Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Status Comment
1	Significant Organisational Activities	Whakaki Catchment Pilot Project case studies investigating the costs of implementing farm plans, NPFSM reforms and ETS obligations while looking for opportunities to boost profitability and productivity to go to a future EICC meeting when ready	N Heath	Item scheduled on 3 February Environment & Integrated Catchments Committee agenda.
2	Significant Organisational Activities	Circulate the draft conditions for the NCC / HBRC Westshore tidal gates and NCC Lagoon Farm stormwater discharge consents to councillors for information	M Miller	Not yet actioned.
3	Report from the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee	Provide the potential financial implications of decisions to harvest, or not, Tūtira Regional Park and Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve to a future Environment and Integrated Catchments meeting.	B Douglas / R Franklin	The information is being collated and will be provided to Councillors prior to Christmas.

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Status Comment
4	Māori Representation	Poll on the establishment of Māori constituencies to be included in 2022 HBRC elections	Electoral Officer	Added into the Project Plan pending confirmation should legislative change remove the ability for 5% of voters to demand a poll

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Status Comment
5	Discussion of Minor items	3 waters and Māori cultural values – query as to whether HBRC has received and adopted the cultural values report and how it is planning to give effect to it	P Munro	Under investigation with Toni Goodlass (3 Waters Review Project Coordinator)

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2020

Subject: Report and Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee (C&S) meeting on 2 December 2020 and the recommendations agreed are now presented for Council’s consideration alongside any additional commentary the Chair, Councillor Neil Kirton, wishes to offer.

Agenda Items

2. The Report from the 11 November 2020 Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee (FARS) item reported to the Corporate and Strategic Committee (C&S) on the meeting’s proceedings including:

2.1. an update on progress implementing the Risk Maturity Roadmap accompanied by a bowtie analysis demonstration

2.2. an Internal Audit Work Programme Update item updated the Sub-committee on the internal audit work programme and sought feedback on newly developed reporting dashboards

2.3. an HBRC Covid-19 Response Review Report item provided learnings and findings from the internal review of the Regional Council’s organisational response to the Covid-19 pandemic

2.4. a Section 17a Review of the HBRC Works Group discussed in Public Excluded informed the Sub-committee of the outcomes of the recent Section 17A Review of Works Group undertaken by Morrison Low, and the report’s recommendation to increase the size and scale of the Works Group, and to introduce processes and tools to enable this as developed through further discussions with the Executive Leadership Team.

2.4.1. Through discussions at the C&S meeting it was clarified that findings and recommendations from section 17a reviews are provided to the FARS and C&S for information only as they relate to operational matters within management’s purview to action (or not) unless issues of material significance affecting Levels of Service are identified.

2.5. a Verbal FUSE Project Update provided the Sub-committee with an update on the progress made to date implementing the new financial system (FUSE) as well as a rundown of the project’s benefits

2.6. The Sub-committee Work Programme November 2020 Update provided an update on the overall work programme progress to date and advised that a report covering Council’s overall assurance framework will be prepared for the February 2021 FARS meeting, focussing and informing S17a effectiveness and efficiency conversations

2.7. The 2019-20 Annual Treasury Report and Q1 2020-21 (1 July – 30 September 2020) Treasury Report items provided updates on treasury activity and reported on the performance of Council’s investment portfolio.

3. The Pettigrew Green Arena Car Park item sought the Committee’s agreement to a preferred option for the location of a car park to accommodate additional patronage at the expanded Arena complex. Although a constructive discussion occurred, no firm position was determined and further information was requested. The further information and a presentation from the Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust and EIT representatives have been provided to the 16 December Regional Council meeting to enable agreement to a preferred location for advising to the Trust in order for the proposal to proceed to the resource consent application phase.

4. The 2019-20 Compliance Annual Report item and presentation highlighted:

4.1. 92.5% of consents were monitored, of which 89.7% (2750) were fully compliant

4.2. majority of non-compliant consents were discharges to land and water, with Municipal wastewater having the highest proportion of non-compliance and Municipal stormwater continuing to be non-complying

4.3. Wineries were mostly compliant with an exception that was not meeting discharge standards

4.4. Dairies had some significant and moderate non-compliance at a few sites

4.5. All feedlots were monitored, non-compliance is technical rather than environmental

4.6. Forestry has been largely compliant during the period

4.7. 11% fewer complaints (982) received, 21% less infringement notices issued (88), 48% (21) fewer abatement notices issued and prosecutions increased by 300% to 12.

5. The Harbourmaster Functions presentation introduced Captain Martin Moore and the role and responsibilities of the Harbourmaster, including in relation education on safe boating, Rocket Lab rocket launches and boating speed restrictions on rivers, particularly Mohaka.

6. The HB Tourism Six-Monthly Update item and presentation covered how HB Tourism is tracking on achieving its KPIs, highlighting positive movement in domestic market share in part the result of the campaign targeted to the Wellington region, currently HB Tourism membership is free, and work to improve relationships with Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand Māori Tourism and develop a cultural brand for HB.

7. The Organisational Performance Report for Period 1 July to 30 September 2020 and 2020-21 Quarter 1 (1 July – 30 September 2020) Financial Report items provided first quarter results for the 2020-21 financial year, and:

7.1. introduced a reporting dashboard proposed to replace the current 80 page organisational report in future, and can be tailored to include metrics particular committees consider useful to see in this format

7.2. Majority of variances were due to the inability (with the current Finance system) to phase budgets to align to timing of work delivery

7.3. No significant over or underspend

7.4. Dividend from Napier Port was higher than anticipated and potential implications on the amount that council will need to borrow and baseline financials for LTP.

8. A Controller and Auditor General 2020 Managing Conflicts of Interest Guidance item provided updated guidance for the Committee’s information.

9. The Regional Council’s Corporate Carbon Footprint item provided Council’s ‘baseline’ carbon footprint as calculated by independent consultant, EKOS, with discussions covering:

9.1. Additional work around forestry and open spaces carbon calculations and off-set options will need to be commissioned from an external consultant

9.2. Potential to reduce the use of the vehicle fleet as the main contributor to Council’s carbon footprint

9.3. Incentives for staff to use public transport and the promotion of cycling to work.

10. Finally, the HBRIC Ltd Quarterly Update item provided a confidential update to the Committee on progress with several investment opportunities being explored by HBRIC, as well as the CCO’s latest financial position.

Decision Making Process

11. These items were specifically considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on 10 June 2020 and are now the subject of the following recommendations to Council.

Recommendations

The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Report and Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee”.

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 these items without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in them.

Pettigrew Green Arena Car Park

3. Considers the cultural and values assessment information and presentation from the Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust in order to provide direction on a suitable location for the carpark at Pettigrew Green Arena.

2019-20 Compliance Annual Report

4. Adopts the 2019-20 Compliance Annual Report for publication on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council website.

Reports Received

5. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Corporate and Strategic Committee

5.1. Report from the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee

5.2. Harbourmaster Functions

5.3. HB Tourism Six-Monthly Update

5.4. Organisational Performance Report for Period 1 July to 30 September 2020

5.5. 2020-21 Quarter 1 (1 July – 30 September 2020) Financial Report

5.6. Regional Council’s Corporate Carbon Footprint

5.7. HBRIC Ltd Quarterly Update (Public Excluded)

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2020

Subject: Pettigrew Green Arena Car Park

Reason for Report

1. This item provides information about the options for the location of the car-parking for the Pettigrew Green Arena expansion, to enable a direction on the preferred option to be given to the Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust (RISEC) for the resource consent process.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. Council officers recommend that the Napier Reserve land is recommended by HBRC to be utilised for the carpark.

Executive Summary

3. The Pettigrew Arena is in receipt of PGF funding to develop additional indoor court space for Napier/ Hastings. As part of the development of the site, a location is required for approximately 385 carparks in the near term and up to 535 carparks in the longer-term. During the day these carparks are available for EIT students’ use.

4. There are two identified locations for the carpark. The first, located behind the existing Pettigrew Arena building and carpark on NCC Reserve land, and the second located on the adjacent Tūtaekurῑ river berm on the river side of the stopbank managed by HBRC. There is also a third hybrid option presented.

5. Staff assessment of the three options has resulted in a preference, by a narrow margin, for the NCC reserve.

Background

6. The Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust (RISEC) is the charitable trust that operates the Pettigrew Green Arena in Taradale. Since the decision not to proceed with the Multi-Use Sports Facility in 2018, the Trust has been developing options to progress its own facility expansion through providing additional indoor courts. A business case, feasibility study and proposal have been completed.

7. The facility is situated on NCC reserve land (Riverside Reserve). The reserve is broken into two parts with separate designations under the Reserves Act 1977. The area of the reserve in which the existing facility is located is designated as a local purpose community holding reserve, where the rear of the reserve that is currently green space, playground and dog agility area is a recreational reserve. The local purpose community holding reserve designation enables more commercial activity with the leased office space, gym and food provider within the facility.

8. The proposed extension is to construct a new building at the rear of the existing Pettigrew Green Arena (PGA) in Taradale over the car park and a small section of EIT land next door. It is proposed to include a wooden floor that can accommodate six full size futsal courts. The carpark area that has made way for the expanded building will need to replaced and added to close by.

9. The new facility will be available for use by a large number of sporting codes, so the floor space will be able to be configured for the following sports:

9.1. Basketball

9.2. Futsal

9.3. Volleyball

9.4. Netball

9.5. Badminton

9.6. Indoor bowls.

10. The new facility is estimated to cost in the region of $14 million (definitive budget still to be completed), with one third of the funding to be sought from corporate sponsorship, philanthropic trusts, government funding and public donations.

11. Construction of the proposed facility is to take approximately one year, and the project will have the ability to be scaled back if the funding targets are not achieved.

12. The need for the expanded facility has been supported by a number of documents and reports that have indicated a high level of unmet demand for indoor court space in Hawke’s Bay driven by structured indoor sports.

13. These documents and reports have consistently indicated a need of between two and six additional courts across Hawke’s Bay. Given the age of these reports and for some the dependence on the National Facilities Strategy for Indoor Sports (2013), these court demand projections do not account for the rapid growth of primarily basketball, but also futsal and volleyball, and the larger than projected growth in the population of Hawke’s Bay.

14. To support RISEC with its expansion project, in April 2020 NCC approved the formation of an Indoor Sports Working Group comprising NCC councillors and officers, PGA, Sport HB and EIT representatives.

15. In August 2020 Government announced that the PGA expansion project has been granted $6.4 million from the Government's Covid Response and Recovery Fund. This investment combined with $4.1 million from NCC and approximately $2 million of existing RISEC funding will comprise the bulk of the project’s construction budget. The primary driver for the national government investment is to stimulate economic activity for the local economy. This impetus creates a haste to get the building underway.

16. The site plan for the expanded facility (attached) shows the new 5 futsal court facility sited where at the rear of the existing facility and over the current carpark. In addition to replacing the carpark that is planned to be built over, there is a need to create car parking capacity to cater for the additional visitors to the facility. A site plan is also attached for further expansion plans.

17. The HBRC land assessed for a carpark is in part held for the Improvement and Protection of the Tūtaekurῑ River and in accordance with the purposes of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA). The objectives set out in Section 10 of the SCRCA included:

17.1. The promotion of soil conservation

17.2. The prevention and mitigation of soil erosion

17.3. The prevention of damage by floods

17.4. The utilisation of lands in such manner as will tend towards the attainment of the above objectives

18. Part of the land is also held as a Hydro Parcel surveyed prior to 1918. Further analysis is required on this land tenure with regards to the rights for HBRC to establish a carpark over this area. HBRC’s relationship to this land is as the responsible authority for the waterway in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Section 30(1)(g) of the RMA which is relevance to the Hydro parcel sets out the function of HBRC with similar responsibilities to the SCRCA.

Discussion

19. An agenda item similar to this one was presented at the HBRC Corporate and Strategic Committee on 2 December 2020, and although a constructive discussion occurred no firm position was determined. In addition, further information was requested on how the proposal fits within the HBRC values and questions in regards to a cultural impact assessment. This information on HBRC values is included in this item. No cultural impact assessment has been undertaken to date.

20. NCC considered the issue at the Sustainable Napier Committee on 3 December 2020 and resolved through the Committee to support the over the stop bank car park option on land managed by HBRC. The issue will be re-examined at the NCC Council meeting to be held on 17 December 2020.

21. Once each Council has completed their decision making process, advice can be provided to the Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust.

22. Additional information will be presented at the Council meeting, consisting of:

22.1. Edited diagram of the likely carpark location and dimensions by HBRC taking into account resilience construction work on the Taradale stop bank (attachment 4)

22.2. An analysis of the flood history in this location

22.3. A statement on the current flood forecasting capability for this location.

Options Assessment

23. Pettigrew Green Arena has an existing arrangement with the Eastern Institute of Technology in which PGA parking can be used by EIT students during weekdays, with PGA having access to EIT parking for events when overflow car parking is required.

24. The NCC reserve is bordered by the EIT Student Village to the north, and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council land to the south (the stopbank, cycle paths and riverbank land). To enable the land required to construct the expanded facility and provide a service access lane around the facility, a small sliver of EIT land is required.

25. These site constraints and different landowners pose a challenge to locating car parking in a way that best services the needs of the facility and EIT.

26. There are three options for the location of the car park:

26.1. Option 1 is locating the car–parking on the NCC-owned Riverside Reserve to the east of the proposed extension

26.2. Option 2 is locating the car parking over the stopbank on HBRC managed land

26.3. Option 3 is a hybrid of the two options – part located in the NCC reserve and part across the stopbank on HBRC land.

Criteria

27. In order to develop a rounded assessment of the three options a criteria including the following aspects was developed.

27.1. Strategic fit – the impact that the options have on the strategic intent of NCC and HBRC

27.2. Site efficiency – how effectively the positioning of the car-park services the Pettigrew Green Arena

27.3. Whole of life costs – the capital and operating costs of each option

27.4. Existing utility – what community utility value will be given up for each option to construct a car-park

27.5. Environmental/ecological impact – the impact of each option on the natural environment

27.6. Risks – the risk levels associated with each option

27.7. Acoustics – the acoustic impact on neighbouring residents

27.8. Visual impact – Mitigating the car-park aesthetics and blending into its surroundings

27.9. Future-proofing – the impact of the options on potential future PGA expansion.

28. The criteria and ratings have been developed and agreed between officers from Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Limitations

29. The options assessment is a high-level officer assessment to inform council decisions as to the way forward. It provides a qualitative assessment to assess the three options using relevant criteria to identify the positive and negative aspects and separate the options. The assessment is not intended to make the decision, but to inform deliberations between councils to provide direction to PGA/RISEC.

30. Each criteria has been given equal weighting. It is possible that Council considers that some criteria should be given increased or decreased weightings and this should be considered during deliberations.

Assessment results

31. Three options assessed against this criteria, with the intention of providing an objective and relative option comparison to assist with the decision making of NCC and HBRC.

32. The following rating scale was used to assess the options and help to differentiate based on the criteria.

32.1. 1 – Little to no impact

32.2. 3 – Medium impact

32.3. 5 – Significant impact.

33. The assessment scoring of the three options is as follows.

Option	Total score	Ranking
1 – Riverside Park Reserve (NCC land)	44	1 (preferred)
2 – Over the stopbank (HBRC land)	50	2
3 – Hybrid options (both NCC and HBRC land)	52	3 (least preferred)

Summary of options

34. Option 1: Riverside Park Reserve

Pros	Cons
Better car-parking security and accessibility	Closer to neighbouring residences meaning that noise and disturbances from car park users will be more significant
No need to have traffic cross the bike path	Is further from EIT for students, potentially meaning students may choose to park on the road rather than the designated car park
Car park not constructed in flood hazard zone – reducing risks and operating costs	Will remove green space used by the community
	Will require the relocation of infrastructure including public toilets, dog-agility park and playground.

35. Option 2: Over the stopbank

Pros	Cons
Closer proximity for EIT students	Increased risks to carpark infrastructure and private vehicles due to flooding from a 1 in 5 year flood event
Advantages to managing noise, disturbances and visual impact	Increased operational costs for the carpark owner from clean up and damage caused by potential flood damage
	Will remove greenspace used by the community
	Will require relocation of the Taradale pump/ jumps cycle track

36. Option 3: Hybrid option

Pros	Cons
No advantages over the 2 other options	Higher capital costs from crossing the stopbank twice
Advantages to managing noise, disturbances and visual impact	Greater disruption to cycle path from the two crossings

37. The full option evaluation matrix is included in the attached documents.

Mitigations through design and processes

38. Design, engineering and construction methods can mitigate the negative impacts of the stopbank option. Plantings, choice of materials and engineering to help to mitigate the impact of flood waters in a flood event are all considerations for detailed design.

39. It may also be possible to use the car park to provide improved access for people to the river to support other recreational opportunities.

40. While the stopbank option (option 2) is considered optimal by the proponent as the best situation for servicing the arena itself, as well as better servicing EIT students, it carries a much greater risk of flooding, potentially causing loss or damage to parked vehicles, damage to the car park itself and increased operational costs through clean up after flood events.

41. Pettigrew Green Arena has undertaken to be responsible for asset repair costs, operational costs and risks should the car park be situated over the stopbank, so these costs will not be borne by HBRC or NCC.

42. It has yet to be decided how the closing of the carpark and the removal of vehicles will be managed when a heavy rain warning is received. Currently advice on the impacts of rain fall and flooding are the responsibility of HBRC, whilst the promulgation of warnings across the region and response actions are the responsibility of the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group. As the agencies responsible for these actions accountability for actions around the health and safety of people and property in relation to this proposal would sit with them.

43. As mention this issue has yet to be meaningfully addressed and the Council needs to be aware of the risks and liability it may incur as a result of allowing structures and activities within known hazard zones and land owned by the Council.

Impact of Climate Change

44. The impacts of climate change in Hawke’s Bay were recently presented at the 4 November 2020 Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee. The report noted:

44.1. The changes in rainfall are expected to impact river flows. Annual average discharge decreases (by approximately 20% by 2090 under the high emissions pathway). Mean annual low flows (MALF) largely decrease over time, exceeding 20% in some areas by 2090 under the high emissions pathway, but an increase in summer rainfall in coastal locations may mean an increase in some catchments by 2040 under the mid-range emissions pathway. Mean Annual Flood increases by up to 50% for many of the region’s rivers by the end of the century under a high emissions pathway.

45. The key point of this analysis is that flood events are likely to become more frequent and so over time the current flood impact assessment of 1:5 to the proposed carpark will become more frequent. At this stage it is a trend only and no detailed analysis has been undertaken.

46. HBRC is currently working with NIWA to develop robust methods to introduce climate change scenarios into our river modelling.

The EIT perspective

47. EIT has formally expressed its firm preference to have the car-parking located over the stopbank. This is primarily driven by concerns over the proximity of the parking to EIT, and concerns that with the additional distance (200m) that the students will not use the park and prefer to park on the street.

48. The project requires that EIT provide a small section of its land to the north of the proposed site to enable vehicle access around the facility. EIT has indicated that unless the car-parking is situated in the preferred location for its students, then the granting of this land to enable construction as per the current designs may be withheld. This is a potential ‘show-stopper’ for the construction of the expanded facility.

49. It should be noted that HBRC should not consider that the project can only go ahead if HBRC grants permission for use of its land. The benefits of the court space to the community can be delivered irrespective of the location of the carpark. The EITs position of not agreeing to the car park being located an additional 200m away, is not seen as being a significant disbenefit in the overall assessment of this project.

Issues

50. HBRC has scheduled work during this financial year to reinforce (widen) the Taradale stopbank. This work is funded by the IRG funding as part of the Government’s Covid-19 Recovery response. Further work may be scheduled in years 2 (2021-22) and 3 (2022-23) of the programme which is currently under development.

51. HBRC has specific milestones to meet through the IRG Funding Agreement administered through PDU. The work scheduled for the Taradale stopbank cannot be substantially changed to suit the PGA work program.

52. This section of stopbank has been accessed by HBRC as a critical component of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme due to the high consequence of failure on the Taradale area. The risk that a proposed carpark need to be fully understood and would require further analysis by HBRC.

53. Careful consideration would need to be made of flood water velocities across the stopbank adjacent to the proposed carpark. Edge protection to reduce velocity may be required between the carpark and stopbank requiring a buffer area. This has not been allowed for in the proponents plans.

54. Though this work (48,49 &50) does not directly impact the determination of a preferred option, the amended dimensions and the construction period itself will need to be considered through design and construction.

55. HBRC has undertaken significant work on developing a strategy for the public use rivers. This was presented to the Environment and Services Committee in July 2018. The draft strategy identified the river berm between Guppy Road and Gloucester Street for a high amenity public access facility. The Public Use of Rivers project has since been placed on hold pending the outcomes of the Heretaunga Plains Level of Service Review so that outcomes of the 1:500 level of service review can be fed back into the Public Use of Rivers projects along with an enhance consultation strategy. It should be noted that parking on the river berm was also identified as part of this strategy albeit at a much reduced scale.

56. Guppy Road to Gloucester Street has the following existing uses that would need to be considered as part of any carpark proposal:

56.1. Walking, dog walking and cycling

56.2. Fishing and gamebird hunting

56.3. Awatoto to Puketapu horse trail

57. The Public Use of Rivers report identified that there would be significant sensitivities around any change of use in the Guppy Road to Gloucester Street, particularly if access was restricted.

58. The carpark is significant in size, and significant in scale in the environment in which it is proposed. The initial 385 carparks is approximately 1 ha in surface area.

Strategic Fit

59. The use of this land has not been identified for this purpose (carpark) in Long Term Plan, Asset Management Plans or Infrastructure Strategy.

60. The land has been identified through draft documents for Public Use of Rivers Project (paragraph 50,51) as having an alternate use, this work has not yet been formalised through the Asset Management Plans or Infrastructure Strategy.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

61. HBRC has not undertaken any consultation with any group on the proposal to utilise Taradale river berm as a significant carpark. Examples are: local community, emergency services.

62. There has been no engagement with tangata whenua or cultural impact assessment carried out for the area in question.

63. NCC staff have advised that community engagement is to be considered through the resource consent process and through the proposed Napier City Council Spatial and Connectivity Plan.

Risk Assessment

64. The potential that EIT will not provide the small section of land required for the project to commence if the carpark is not located on HBRC land.

65. The HBRC carpark option knowingly places third party infrastructure and private property in a flood hazard zone where lower risk options exist.

66. No analysis or assessment has been carried out around legal liability for a decision to place a significant carpark in a flood hazard zone in the event of serious injury or fatality.

Financial and Resource Implications

67. Delays with this decision may result in the project not meeting key deadlines for Government funding and result in the return of the committed investment.

68. PGA have advised that a resource consent must be lodged by 17 December 2020 in order to meet contractual construction milestones with PGF.

69. Given the size and scale of the project PGA have a very optimistic schedule particularly for the resource consent phase.

70. HBRC understands that key input documents to the consenting process such as cultural impact assessment and traffic impact assessment have not yet been complete and are significant packages of work.

71. HBRC is not funding any part of the project, nor will not own or maintain the third party infrastructure and will not be responsible in any way for damage or destruction of third party or private property through flood or other event.

72. The question of any specific flood forecasting for this site would need to be resolved and potentially resourced for the life of the PGA asset. This would include an agreement around false alarms that may require the carpark to be emptied during a large event.

Summary of Values

73. At a high level working with NCC, EIT and PGA to provide and optimise broad benefits to the community is supported by HBRC values and objectives. However, when it comes to more specific objectives around enhancement of ecology and environment, climate resilient services and infrastructure the construction of an up to 535 vehicle carpark within the river berm is not consistent with our stated direction.

74. Although HBRC operates 32 small carparks for river access across the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains these are significantly smaller and informal to allow access for recreation, cultural activities and enjoyment of our rivers and riparian margins.

HBRC Values

Organisation Values

75. Partnership and collaboration

75.1. We work with the community in everything we do

75.2. This project is an opportunity to collaborate with EIT, PGA and NCC to provide the optimal development opportunity for this site, minimising rework as the PGA continues to expand over time. The court and performance space is desperately needed to support community wellbeing outcomes.

75.3. In contrast there has been no consultation with the general community or tangata whenua on the use of river berm for a significant carpark.

76. Accountability

76.1. We hold ourselves to account to deliver results, be responsive to community expectations and the best use of ratepayers funds and assets

76.2. Although HBRC is not directly funding any aspect of this project, HBRC can participate in decision making to ensure the optimal use of ratepayer and crown funds.

77. Transparency

77.1. We report on what we do and the value this delivers for our community

77.2. The process for making this decision is transparent through public committee and council meeting processes.

78. Excellence

78.1. We set our sights and expectations high and never stop striving to do better

78.2. We strive to make the best decision for our community while remaining true to our core focus. HBRC does undertake a lot of work identifying natural hazards and planning how our community can best mitigate or avoid these hazards. HBRC supporting placement of significant carpark (up to 535 vehicles) within a flood hazard zone could be seen by some as a long standing symbol that goes against this approach.

Organisational Focus

79. Water quality, safety and climate- resilient certainty

79.1. The carpark will create urban stormwater polluted with hydrocarbons and heavy metals from vehicles and traffic. This can be mitigated through water sensitive urban design or local pollution capture devices. These mitigations will likely be overcome and not operate effectively in a flood scenario.

80. Climate smart and sustainable land use

80.1. The risk profile of this location will increase over time as climate change further influences the climate within Hawke’s Bay, likely bringnig more frequent flood events.

80.2. It is questionable that allowing substantial public infrastructure in a flood zone can be considered climate smart or sustainable in the long term.

81. Healthy functioning and climate resilient biodiversity

81.1. This project does not support biodiversity outcomes - there is an opportunity cost of supporting the stopbank carpark option in that environmental enhancement, biodiversity and cultural experience opportunities will be lost for perpetuity.

82. Sustainable and climate resilient services and infrastructure

82.1. Infrastructure located within a flood hazard zone is not as sustainable or resilient as options that place it in the protected zone of the flood control scheme.

82.2. The PGA infrastructure is highly dependent on traditional vehicle use based transport with parking metrics. As an example, the stage 2 plans require 150 carparks for 6 court spaces. It does not appear that options such as event based bus or on demand minivan, end of trip arrival facilities supporting cycling or informal event based overflow carparks have been considered.

River Management Values

83. Nesting within the organisational focus and values, the Asset Management Group has developed a hierarchy of objectives in managing our river and waterway infrastructure.

83.1. The protection of life and communities- by providing for the control of flooding within Scheme rivers and the draining of surface water from Scheme land so that the frequency, duration and extent of flooding presents minimal risk to human life and community viability and disruption to the community is minimised.

83.2. The sustainable use of land- by providing for the draining of surface water from land and maintenance of the water table assisted by receiving facility for water from individual properties.

83.3. The protection and enhancement of ecology and water quality values- by ensuring that flood management and maintenance practices do not significant adverse effects on the ecology of rivers, streams and wetlands and ensuring that where practicable enhancement aspects are included as part of asset upgrades and renewals.

83.4. The sustainable management of river sediment (gravel, sand and silt) resources- by monitoring and managing river sediment to maintain the flood carrying capacity of the river channels, and managing allocation of river gravel resources in a consistent and equitable way.

83.5. The protection and enhancement of social and cultural values- by providing for a wide range of amenity and recreation opportunities and balancing conflicting uses and demands on the river berm and drainage reserve areas. Recognising tikanga Māori values and the contribution they make to sustainable development and tangata whenua roles as kaitiaki, in keeping with Māori culture and traditions. To consult with Māori in a manner that creates effective outcomes.

Land Tenure Values (Objectives)

84. The HBRC land assessed for a carpark is in part held for the Improvement and Protection of the Tūtaekurῑ River and in accordance with the purposes of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA). The objectives set out in Section 10 of the SCRCA include:

84.1. The promotion of soil conservation

84.2. The prevention and mitigation of soil erosion

84.3. The prevention of damage by floods

84.4. The utilisation of lands in such manner as will tend towards the attainment of the above objectives

85. Part of the land is also held as a Hydro Parcel surveyed prior to 1918. Further analysis is required on this land tenure with regards to the rights for HBRC to establish a carpark over this area. HBRC’s relationship to this land is as the responsible authority for the waterway in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Section 30(1)(g) of the RMA which is relevance to the Hydro parcel sets out the function of HBRC with similar responsibilities to the SCRCA.

Decision Making Process

86. Council and its committees are 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:

86.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

86.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

86.4. The persons who will be affected by this decision in future are students and staff of EIT, patrons of the Pettigrew Green Arena and residents who live and recreate close by.

86.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be 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 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. receives and considers the “Pettigrew Green Arena Car Park” staff 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. agrees a view as to the optimal carpark location, being ______________, and communicates that to the Regional Indoor Sport and Events Centre Trust.

Authored & Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1	Pettigrew Green Arena Car Parking Options Matrix
⇩2	Pettigrew Green Arena Extension Site Plan with Car Park Adjustments
⇩3	Pettigrew Green Arena Map
⇩4	Pettigrew Green Car Park - 20m buffer

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2020

Subject: 2019-20 Annual Report for Adoption

Reason for Report

1. This item presents the Annual Report for the 2019-20 financial year to 30 June 2020.

Executive Summary

2. Operating surplus is $40.8m, up from $3.08m in prior year but $47.3m below budget as a result of stranded Napier Port IPO funds retained within Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC).

3. Excluding the one-off Port IPO dividend, the year delivers a $3.2m deficit for the year against a budget surplus of $7m.

4. The impact of the pandemic on the financial markets and subsequent investment returns reduced actual investment income from managed funds and other financial deposits to $0.43m ($0.892 revenue less $0.465m losses), $7.3m short of an expected $7.7m.

5. The pandemic delayed some projects and increased some costs particularly those relating to Emergency Management to support Council’s pandemic response. However, despite the pandemic, the levels of services were largely delivered as per the Annual Plan.

6. The annual revaluation of the Napier and Wellington investment property portfolios provided a further $11.5m of unrealised revaluation gains towards the operating surplus.

7. Total Other Comprehensive Revenue is $130.5m, up from $66.5m in prior year and above budget by $125m, mostly due to the revaluation of HBRIC/Napier Port.

8. On the balance sheet, the main movements reflect the revaluations and the Port/HBRIC transactions with non-current borrowings increasing by $14m to reflect the loan from HBRIC to the Council ($16m loan increase offset by debt repayments through the year).

9. From the cost centre perspective, direct employee costs including restructuring costs were up on cost centre budgets overall by $750k (3%) this is due to additional headcount and implementation of the remuneration review to better align staff to market, address historic under-remuneration of some roles and the introduction of a formal performance pay mechanism. The cost of this was approximately 4% of salary compared to the 2% budgeted for increases.

9.1. Note that the actual personnel costs in the financial statements include Works Group salaries, wages and allowances etc. which are not included in the annual plan budgets. The annual plan budget includes the net profit from Works Group external contracts only. This is being addressed as part of the Long Term Plan budgeting process.

10. External costs were over budget by $1.8m (31%). Specifically, general overheads (including accommodation and IT infrastructure) was $1.25m (34%) overspent and the support services cost centres were $395k (45%) overspent. Some of this overspend is the result of increased headcount (rent for additional accommodation, energy costs for more staff, services (cleaning etc for more accommodation), recruitment fees, IT licenses, etc), some overspend is due to additional costs caused by the pandemic (increased cleaning, sanitiser, protective screens, IT infrastructure to support remote working, etc), additional audit fees for the 18/19 audit, and the general increase in IT costs have not been adequately budgeted.

11. The net funding requirement for 2019-20 for Operating and Capital is over budget by $0.8m (3.5%). Asset Management was $2.9m underspent mainly offset by the overspending in Consents and Compliance ($1.508m), Governance ($869k), and Emergency Management ($467k).

	Net Funding Requirement
Group of Activities	Actual	Budget	Variance $	Variance %
Strategic Planning	$2.246m	$2.680m	$0.434m	84%
Asset Management	$3.623m	$6.528m	$2.905m	55%
ICM	$11.668m	$12.058m	$0.390m	97%
Consents & Compliance	$3.426m	$1.918m	$(1.508m)	178%
Emergency Management	$0.605m	$0.138m	$(0.467m)	438%
Transport	$0.271m	$0.254m	$(0.017m)	107%
Governance & Community Engagement	$3.189m	$2.320m	$(0.869m)	137%
Total	$25.03m	$25.9m	$(0.868m)	97%

12. Capital expenditure across the Groups of Activities was $3m (18%) below budget and asset purchases (new vehicles, computers, furniture, etc) was $1.6m (39%) below budget.

13. The presentation of the Annual Report to the Council for adoption has been delayed due to staffing issues at Audit New Zealand and the additional audit work that has been required to assess the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on organisations that has been mandated by the Auditor General.

14. Karen Young, Director, Audit NZ will attend the meeting to answer any questions and allow for auditor only time with the committee as per the Term of References.

Discussion

15. The main driver for the financial surplus for 2019-20 is the IPO of Napier Port with the sale of 45% of the group’s holdings in the port generating $107m in one-off revenue for the group. The net proceeds from the sale exceeded expectations by $24m.

15.1. The 2019-20 budget for HBRC was based on all proceeds from the Port IPO being available to HBRC but tax implications have resulted in a split with $63m remaining with HBRIC.

15.2. $44m of the IPO receipts reverted to HBRC with all receipts being invested in managed funds. Prior to year-end, an asset/loan swap between the Council and HBRIC placed a further $16m of managed funds under direct Council control.

16. Expected dividends received from HBRIC were down from $10m to $2.5m due to the deferral of the anticipated interim Napier Port dividend. The Port dividend is based on free cash flow which has been affected by the uncertain trading conditions and the Port commencing work on the new wharf.

17. Expected capital growth, dividends and interest from the managed funds was significantly impacted by the financial market and share price fluctuations but recovered at the end of the year resulting in small growth for the year of 1%.

18. The increase in Total Other Comprehensive Revenue is due to the:

18.1. Revaluation of HBRIC based on the value of its Port shareholdings resulting in an increase of $117m

18.2. Revaluation increases in carbon credits of $1.2m

18.3. Unrealised growth in the managed funds of $1.4m

19. Operating expenditure was up $9.4m from prior year and $5.7m (10%) over budget. This relates to $2.25m of cost centre overspend, depreciation $600k above budget and fair value losses on some of the forestry offset by reduced finance costs.

20. The general overhead cost centres were overspent by $1.25m (34%) compared to budget:

21. Audit fees were particularly high due to the inclusion of cost over-runs for the 2018-19 audit and fully accruing for the 2019-20 audit.

22. The support cost centres were overspent by $643k (10%) compared to budget on staff costs and $395k (45%) overspent on external costs. The external costs below have been adjusted to exclude overhead allocations. Additional resource was required, and cost incurred in the finance team due to significant turnover, and a need to add both capacity and capability to the team as a result of the organisations growth and increased complexity. Contractors were required during the recruitment of new staff. This team is now right-sized and providing a professional service to the organisation.

23. Computer overheads are significantly over budget due to the increased headcount and the associated licence costs, additional software to support staff working remotely during the pandemic, and previous under-budgeting of IT costs through not adequately budgeting for the increase in costs of IT services and not accounting for the increase in use of IT services (e.g. storage costs are increasing exponentially). The increased IT costs in the new LTP have recognised this deficiency.

24. Across all activity cost centres, the results were close to budget with an overspend in external costs $192k (11%) offset by an underspend on staff costs of $131k (1%) when allocated overheads are excluded.

25. The User Charges and cost recovery revenue across the groups of activities showed significant variance but was $1.6m (15%) more than budget. The increased revenue for Emergency Management is due to the expected cost recoveries from government for the welfare costs incurred, ICM obtained un-budgeted external funding for two projects (SkyTEM, LiDAR) that had been included in the operating budget, and the under budget revenue of Consents and Compliance was comparable to prior year. The Consents and Compliance result is an expected outcome based on the LTP cost recovery expectations for S36 charges.

26. Operating expenditure across all activities for each group of activities was within 10% of budget except for Emergency Management which was 100% over budget due to the pandemic response costs.

27. Strategic Planning underspent operating expenditure over the year by $287k (6%) due to delays in projects 191 Regional Coastal Plan and 192 Strategy and Planning offset by an overspend in 196 Statutory Advocacy.

27.1. Regional Coastal Plan work was delayed due to the team being under-staffed and staff being prioritised to other resource management planning projects.

27.2. Strategy and Planning work was delayed due to TANK notification and an extended submission period resulted in the budget being off-track and associated costs (communications, IT, staff input etc) will be pushed into 2020/21. Hearings have also been delayed in TANK (RPC decision making and Covid-19) and OWB (6-month consultation) resulting in significant costs rollover to 2020/21 (est. $800,000). A new submissions database was purchased to support accurate management of public submissions on plans. The Senior planner vacancy was not filled until April. The Covid-19 pandemic response delayed this workstream as all members of the Planning Team were deployed to assist for some time in the CDEM Group Covid-19/drought response event.

27.3. Statutory Advocacy work was overspent due to additional external expenses that are primarily due to the commissioning of evidence from HBRC's experts on Environment Court proceedings for the Ngaruroro/Clive Rivers Water Conservation Order (WCO), plus associated legal services in same proceedings. Environment Court WCO proceedings have encountered delays due to Covid-19. Legal expenses were also incurred for the unbudgeted work to prepare evidence for first tranche of High Court proceedings on Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act applications.

28. Governance and Community Engagement was 3% overspent in operating expenditure where a $300k underspend in Community Partnerships was offset by a $400k overspend in 840 Community Representation. The overspend was mainly attributed to additional Executive, Governance and Project Management resources required to support meetings and Long Term/Annual plan development processes.

29. Asset Management had a $600k (5%) underspend in operating expenditure and $2.7m (67%) underspend on capital works. The capital expenditure shortfall included:

29.1. $800k underspend on the planned Clive River dredging due to delays in land purchase.

29.2. $700k on HPFCS Flood and River Control as work has been focused on hydrological modelling, planning and communication (internal staff or consultant). No physical work or land acquisition has been progressed any further.

30. Works Group returned a surplus of $65k from external contracts.

31. ICM was close to budget overall (1% overspend) in operating expenditure but had a $3.9m overspend on capital expenditure.

32. There were variances across the ICM operating projects but this reflected work carried out under complementary projects with costs attributed to one project but budgeted under the alternative project (e.g. 312 Regional Surface Water Ecology underspent and 315 Surface Water Quality being overspent by a similar margin).

33. The ICM capital expenditure did not include the SkyTEM and LiDAR work which had been classified as operating expenditure in the LTP and annual plan. The SkyTEM and LiDAR capital costs have effectively been offset by external funding.

34. The Sustainable homes programme has been very successful leading to a $2.4m overspend compared to budget. The cost of installation (and the debt repayments by the rate payers) is classified as capital expenditure due to the loan asset created as a result. The additional expenditure will be recouped over the next 10 years through the voluntary targeted rate applied in each case.

35. Overall Consents and Compliance was overspent by $400k (8%) on expenditure and income was $1.1m below budget due to an under recovery in fees and charges of $300k for 402 Resource Consent Processing and $800k in 450 Compliance programmes.

36. Emergency Management was overspent by $2.4m (100%) due to the pandemic and drought responses. This was partially offset by an extra $1.5m in revenue being mainly cost recovered from the government.

37. Transport overall was overspent by $240k (4%) predominantly on 790 Subsidised Transport where the cost of the bus contract has increased substantially due to increased indexation rates and payment of drivers for a ten-minute break every 2 hours worsened by lower revenues through declining patronage.

38. The systems integration projects were underspent by $1.9m. This was due to a lack of organisational readiness (vacancies in Finance and People & Capability delaying the start of the Finance and HR implementations), a focus on using existing capabilities to deliver solutions to ICM and other teams, and re-prioritising the work programme based on risk resulting in the work on FUSE, Telephony and customer experience solutions being prioritised.

Decision Making Process

39. Council and its committees are 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:

40. Staff have assessed requirements of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as the Annual Report is a statutory report required to be adopted by Council under Section 98 of the Act, the other decision making provisions do not apply..

Recommendations

That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. receives and notes the “2019-20 Annual Report for Adoption” staff report and recommendation from the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-Committee

2. Adopts the 2019-20 Annual Report for publication.

Authored by:

Tim Chaplin

Senior Group Accountant

Ross Franklin

Contractor, Finance

Geoff Howes

Treasury & Funding Accountant

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

⇨1

Draft 2019-20 Annual Report

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2020

Subject: Report from the 18 November 2020 Māori Committee Meeting

Reason for Report

1. This item provides a summary of discussions at the 18 November 2020 Māori Committee along with the opportunity for the Co-chairs to provide additional context to Council as they wish.

Agenda Items

2. The regular Take Ripoata Ā Takiwā – Taiwhenua Representatives' Updates covered:

2.1. Tangata whenua submitters working together as a roopu in collaboration with NKII for the Wairoa District Council wastewater discharge resource consent Environment Court hearing on 30 November

2.2. Stock in the awa, on the banks – just total disregard for the health of the awa, and a request that a Cultural Impact Assessment is made on mahinga kai practices of tangata whenua in relation to unfenced waterways – in line with Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of Te Mana o Te Wai

2.3. A request for a cultural impact assessment to acknowledge mahinga kai practices and the possible negative effects of 1080 use for possum control, e.g. food poverty for tangata whenua

2.4. Request for Mauri Compass to be resourced and run over LAWA swimming reporting months in Te Wairoa – in line with Objective 1 of Te Mana o Te Wai.

2.5. Katarina Kawana has accepted nomination to participate on the National Eel Forum Working Group as the representative for Mai Paritu tae atu ki Turakirae Fisheries Forum

2.6. Tangata whenua heavily involved in the further submissions process for the TANK plan change and preparing for the Outstanding Water Bodies plan change hearings that begin on 30 November

2.7. Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui ā Orotu played a huge role in the welfare response to the 9 November Napier floods, including organising a Food Hub based in Greenmeadows and working with FENZ to coordinate the 14 November community clean-up.

3. The Verbal Updates on Current Issues and activities covered:

3.1. The significance of the Napier rainfall event as evidence of Climate Change

3.2. Increasing partnerships with hapu, similar to the Hawea Park model, including potential initiatives with Rongomaiwahine and Te Rongo Park

3.3. Regional economic impacts of Covid-19 and recovery initiatives with focus on local businesses and Māori employment, leveraged with Central Government funding including Jobs4Nature which has been granted $11M regionally

3.4. increasing demands on Council from the community and Central Government like giving effect to Te Mana o Te Wai, biodiversity restoration, development of and engagement on the Kotahi co-design process, and implementation of new Finance and Telephone systems.

4. The Kotahi item presented the work programme to deliver a single regional resource management plan which considers environmental issues and solutions in a more holistic way and reflects a ki uta ki tai approach for resource management in the Hawke’s Bay region.

5. The HBRC Response to Climate Change item covered:

5.1. a summary of the recently commissioned report from NIWA on climate change projections and impacts for Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay and key findings of:

5.1.1. New Zealand’s climate is warming. The mean annual temperature has increased, on average, 1.02°C (±0.25°C) per century since 1909. The recently released “Our Atmosphere and Climate 2020” report by the Ministry for the Environment presented a national picture of climate trends between 1972 and 2019. It showed that Napier’s seasonal daily temperatures were likely or very likely increasing and the annual number of warm days (maximum temperature above 25°C) was very likely increasing. Trends in annual rainfall were not discernible, but the proportion of total rainfall falling in very wet days was very likely increasing and the number of very wet days was very likely increasing. The intensity and frequency of short-term drought were likely increasing.

5.2. a summary of the Regional Council’s climate action campaign, the four objectives of which are:

5.2.1. To explain the local impact of the climate crisis on Hawke’s Bay using targeted storytelling, strong imagery, fact-based, relatable information and clear language

5.2.2. To package up the comprehensive body of work the Regional Council does to mitigate and adapt to the impact of the climate crisis

5.2.3. To connect with individuals, whānau, organisations and farmers, and provide guides and suggestions about what they can do to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis

5.2.4. To start engagement with the general public about the climate crisis, gain insight into public perceptions and awareness of the climate crisis, and what the public think the Regional Council should do about it.

6. The Hawke’s Bay Coastal Bird Survey item provided an overview of the upcoming HB Coastal Bird survey which is planned to be undertaken mid-December 2020 to January 2021.

7. The 2021 Schedule of Meetings item advised the schedule of Council and Committee meetings for 2021 as adopted by the Regional Council on 28 October 2020.

8. The Reports from Regional Council and Committee Meetings provided an update from recent meetings attended by the Committee Co-chairs and representatives on Council committees, highlighting:

8.1. (from Regional Transport Committee) iwi are asking for improved rural roads, regular maintenance, street lighting and appropriate signage around marae, especially now, with the increasing developments of papakāinga housing on Māori land. Some law changes around marae road accessibility and responsibility are required by local Councils.

9. The Significant Organisational Activities Through November 2020 item highlighted significant areas of Council activity, as provided to the 28 October 2020 Regional Council meeting.

10. The October 2020 Statutory Advocacy Update item provided a regular update from the Policy team and reported on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council.

11. The Māori Representation on Hawke's Bay Regional Council item provided the opportunity for tangata whenua to provide input into Council’s consideration of whether to establish Māori Constituencies for the region for the 2022 election. Each tangata whenua member of the Committee spoke in turn, of their unambiguous desire and support for the establishment of Māori constituencies as a means of establishing a ‘real’ partnership for Māori, stating:

11.1. Māori are mindful that Māori elected in general constituencies don’t have the mandate of tangata whenua which they would have if they were elected by Māori constituencies

11.2. All Taiwhenua AGMs that considered this were unwavering in their desire for Māori seats to be established by a resolution of Council despite the risk that a poll might be demanded if 5% of HBRC voters disagreed

11.3. Māori have waited long enough and tangata whenua are ready so “bring it on”

11.4. a referendum is a waste of time and Council should advocate to central government to change the law

11.5. korero has been going on for a long time and tangata whenua were extremely disappointed with the previous Council’s decision not to establish Māori constituencies, by a slim majority, the last time it was considered in 2017

11.6. The Treaty promised rangitiritanga and kaitiaki of the environment and tangata whenua want to have a real partnership with equal rights and a vote at the Council table

11.7. Despite fears and apprehension associated with a potential poll all tangata whenua consulted with say to Council “show leadership, show strength, and vote in favour of Māori constituencies”.

12. Finally, after listening to the korero unanimously expressing the desire for Council to establish Maori constituencies, the Committee unanimously resolved:

12.1. Puts forward an agreed view in support of Council resolving to establish Māori Constituencies for Hawke’s Bay.

Decision Making Process

13. 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 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and notes the “Report from the 18 November 2020 Māori Committee Meeting”.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

⇩1	Hawea Park Hapu Partners 2020 Environmental Award Recipient
⇩2	Helen Howard 2020 Environmental Award Recipient
⇩3	Maraetotara Tree Trust 2020 Environmental Award Recipient
⇩4	T & G Global 2020 Environmental Award Recipient

Topic	Raised by