing the planning phase of design and budget refinement, defining cost sharing and funding options and preparing for implementation, as recommended by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

5. 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.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels		Under Separate Cover
⇩2	Unconfirmed minutes of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Meeting - 20 February 2018

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

Subject: Recommendations from the Regional Planning Committee

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered by the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 21 March 2018 and are now presented for Council’s consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2. These matters have all been specifically considered at the Committee level.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends 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.

List of Candidate Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay

2. Agrees that the list of candidate outstanding water bodies which will be subject to a secondary analysis as per Option R4 for the recreational, landscape and ecology value sets as follows.

2.1. Te Whanganui a Orotu (Ahuriri Estuary)

2.2. Upper Mohaka River

2.3. Lake Waikaremoana

2.4. Upper Ngaruroro River

2.5. Taruarau River

2.6. Ruakituri River

2.7. Lake Whakakī

2.8. Mangahouanga Stream

2.9. Wairoa River

2.10. Heretaunga Aquifer

2.11. Tukituki River

2.12. Waipawa River

2.13. Ruataniwha Aquifer.

3. Agrees that the list of candidate outstanding water bodies which will be subject to a secondary analysis as per Option C5 for the cultural and spiritual value set will be provided by Tangata Whenua representatives at the 2 May 2018 Regional Planning Committee meeting.

4. Agrees to staff proceeding with consultation with the following parties in relation to the secondary analysis for the candidate outstanding waterbodies as listed in 2. above, and 3. once provided.

4.1. Iwi authorities in Hawke’s Bay

4.2. Local authorities, being Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings District Council, Wairoa District Council, Napier City Council, Taupo District Council, Rangitikei District Council and Gisborne District Council

4.3. Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council, Department of Conservation and the Hawke’s Bay branches of the NZ Forest and Bird Protection Society.

5. Acknowledges the potential risk to the TANK plan change project and Council’s wider freshwater planning work programme if an outstanding waterbodies plan change is not notified prior to the TANK plan change.

6. Agrees to write a letter to the Minister for the Environment requesting reconsideration and clarification of the Outstanding Water Bodies provisions in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Reports Received

7. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Regional Planning Committee.

7.1. Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference and Review (resolved: 2.1 Confirms which of the matters set out in paragraphs 12 and 16, and/or which additional matters, are to be resolved by the Committee prior to undertaking of the statutory review of the performance of the RPC; 2.2 Instructs staff to work with the Co-chairs and Deputy Co-chairs and independent advisors to prepare recommendations for the Committee on the terms and scope of the statutory review, including: 2.2.1 Appointment of review panel including appropriate cultural and legal expertise, 2.2.2 Agreed matters for review, 2.2.3 Consultation and discussion process, and 2.2.4 Meeting and reporting timeframes.)

7.2. Oil & Gas Plan Change Process and Progress Update

7.3. Regional Resource Management Plan – Effectiveness Report

7.4. Pathway to Draft TANK Plan Change Adoption by RPC.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

Subject: Hawke's Bay Local Authority Shared Services - Structure Change

Reason for Report

1. To propose the legal structure of Hawke’s Bay Local Authority Shared Services Limited (HBLASS) become dormant in order to focus attention and resources on the purpose of HBLASS and reduce compliance costs for all the councils.

Background Summary

2. Since 2012, when HBLASS was incorporated as a legal entity, there has been significant effort to identify functions and analyse opportunities for shared services and joint procurement across the Hawke’s Bay Councils.

3. The effort and the results, through HBLASS have been focused largely on procurement and the development of shared IT services. HBLASS funded a Chairperson for IT shared services and governance, as well as selective consulting studies and plans. Because structural change and cost reduction are implicit in Shared Services, an “all in” model was met with resistance when timing and opportunities didn’t align with councils direction at a particular point in time.

4. In early 2017, there was a review leading to a recommitment to HBLASS efforts but with a with broader collaboration approach, rather than the more narrow shared services objective, in order to improving Hawke’s Bay wide service and value. As part of the review, a new wider role of ‘HBLASS Collaborator’ was introduced on a 6 month pilot.

5. The principles of collaboration are:

5.1. Discover who is doing what across HB councils

5.2. Connect with others that share the same objective

5.3. Collaborate to deliver more for less

6. The following summarises the Collaboration and outcomes in 2017.

7. The focus on collaboration versus shared services is consistent with the direction that a number of the councils are taking in other regions around New Zealand. Bay of Plenty for example has a collaboration portal that has resulted in improved knowledge sharing and efficiencies. This portal is now widely used by local councils.

8. Staff involved in the Hawke’s Bay collaboration pilot have delivered improved service and value in the following areas:

8.1. IT: Shared Infrastructure Services including Wide Area Network, Desktop and Web Services

8.2. GIS: Shared Aerial Photography

8.3. Open Spaces: Opportunities for One View of Information and Shared approaches to operations

8.4. Animal Control: Opportunities for Shared Education and License Data

8.5. Training and Development: Common Requirements and Shared Onsite Training

8.6. Shared Internal Audit Services. Improved quality, value and efficiency

8.7. Records Management: Common approaches.

Proposed Structure

9. It is intended that the current Chief Executive (CE) Forum, will replace the HBLASS board structure with the same five Council CEOs and independent chair – the function of HBLASS will continue but without the legislative requirements of operating a Company. The CE Forum group is committed to working together to improve service and value for the Hawke’s Bay region through a programme of cross-council collaboration. The primary difference in the structure change is less time and resource spent on the requirements for an active Council-owned, legal entity and more focus on setting direction and enabling staff to achieve improved service and value. At the same time, the CE Forum provides an umbrella and common way of operating for the many collaborative initiatives across Hawke’s Bay, beyond HBLASS.

10. The administrative function is also significantly reduced. A lead council would be identified to maintain a ledger with invoicing to each council to recover agreed and shared costs for the Collaboration Program and any project expenses.

11. To deactivate a council-owned company requires the following steps to be undertaken.

11.1. Obtain a special resolution of shareholders (in writing and signed) stating the shareholders agree to shelve the company

11.2. Pay final GST return to Inland Revenue (HBLASS is not registered for FBT but this would apply if it were)

11.3. Make final payouts as determined by above resolution (if applicable) to clear the bank accounts

11.4. Close bank accounts with Westpac

11.5. Deregister for GST with Inland Revenue

11.6. File the final income tax return (IR4) for the tax year (includes company accounts up to the point when business ceased, but note this cannot be filed early and is due after the end of the financial year in which HBLASS closed)

11.7. File the IR433 Non-Active Company Declaration form with Inland Revenue.

12. The HB LASS Limited legal entity can be reactivated in the future if business models, organisational, contract or procurement changes require a separate legal entity.

13. Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act enables councils, by resolution, to exempt “small organisations” from the many process requirements of the LG Act, after taking into account “the nature and scope of the activities provided by the organisation” and the “costs and benefits” to the Council and the community. In light of the informal nature of the HBLASS collaboration and the need to be flexible and nimble in pursuing the collaboration, it is recommended that the five Councils approve this exemption. The activities and funding contributed by individual councils will continue to be covered by the usual Local Government Act decision making processes.

Issues

14. There are no foreseen issues or risks at this time. This structural change will cost less and focus attention on the renewed purpose of the LASS.

Significance and Consultation

15. The Board is comprised of the five Chief Executives of the Hawke’s Bay Councils. All Chief Executives support the recommendation to make the HBLASS company dormant and have approved a motion at their meeting on December 8, 2017.

16. Each Council is now being consulted with a recommendation to make the HBLASS company dormant. The Chief Executives intend to still refer to their activities and undertaking as a group as HBLASS, but not as a separate legal entity. The Councils are requested to provide a response to this proposal by the end of March 2018, hence this item being referred directly to Council.

Implications

Financial

17. There will be residual funding from the current year’s subscription, and it is proposed to transfer this to Napier City Council, where it will provide an accountability report. The residual fund will be to pay for the continued services of the Chairman and Collaborator roles.

Risk

18. The requirements of being a CCO will still need to be met if the Councils wish to continue with the Company in its current format, including the preparation of a Statement of Intent. This work has currently been put on hold.

19. Councils may decide not to continue to fund the Chairperson and Collaborator role and further opportunities on effective and efficient services may be missed.

Options

20. The options available to Council are:

20.1. Approve the recommendation to make HB Local Authority Shared Services Limited dormant.

20.2. Not resolve the recommendation to make HBLASS Limited dormant, and HB LASS to continue in its current form.

20.3. Resolve that all shared service/collaboration activities cease immediately.

Development of Preferred Option

21. Option 20.1 – Make the HBLASS legal entity dormant as this will result in a lower financial and administration burden to the councils while improving the focus on service and value outcomes.

22. As noted above during the review of HBLASS in 2017, LASS organisations around New Zealand were approached to share their experience. Success was linked directly with a collaborative approach. Other LASS organisations that have taken the traditional structural/cost reduction approach with services being operated and contracts run through the LASS, are currently assessing the change to a collaborative approach for more robust and wider solutions.

23. HB LASS has taken the initiative to test collaboration in the Hawke’s Bay environment during 2017. There has been success over the six months of this pilot to test collaboration. In order for further improvement, there needs be greater cross-council engagement, citizen focus, leadership accountability and strengthening of a collaborative culture. The CE Forum is committed to pursuing this.

Decision Making Process

24. 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:

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

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

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

24.4. The persons affected by this decision are all regional ratepayers and citizens.

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

24.6. 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 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2. Agrees HBLASS, as a legal entity lie dormant in the short term; with the ability for the legal entity able to be reactivated in the future.

3. Notes that the dormant status of HBLASS is effective on receipt of agreement by all members of the Board.

4. Notes that the decision on the dormant status of HBLASS will be determined by the majority of Hawke’s Bay Councils.

5. Notes that each Council will continue its participation in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in a pilot.

6. Approves the exemption of HBLASS from the Council Controlled Organisation requirements (Local Government Act Section 7(3))

7. Notes that the CE Forum intends that all Councils will actively support shared and common goal setting, decision-making, resourcing including financial contribution, staff and communication.

Authored by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

Subject: Remuneration Review for Tāngata Whenua Members of the Regional Planning Committee

Reason for Report

1. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 (the “Act”) established the Regional Planning Committee in statute.

2. Section 12 of the Act requires that the Committee must have Terms of Reference and that these Terms of Reference must provide for :

a procedure for determining the remuneration to be paid to tāngata whenua members and reimbursement of their expenses.

3. Any amendments to the Terms of Reference must be with the written unanimous agreement of the appointers (this includes tāngata whenua appointers and the Council).

4. When the Regional Planning Committee first began to operate ahead of the passing of the legislation payment of tāngata whenua members was based on a Cabinet Office Circular on the Fees Framework for Members of Statutory and Other Bodies appointed by the Crown.

5. The intent of the review of the Terms of Reference included a review of the procedure for determining payment. On the advice of the tāngata whenua Chair and Co-Chair of the Committee, Mr. David Shannon was appointed to undertake the remuneration review.

6. Mr. Shannon’s report provides recommendations for both the Regional Planning Committee and the Maori Standing Committee. For the purpose of this paper the proposed remuneration for the tāngata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee is the only matter for discussion.

Discussion

7. The requirement for the Terms of Reference is that it must identify a procedure for determining the remuneration to be paid to tāngata whenua members and the reimbursement of their expenses.

8. The Shannon Report utilised market data broadly comparable to fulltime local government and public sector positions, Cabinet Office Circulars, professional salary surveys and personal experience to correlate the payment for tāngata whenua RPC members broadly to Senior Policy Advisors in a local Council. Mr. Shannon recommended that this equated to $500 per meeting day for members (plus $500 per tāngata whenua hui day, prior to the formal RPC). The estimated income from this per member is $8,000 per annum based on the number of meetings held. His report also acknowledged the need for additional remuneration to the Co-Chair in recognition of the additional responsibilities.

9. Feedback from a workshop of the tāngata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee indicated a level of disappointment in the findings and a request for more information. Following discussions between the Co-Chairs, Deputy Co-Chairs and HBRC staff an offer has been provisionally made to the tāngata whenua members and they will have considered this offer by the time of the Regional Planning Committee meeting (but after the agenda is published).

10. A summary of the proposal for remuneration for 2018/19 (and the remainder of 2017/18) is as follows:

10.1. Payment of $12,000 per annum per tāngata whenua member of the Regional Planning Committee. This payment will cover preparatory work, attendance at tāngata whenua-only hui, attendance at the formal Regional Planning Committee meeting, and any required follow–up meeting with appointers.

10.2. Additional remuneration of $6,000 per annum for the Deputy Co-Chair of the Regional Planning Committee

10.3. Additional remuneration of $12,000 per annum for the Co-Chair of the Regional Planning Committee

10.4. Payments to be reviewed annually in accordance with the comparable salary for Senior Policy Advisors, as outlined in the Shannon Report.

10.5. HBRC to continue to make payments separately for the reimbursement of travel, accommodation and incidental expenses as per current arrangements upon receipt of verified claims.

11. For the purpose of clarification payment to any tāngata whenua member who represents the Regional Planning Committee on any other body, such as a standing committee of HBRC or a sub-committee, is not covered by this arrangement and is determined separately. It is however standard for the tāngata whenua member to be paid at the same daily rate as if the meeting were that of the Regional Planning Committee.

12. The payment for any independent advice sought by the tāngata whenua members of the RPC will continue to be made separately by HBRC.

Financial and Resource Implications

13. HBRC has provided in its Draft Long Term Plan for the level of remuneration described in this paper.

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 in the Hawke’s Bay region who meet the costs of the Regional Planning Committee.

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

14.6. 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 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and notes the Remuneration Review for Tāngata Whenua Members of the Regional Planning Committee report.

2. 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.

3. Agrees that for the purposes of the review of the Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee that the procedure for the remuneration of the tāngata whenua members of the Committee is as outlined in paragraph 11 of this paper and that annual payment reviews use market data for Senior Policy Advisors in the public sector as the baseline.

4. Implements the payment system in paragraph 10 of this paper, with effect from 21 March 2018, with a review to be carried out in six months in line with the review of market data.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

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 352

DP 11329

CT B3/1318

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lots 109 & 118

DP 10990

CT J4/1227

- Transfer

4210

4211

4212

9 March 2018

16 March 2018

1.2

1.2.1 M. Willcox

S. Smithers

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

1.2.2 E. Lennan

K. Boersen

(Delegations under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-92 inclusive) and Clause 32B Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002)

4208

4209

4206

4207

27 February 2018

5 March 2018

22 February 2018

2. As a result of sales, the current numbers of Leasehold properties owned by Council are:

2.1. 0 cross lease properties were sold, with 83 remaining on Council’s books

2.2. One single leasehold property was sold, with 125 remaining on Council’s books.

Decision Making Process

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

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Authored by:

Trudy Kilkolly

Financial Accountant

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager
Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 March 2018

SUBJECT: HBRC Staff Projects and Activities through April 2018

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to inform them of significant issues and activities over the next couple of months.

Project	Team /Section	Description	Activity Status Update
2018-2028 Long Term Plan	Comms		1. Public consultation began on 19 March with region wide promotion. This continues until 23 April. Public queries are being responded to as they occur.
	Governance	Submissions	2. Process for receiving, acknowledging, tracking and responding to submissions in place and documented in Promapp
Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water	Policy	Joint staff level Working Group	3. Providing secretarial and technical support to the JWG, through: a) monitoring of the Action Plan and White Paper to ensure actions are being progressed b) acting as ‘link’ between JWG and other related projects, such as TANK.
	Governance	HB Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee	4. Awaiting adoption of Terms of Reference by CHB. HDC, NCC, HBRC, WDC and HB DHB have all confirmed ToR and appointments. 5. Next meeting of the Joint Committee will be scheduled in May – at which the Independent Chairperson will be appointed and Terms of Reference for the staff working group adopted
TANK	Groundwater Science	Heretaunga groundwater age and tracer study	6. GNS Science have submitted a final draft of the Heretaunga groundwater age and tracers report. Work is nearing completion.
TANK	Groundwater Science	Heretaunga Plains groundwater flow model	7. Integrated groundwater - surface water modelling is still being undertaken, to inform TANK decisions. Reporting is underway for the groundwater (MODFLOW) and surface water (SOURCE) modelling.
	Water Quality & Ecology		8. Draft Report on trials trying to establish alternative species for different shading options has been received 9. Modelling for optimal shading architecture to help design riparian planting configurations is ongoing 10. Monitoring options for tracking progress towards water quality limits are being developed for the TANK plan 11. Karamu faecal source tracking is ongoing 12. Continuing with documentation to support proposed estuarine water quality goals. 13. Review of storm water and sediment draft rules.
TANK contd	Land Science	Sediment modelling	14. Ongoing sediment and erosion scenario modelling
		Wetland monitoring	15. 12 Wetland monitoring sites set up in the TANK area.
		Ahuriri Catchment point analysis/soil stability survey	16. Detailed survey of 910 1ha survey points across the Ahuriri catchment. Field work completed, report review underway.
	Air Quality	Napier hazardous air pollutant monitoring	17. Sampling continues at Marewa Park until May. Analysis and reporting by GNS is due for completion in September 2018.
	Policy	Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Development	18. Next TANK Group meetings 19 April & 15 May. 19. Recap and briefing was presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting 21 March, outlining matters that RPC will be presented with as a result of the TANK Group’s discussions.
PC6 Implementation	Water Quality & Ecology Land Management Regulation	Using shading to manage instream weed growth trials	20. A series of meetings and workshops with small farmers (4-40 ha) scheduled over the next 2.5 months. These will include helping small farmers understand whether they need to submit a farm plan and helping those that do need a plan to do one through organised workshops with approved plan providers. 19 landholders attended the first workshop on 18 March 21. Staff focus has been on the Mangamahaki sub-catchment over the last month – with 29 farm visits/ conversations to promote ongoing soil conservation works and to understand what is happening on farm currently with pole planting, farm planning and other environmental work. 22. Tukituki Estuary annual sampling completed in March 2018, WQ sampling continues monthly.
	Land Science		23. Collecting data from 10 wetland monitoring sites established in 2017. 24. Farm scale sediment Workshop – SedNetNZ “add on”
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120	Asset Management	Developing coastal hazard options and solutions for priority cells, along with funding considerations for consultation	25. Panel report with recommended pathways will be presented to councils: HDC (March 22), HBRC (March 28) NCC (April 3) with recommendation to endorse and adopt the strategies, and proceed with Stage 4 – implementation.
Engineering	Asset Management	Esk Valley and Mangaone Floods.	26. A significant flood event occurred on 8 March 2018 in the Esk and Mangaone catchments, with well over a 100 year return period rainfall recorded. We are currently in the process of analyzing recorded flood information as part of preparing a flood report, where necessary attend public meetings, and to determine if the current level of service for the Esk River scheme and Councils response is appropriate.
		Gisborne District Council Stopbank upgrade	27. Calibration report, modelling various scenarios for climate change are nearing completion for report back to GDC.
		Consent Evaluation and stormwater analysis	28. Continue to assist HBRC Consents section with advice for subdivision consents including Mission Hills, Awatoto Industrial, Iona Triangle, Howard St.
		Awanui Stopbank Construction – Left Bank	29. Contract awarded. Works start Monday 26 March. Expected completion date Friday 20 April.
Biosecurity	Biodiversity		30. Preparation for a range of activities including a May launch of Guardians of Hawke’s Bay biodiversity, call for nominations for the Regional Biodiversity Foundation (RBF), submission of funding applications to funders, Presentations by RBF to Regional and District Council Long Term Plan processes.
	Animal pest management		31. Tendering of regional animal pest contracts. 32. Preparation for the Regional Pest Management Plan hearings committee including Hearings Panel Training on the 5^th April.
	Cape to City		33. A range of activities across work streams including the 18-19 project research meeting, wireless trap optimization, and kiwi translocation planning. 34. Second stage Predator Free Hawke’s Bay proposal submitted to PFNZ 2050.
	Plant pest		35. Woolly nightshade urban programme. 36. Finishing Pinus contorta programme.
Resource Consents		Applications processing/pending	37. Te Mata Mushrooms Air discharge remains on hold pending application for related consents required from HDC. Consent applications for the proposal to relocate the composting activity to another site near Waipukurau have not yet been lodged. 38. HBRC Gravel extraction Ngaruroro Tukituki, Waipawa and Tutaekuri. Further information has been requested and is to be provided before the end of May. 39. PanPac coastal discharge. A prehearing is scheduled for 20 March and Environment Court mediation is scheduled for 11 April. 40. Landcorp Ahuriri stormwater discharge application. On hold while parties discuss this and related NCC stormwater discharge consent applications. 41. Port of Napier wharf extension and dredging application lodged and further information has been requested. 42. Clifton coastal protection works application. Hearing postponed at applicants request while HDC notify a related resource consent.
Resource Use		Te Mata Mushrooms	43. Enforcement action has been initiated in relation to continued offensive and objectionable odour being discharged beyond the boundary. The Court will be asked to make a determination on whether or not appropriate action is being taken by the company while the application for new resource consent is underway and delayed.

Decision Making Process

2. 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 notes the HBRC Staff Projects and Activities through April 2018 report.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Communications Manager

Steve Cave

Team Leader Open Spaces

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Craig Goodier

Team Leader Principal Engineer Modelling

Keiko Hashiba

Terrestrial Ecologist

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager Land Management

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader/Principal Scientist - Water Quality and Ecology

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate and Air

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Dr Barry Lynch

Team Leader Principal Scientist Land Science

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist – Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Oliver Wade

Scientist

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.