Agenda of Regional Council Meeting - Wednesday, 26 May 2021

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

SUBJECT 2021-31 Long Term Plan Process Leading to Adoption

Reason for Report

1. This item provides Council with an overview of the process undertaken leading up to deliberations, and summarises the result of engagement including submissions, surveys and tangata whenua engagement. It also then outlines the remaining process steps to adoption of the final 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Background

2. Consultation on “Time to Act – Kia Rite!” Council’s 2021-2031 Long Term Plan was publicly notified on Thursday 1 April 2021 and consultation closed at 8pm on Sunday 2 May.

Submissions Process

3. The total number of submissions received by Council up until 17 May 2021 was 779 which included 18 submission marked as ‘late’ e.g. received after the 2 May 2021 deadline. Subsequently, a further 12 submissions were received making a total of 791 as of 20 May 2021.

4. Late submissions are not included in the statistics on preferred options. This is based on 761 submissions.

5. Submissions were received via a number of channels including online (52%), mail and hand delivered (36%) and email (12%) which were a mixture of scanned hardcopies and bespoke submissions.

Other survey tools

6. Running concurrently to the consultation on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan, two additional surveys were conducted to supplement formal consultation. These were the Resident’s Survey and the SPEND tool (see below).

7. The Resident’s Survey (800 participants) reinforces the outcome of the consultation process with strong support for Future Water Use and less support for On-demand Public Transport and the Ahuriri Regional Park.

8. The SPEND tool (99 participants) reinforces priority for Future Water Use and Right Tree Right Place however puts On-demand Public Transport in third place.

SPEND tool

9. This was an interactive tool that allowed visitors to the Council’s website to quickly demonstrate how important each 2021-31 Long Term Plan consultation topics were to them.

10. Visitors to the website were asked: “If you had $100 to spend on our six consultation topics, how would you allocate the money between them?”

11. The illustration following summarises the preferences of the 99 people who took part.

Resident’s Survey

12. Every two years, Council commissions a Resident’s Survey (Survey) to ascertain Hawke’s Bay residents’ attitudes to the environment; and to measure their awareness and satisfaction with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council relative to its role. The survey included additional questions on consultation around the 2021-31 Long Term Plan topics.

13. Relevant information relating to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan is detailed within a draft report and the following deliberations papers. A final report of the Survey results will be presented to Council on 30 June 2021.

14. Research was conducted between 22 March and 6 May 2021 with surveys from a total of 800 participants used in the final analysis. The following are extracts from the draft report received 13 May 2021.

15. Residents were asked how important each of the six proposals were to them on a sliding scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being totally unimportant and 5 being very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

16. The following are points of interest from the draft report around the 2021-31 Long Term Plan:

16.1. Water usage and flood control were the highest priorities for Hawke’s Bay residents

16.2. When asked about the 2021-31 Long-Term plan proposals, ‘work with water users to encourage more efficient and effective water use’ (3.84 out of 5) and ‘urgently remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River to keep the community safe from floods’ (3.73 out of 5) were rated as the most important

16.3. The importance levels for these proposals were greater amongst Central Hawke’s Bay residents, and significantly lower in Wairoa

16.4. ‘Introduce virtual bus stops’ (2.96 out of 5) recorded the lowest importance score; this proposal was more important for Napier (2.99) and Hastings residents (3.06) compared to other areas. It was also more important for urban (3.04) compared to rural (2.54) residents

16.5. ‘Develop a Regional Park with Napier City Council in the upper Ahuriri Estuary’ proposal was also more important for Napier and Hastings residents compared to Central Hawke’s Bay and Wairoa residents

16.6. Older residents (65+) placed higher importance on ‘remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River’ and ‘dredge the Clive River’.

Verbal submissions

17. A Submissions Hearing was held on Monday 17 May 2021, where Councillors heard 35 verbal submissions. Each speaker was allotted 10 minutes which included time for Councillors’ questions. The hearing schedule was grouped by topic.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

18. In preparation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, interviews with tangata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and Māori Committee were undertaken to provide early feedback on proposals and thereby directly influence the 10-year plan.

19. An independent provider was engaged to arrange and facilitate the interviews between 24 August to 3 September 2020, with 17 participants taking part.

20. Participants were asked:

20.1. What are your short to medium term aspirations (1-10 years) for the Hawke’s Bay region? How is Hawke’s Bay Regional Council helping you achieve those aspirations?

20.2. What strategic goals from the recently refreshed 2020-25 Strategic Plan are most important to you?

20.3. How well do the possible change proposals for the 2021 Long Term Plan fit with your aspirations?

21. The rich information captured from these interviews and the scoring of change proposals was shared with staff and Councillors; and informed Council’s thinking about what to progress.

22. Of the six consultation topics, three were included in the possible change proposals provided to tangata whenua for feedback. Tangata whenua rated the topics, as below, highly:

Change proposal	Average rating out of 5
Right Tree Right Place	4.22
Gravel management and Flood protection and control works*	Both 4.11
Ahuriri Regional Park	4

* Upper Tukituki gravel was not a specific proposal in the initial change proposals – however aspects under two proposals; gravel management, and flood protection and control works were further developed and refined into the Upper Tukituki gravel consultation topic.

23. The remaining three consultation topics; Future water use, Clive River dredging in 2030 and On-demand public transport were not developed proposals at the time of the interviews.

Deliberation Reports

24. The Deliberation Reports are written by topic; one for each of the 6 key consultation topics, plus a further 7 to cover the remaining areas that the plan supports. They are:

24.1. Section 36: Freshwater science and monitoring cost recovery

24.2. 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy and Asset Management

24.3. Integrated Catchment Management

24.4. Other Matters

24.5. Staff Submission

24.6. Submissions requesting financial assistance/grants

24.7. Financial Strategy, Revenue & Finance Policy and Fees & Charges

25. Each Deliberation Report references the relevant submissions and includes staff analysis.

26. Council will be asked to consider the submission points relating to the topic and any comments made by Council officers; and to agree or not agree to the proposal consulted on.

27. Staff kept a running action list throughout the hearing to log any questions as they arose and will endeavour to provide answers prior to decision-making. Staff will also track the financial implications as decisions are made. These will be preliminary until the financial model is finalised.

Adoption

28. Subsequent to Council’s decisions at deliberations, the 2021-31 Long Term Plan will be collated, incorporating any changes necessitated by the decisions made. The final Long Term Plan will be audited by Audit NZ prior to adoption by Council on 30 June 2021.

Post-adoption

29. Following the adoption on 30 June, each submitter will receive a letter (email) from Council setting out Council's resolution(s) pertinent to their specific submission(s), and the reasons for those resolution(s).

30. The 2021-31 Long Term Plan document will then be distributed within one month of the date of adoption as required under Section 93 (10) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Decision Making Process

31. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as the paper is for information only, the decision-making process does not apply.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and notes the “2021-31 Long Term Plan Submissions Hearing Process” staff report.

Authored by:

Sarah Bell

Team Leader Strategy and Performance

Drew Broadley

Marketing & Communications Manager

Desiree Cull

Strategy and Governance Manager

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

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 26 May 2021

Subject: Right Tree Right Place

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions on the consultation topic related to Right Tree Right Place.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submission points made related to the Right Tree Right Place consultation topic alongside the officers’ analysis to enable an informed decision on whether to fund the development and pilot as consulted on.

Background

4. Right Tree Right Place was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Three options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Submissions Received

6. A total of 732 submissions were received on this consultation. Of those submitters who specified an option, 77% supported Council’s preferred option (Option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment.

7. The breakdown of submitters by overall region and location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area).

Key themes

8. A summary of key themes is following.

Option 1 (paid by reserves)	Option 2 (paid by rates)	Option 3 (no pilot)
Essential work of high priority which will benefit our natural environment		Landowners should manage/pay for it themselves
Support conditional that recipients pay the capital costs		Rate increase of 19.5% is unaffordable
Reserves appropriate as this is urgent work, rates burden too great, untested idea	This work should be paid for by rates as using reserves is unsustainable.	Council involvement is not needed or wanted as most landowners are doing this already
Preference for diverse native planting vs pinus radiata		Council should support landowners in other ways, e.g. rates breaks, subsidised poles
A range of operational suggestions such as planting exposed ridges, high quality advice to land users on species and planting, and the need for robust animal and plant pest eradication

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

Essential work of high priority which will benefit our natural environment

9. Overall, there was a strong general theme that planting trees in the right places was very important to Hawke’s Bay. Submitters expressed a wide range of reasons, including mental and emotional health, cultural, financial and environmental benefits. What was notable is that many submitters were aware of and outlined multiple benefits from tree planting:

9.1. “Reducing sedimentation and promoting carbon sequestration are critical 'must dos' for protecting our natural environment.” (ID #687)

9.2. “This is extremely important with climate change happening and the need to reduce our levels of gases and to improve the quality of our water.” (ID #403)

9.3. “Fresh, clean water and protection of our land, both productive and erodible are critically important as these resources become more at threat from climate change and other human activities.” (ID #248).

A diverse mix of tree planting with a preference for native trees

10. Many submitters expressed a preference for a diverse range of tree species planting rather than a monoculture of pinus radiata. This theme was linked to submitters’ desires to achieve a range of outcomes, including improved biodiversity, very long-term carbon sequestration and a diverse multi-functional landscape.

Staff response

10.1. This diverse mix of species and the planting of native trees where possible is an important part of the Right Tree Right Place project. Alongside the goal to plant native species are a number of balancing factors. Native tree species are often more expensive to plant, more difficult to successfully establish on steep hill country and have a much lower financial return when compared to exotic species like pinus radiata. While native tree species planting will be a key goal for each Right Tree Right Place property, the tree species mix on a given farm will vary according to the land user’s vision for their land, and affordability.

10.2. “Plant native trees where possible; pine harvesting damages land and water (beaches).” (ID #385)

10.3. “We ask that there be a focus on establishing native trees.” (ID #691)

10.4. “I encourage Council staff to emphasise afforestation of erodible hillsides with diverse, ideally native, species.” (ID #462)

10.5. “Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay would request that priority be given to indigenous species where appropriate.” (ID #689).

A range of operational suggestions

11. There were a wide range of operational suggestions for the Right Tree Right Place project to consider if the pilot trial is funded through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and implemented. These included the importance of and need for additional plant and animal pest control, the potential impact on water uptake within catchments, the risks of fire to plantings given the likely increasingly warm and dry Hawke’s Bay climate, and biosecurity risks such as insect incursions.

Staff response

11.1. The Right Tree Right Place project will consider how it will manage all these (and other) risks and there is a wide range of information and experience in NZ and globally to help with this process. These matters will likely be reflected in the risk management and associated commercial agreements

11.2. The benefit of running a pilot provides Council with an opportunity to implement a new activity and manage risk on a small scale. Objectives of this pilot will include the refinement of the solution including teasing out operational issues such as pest control.

11.3. “But only if you can arrange a 5 yearly care programme with the planting ie fertilizer, protection from wind and vermin & a watering programme. Any idiot can plant a tree that dies from lack of care.” (ID #632)

11.4. “Any permanent forest, whether commercial, permanent carbon or new native will also have ongoing costs to the ratepayer of weed and pest control” (ID #728)

11.5. “A better name would be 'right place right tree', that way more thought goes into looking at the land rather than have the trees and plant them everywhere.” (ID #708).

Council involvement is not needed or wanted as most landowners are doing this already

12. A number of submitters (strongly represented from the Wairoa area) expressed the view that farmers were already undertaking planting programmes and that there was no need for council involvement. Many of these submitters felt that decisions as to what to plant on private farmland were for the private investor/farmer and not council. A number of submitters who indicated council involvement was not necessary/desirable also expressed concern about whole farm afforestation and the impacts this was having on the community.

Staff response

12.1. The Right Tree Right Place project is seeking to show a pathway for private investment that is different to whole farm afforestation. In addition, the amount of planting needs to be scaled up in the region and Right Tree Right Place shows a pathway to scale up that planting investment in a way that is financially sustainable for investors. We have been advised by large investors that Council’s involvement is necessary at the start of the project in order to attain the greatest uptake.

12.2. “There is no need for a pilot as farmers have been doing this for years - we need money and support to escalate the results/outcomes.” (ID #697)

12.3. “Farmers know what to plant, only do this through the reserves as not urgent.” (ID #366)

12.4. “Let farmers decide what to do with the land they own. Carry on with the Erosion Control Subsidies but back that up with finding people to do the planting work.” (ID #695).

Rates is a more sustainable funding source that reflects the importance of the work/preserve reserves

13. Some submitters felt that the overall importance of this work meant that it should be funded through rates rather than reserves. Part of the concern was that reserves were not sufficiently large to maintain the programme if it was successful and continued beyond the pilot trial phase / and or that reserves should be preserved against other unforeseen events.

Staff response

13.1. Staff believe that funding via rates is not a sustainable funding option for a larger scale planting programme. The programme needs a funding mechanism that is able to be scaled up to achieve the outcomes desired.

13.2. “If successful as a pilot this planting programme will continue long term and needs to be funded sustainably from the start. Assuming the reserves were largely from the Napier Port sale they should be preserved.” (ID #387)

13.3. “Needs to be done. Happy to pay through rates rather than reserves.” (ID #553)

13.4. “I feel it is time we get on with it. If we continue to do these things based on what reserves we have we will always be chasing our tail and only taking small steps. Let's get on with it, let's make a difference and to do that we will need to increase Rates and also hopefully get sponsors onboard.” (ID #90).

14. As the Right Tree Right Place proposal is a pilot, reserve funding was considered the best funding mechanism to cover the cost of operational overheads as the service may not be a permanent service of Council.

15. Further, Councillors considered the potential commercial nature of the programme and concluded it should not be funded by rates. Should the pilot be successful, and significantly scaled up, it is anticipated these initial operational expenses could be recovered by future revenue streams and enable reserves to be replenished over time.

16. All capital expenditure or physical ‘on property’ works will be recovered either way from the landowners.

17. During the pilot, the best delivery structure for the programme will be considered and will inform the most appropriate funding mechanism should the programme move beyond the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Landowners should manage/pay for it themselves

18. A number of submitters were of the view that landowners should manage and fund Right Tree Right Place costs themselves. Alongside this was the freedom for each land owner to decide what they should do with any planting programme on their own property.

Staff response

18.1. It is important to note that the capital cost of participating in the Right Tree Right Place pilot trial project will be recovered from the land owners involved and that each land owner will need to decide what the Right Tree Right Place means for their vision for their property

18.2. “Leave landowners to take responsibility for their land at their cost.” (ID #223)

18.3. “Farmers are the backbone of the NZ economy. Leave them to make their own decisions but give them PRACTICAL guidelines. We do have to feed the 5 million!” (ID #491)

18.4. “Farming makes a substantial contribution to the economy of this community and should be allowed to be continued as land owners see fit.” (ID #302)

18.5. “I think farmers and other investors can work it out for themselves.” (ID #232).

Climate Change Considerations

19. This proposal directly contributes to climate change mitigation and adaption by significant carbon sequestration, planted areas being more resilient to high rainfall weather events compared to pasture and improving biodiversity and landscape connectivity for native species.

Resident Survey

20. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated 12 May 2021 for the proposal: Fund the development and pilot of a planting programme. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

21. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic 3.57. Of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the third highest in importance.

22. Around 55% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5).

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

23. In preparation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, interviews with Tangata Whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and Māori Committee were undertaken to provide early feedback. Tangata whenua were provided with 30 possible change proposals for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan and asked how well they fit with their aspirations, scoring them on a scale of 0-5.

24. Right Tree Right Place scored highly, with an average rating of 4.22. This was the highest rating change proposal, shared with three other proposals. Some key points from interviews related to Right Tree Right Place were:

24.1. Pine trees not the best option

24.2. Needs to be supported adequately and monitored

24.3. More “hot spot” funding is required for other areas.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. The financial impacts of these initiatives are:

Option 1 (through reserves)	Additional Spend
	Yr1	Yr2	Yr3	Cumulative over 3 years
Impact on rates	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Impact on debt	$2.62 million over next 3 years paid for by landowners			$2.62 million
Total rating impact	Nil	Nil	Nil

Option 2 (through rates)	Additional Spend
	Yr1	Yr2	Yr3	Cumulative over 3 years
Impact on rates	$474,000	$706,000	$968,000	$2.15 million
Impact on debt	$2.62 million over next 3 years paid for by landowners			$2.62 million
Total rating impact	1.9%	2.4%	2.9%

26. The other option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt.

Decision Making Process

27. 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:

27.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

27.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” Consultation Document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Right Tree Right Place deliberation report.

2. Agrees that the decision to be made is significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council has adequately consulted with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Agrees to fund the development and pilot of Right Tree Right Place paid for through reserves as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” consultation document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

4. Agrees to fund the development and pilot of Right Tree Right Place paid for through rates.

5. Does not agree to fund the development and pilot of Right Tree Right Place.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

RTRP Afforestation Lead

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Right Tree Right Place Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Future Water Use

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions on the consultation topic related to Future water use.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submission points made related to the Future water use consultation topic alongside the officers’ responses to enable an informed decision on whether to fund the proposal as consulted on.

Background

4. Future water use was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Two options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Timeline

Description automatically generated with medium confidence Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Submissions received

6. A total of 726 submissions were received on this consultation topic.

7. Of those submitters who specified an option, 83% supported Council’s preferred option (option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment.

8. The breakdown of submitters by overall region and location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area).

Key themes

9. A summary of key themes is following.

Option 1 (preferred)	Option 2 (status quo)
Support for the proposal as essential work for HBRC	Overall affordability
Allocation Frameworks	User pays
Opinions and preferences for priority interventions	Failure to deliver the RWSS
Education	More information needed
Water Storage
Alternative land use and farming systems

10. Key themes expressed by submitters in support of Council’s preferred option to put aside $1million were:

10.1. The most commonly raised theme in support was that this is essential work of high priority, “This must be the priority it is the life blood of the Bay” (ID#441) and that will become increasingly important due to climate change, “Climate change could easily lead to greater dryness of soils and lower water tables with increased probability of pollutants especially nitrates getting into ground water” (ID#291).

10.2. A need to address allocation frameworks was frequently raised, “we cannot stress enough that this programme must be supported by work to address overallocation issues” (ID#691). On this theme several submitters commented specifically that council should “stop water bottlers…” (ID#7).

10.3. Several submitters noted either their preference for domestic water metering as a way reducing demand or their concern that water metering would impose a cost on them when there were other priorities for reducing water demand.

10.4. Several submitters supported the use of education as a way of improving our use of water.

10.5. While the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme was referenced by several submitters for and against the proposal, the submissions reflected strong support for HBRC investigations into water storage generally. Note that significant investment into water storage investigations forms part of HBRC’s current water security programme, and this proposal seeks to support investigations into non-storage options.

10.6. Many submitters in support are of the view that alternative land use and farming systems should be included in any further analysis and investigation into managing the demand for water.

11. Key themes expressed by submitters against the proposal (for the status quo) were:

11.1. Overall affordability of the proposed rates increases.

11.2. (Perhaps the result of a misconception) that the proposal was in fact more funding for water storage and any effort should be user pays, ‘…Fully support a user pays or partial user pays model. No incentive for business to reduce water consumption and limited ability of council to robustly check that users are using best practice.” (ID#321) or the failure to deliver the RWSS meant HBRC should not be involved in water storage.

11.3. More information was needed.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

12. [essential work of high priority] The overwhelming community support for the proposal represents a strong validation of the importance that Council has placed on its water security programme. Many submissions express the need for urgency and priority to progress long-term security for our water supplies. Coupled with this sentiment is an acknowledgement that water security will require effort across a wide range of interventions.

13. [allocation frameworks] Many submissions urge Council to review the way that water has been allocated historically and how it should be allocated in the future. Forest and Bird (ID#691) urges Council to be bold in addressing this issue as it considers its obligations in relation to Te Mana o Te Wai. Other submitters expressed concern that significant volumes of water sit with a relatively small number of extractive users and question the fairness of that outcome. These issues are being addressed by HBRC through a number of workstreams that make up Council’s wider freshwater work programme. In particular the regulatory changes to allocation regimes sit at the heart of the delivery of Tukutuki and TANK NPSFM plan changes – both of which have made significant changes to allocation frameworks – and the upcoming Kotahi Plan Change process. It is also worthwhile noting that central government has signalled widespread resource management reform that cannot avoid the issue of how water is allocated, the rights and interests of tangata whenua in freshwater, and the possibility of value judgements being applied to water allocation decisions (as opposed to purely effects-based considerations).

14. [water metering] A number of submitters expressed views on the merits (or otherwise) of introducing domestic water meters as a result of the work. It is important to note that the funding under this proposal is not currently earmarked to any particular course of investigation or action, including the installation of water meters. If the proposal is included in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan Council will be presented with a range of options and proposals to consider for further investigation, prioritised according to a range of criteria, including cost-benefit assessments.

15. [education] HBRC has historically delivered education programmes in relation to water use, particularly for irrigators. It is likely that education options are included in the options presented to Council for consideration, and it is likely that HBRC would look to partner with other groups and interested parties (industry and territorial authorities, for example) to leverage this effort.

16. [strong support for HBRC investigations into water storage] Water storage was specifically excluded from this proposal on the basis that HBRC (and the Provincial Growth Fund) already has a major programme of work underway in this area. However, it is worthwhile noting the depth of support across the region for water storage as being a part of the overall water security equation.

17. [alternative land use and farming systems] – Many submitters urged Council to support initiatives that supported the retention of moisture within the landscape. Council has supported the creation of the Future Farming Trust which has in turn undertaken further investigation and analysis of the impact of alternative farm systems on the overall water balance. There are also a number of scientific and field-based investigations underway nationally that will validate/demonstrate these impacts. It will be an option for Council to direct further work in this area when it considers its list of priority options for this funding.

Climate Change Considerations

18. This proposal directly contributes to climate change adaptation by supporting the development of interventions aimed at reducing our overall demand for water through, for example, better management practises, new technology, education and recommended regulatory pathways. In doing so Council will be supporting its overall objective for freshwater security – that Hawke’s Bay has long-term, climate resilient, secure supplies of freshwater, for all. NIWA has projected that Hawke’s Bay’s rivers and water bodies are likely to be the most negatively affected by climate change. While water storage investigations will identify what, if any, solutions we have on the supply side of the water security equation, this program addresses the demand side.

Resident Survey

19. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated May 2021 for the proposal: Work with water users to encourage more efficient and effective water use. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

20. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic an average of 3.84; and of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the highest in importance. Importance for this topic was greater amongst Central Hawke’s Bay residents.

21. Around 64.8% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5).

22. Other points of interest from the Resident’s Survey was that “water usage” was one of the highest priorities for Hawke’s Bay residents.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

23. This proposal forms a part of the Council’s ongoing work on Regional Water Security and, as such, is of key importance to tangata whenua who, in addition to current roles and responsibilities in freshwater management at a local and regional level, have an emerging role to play in framing the region’s development of Te Mana o te Wai under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. Better management of the region’s freshwater resources is of high importance to tangata whenua, as expressed by the Māori and Regional Planning committees, in the development of this Long-Term Plan.

Financial and Resource Implications

24. The financial impact of Option 1 is:

Option 1			Additional Spend
	Yr1	Yr2		Yr3
Impact on rates	Nil	Nil		Nil
Impact on debt	Nil	Nil		Nil
$1.08 million over years 2, 3 and 4 funded from reserves

25. The other option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt.

Decision Making Process

26. 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:

26.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long-Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

26.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” Consultation Document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Future Water Use deliberation report.

3. Agrees to put aside $1 million over 3 years from reserves to work with water users to drive more efficient and effective use to complement water storage as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” consultation document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

4. Does not agree to put aside $1 million over 3 years from reserves to work with water users to drive more efficient and effective use to complement water storage.

Authored by:

Tom Skerman

Regional Water Security Programme Director

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Future Water Use Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Upper Tukituki Gravel

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of those submissions on the consultation topic related to Upper Tukituki Gravel.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submission points made related to the Upper Tukituki Gravel consultation topic alongside the officers’ response to enable a decision to be made whether to fund the proposal as consulted on.

Background

4. Upper Tukituki gravel was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Two options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

6. Leading up to the public consultation, meetings were held in December, February and March to discuss the issue with scheme members. There was general support for pursuing the crown funding at these meetings with concerns of ‘Category A’ ratepayers noted.

7. As part of the public consultation on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan, an Upper Tukituki Gravel specific meeting was held in Waipawa prior to the public meeting on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan consultation. This was well attended and there was strong support for extracting the gravel and utilising the central government funding for this purpose.

Submissions Received

8. A total of 727 submissions were received on this consultation topic (see attached list of submissions sought by option).

9. Of those submitters who specified an option, 67% supported Council’s preferred option (option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment. These submission comments are also attached.

10. The breakdown of submitters by overall region location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area):

11. A further analysis of submissions reveals that 52 of the 727 submitters on this topic are Upper Tukituki Flood Control scheme ratepayers. Of those submissions:

11.1. 56% (29 submitters) selected Option 1

11.2. 38% (20 submitters) selected Option 2

11.3. 4% (2 submitters) selected “I have no opinion” or left it blank but made a comment.

Key themes

12. A summary of the key themes is below.

Option 1 (go fast with Govt funding)	Option 2 (go slow without Govt funding)
Urgent ID#54: “We need to do this before there we have problems”, ID#207: “Critical to address flooding”, ID#487: “Been neglected and needs to be resolved”	No problem ID#21: “Can't say I can remember when there has been a serious flood which has caused people to be in danger”
Community safety is priority	Not a priority
Impacts of climate change ID#310: “Climate change is going to increase, the prevalence of 1 in 50 & 1 in 100 year storm events in the extreme will shift to become the normal - we need to better & more proactively protect the community from flood risk.”	Free consent and gravel to contractor, that will fix the problem.
Unlocking the govt funding is good spend “The most effective option”	19.5 % rates increase is unaffordable and “rates are already high”
Flooding effects everyone therefore everyone should pay	Those who benefit directly should pay ID#130 “We don’t directly benefit from this.” ID#153: “Should be paid for by the people directly affected, ie the neighbouring properties”
Do it and allocate money for annual maintenance	Live within our means no more borrowing
Support but go slow and get more information before you take all the gravel out, “should have lesser impact on environment”	Find out how to work with nature better
Use of gravel ID#223: “seems smart to remove gravel build up, and use the gravel” ID#388: “As long as gravel is stored for reuse.”	Rather than taking gravel, make room for river and move stopbank

13. A number of submitters in support of Option 1 are of the opinion this is good use of government funding.

13.1. Submitter #38: “Unlocking the govt funding is a good spend”

13.2. Submitter #54: “We need to do this before we have problems”

13.3. Submitter #624: “…this is a no brainer since the government is funding a great proportion. It is essential for many huge developments in the region. This approach will see many people employed in the region and build-up of professional infrastructure for job security in the future”

14. Some submitters are supportive of Option 1 but are concerned about the speed this is proposed to be done; and that science and environmental values must be into taken account.

14.1. Submitter #85: “Supported subject to analysis indicating this is the most cost effective option”

14.2. Submitter #25: “I understand the need for more efficient use of water so why are we interfering with a natural process, to prevent flooding and drying of Heretaunga Plains? I think go slow, not fast and outcomes such as erosion, change of river course should be considered”

14.3. Submitter #611: “…this absolutely needs to be done with wildlife and conservation values in mind”

15. Some submitters against the proposal are of the opinion that rates are too high; and have concerns about the gravel extraction and effect this will have on the river and life within the river.

15.1. Submitter #369: “I don’t agree with the system used in exaction, too much of the main stream is being compromised by the gravel companies”

15.2. Submitter #89: “I would like to see council promote movement [of properties] from the rivers and coast. This would save ever increasing costs, as well as lives and properties”

16. A number of submitters are of the opinion that taking gravel out is necessary for flood prevention.

16.1. Submitter #672: “…keep community safe, the gravel should be extracted as soon as possible and not wait for orders from interested parties. Get it out and store it if need be”

16.2. Submitter #97: “Community safety is paramount.”

17. A small number of submitters, whilst in favour of the proposal, expressed concern about the impact of gravel extraction on local roads and amenity/noise related issues.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

18. Why should ratepayers pay for this and why have we left this for so long to be a problem? The Upper Tukituki scheme was set up in 1950 with some upgrade work in 1980. The scheme pays for maintenance activities. This includes spraying, mowing stopbanks, planting willow for edge protection but gravel removal is not funded by the scheme maintenance. The gravel extraction is funded through the extraction industry and only if there is demand. In previous years there has not been enough demand to extract what has been built up. The alternative policy position is that the scheme funds gravel extraction which would obviously increase the targeted rate.

19. How are you going to maintain the river to ensure we won’t be needing to do this again? Council is going through a process of obtaining global consent for managing gravel (currently the contractors are the consent holders). This will set up processes which will allow Council to better manage rivers in Central Hawke’s Bay by directing contractors to where the gravel issue is. However, the issue of cartage costs from Central Hawke’s Bay to where the gravel is used will continue to be a challenge for this scheme as gravel extractors may move to land-based quarry options if the cost of extraction becomes commercially unattractive.

20. The direct beneficiary should pay for this: The Upper Tukituki scheme is divided into 6 classes from A to F. The class A and B direct beneficiaries of the scheme pay significant amounts of rates based on land value. The loan repayments will be funded using the same funding as is currently applied from the Revenue and Funding Policy which is 82.5% targeted and 17.5% general rate funded. Council has committed to a full rating review following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and this will include the repayment of the loan along with the wider scheme funding. The rating impact increases over the three years as the full value of the loan is drawn down.

21. Below are three examples of the impact based on current rating methodology if this decision is taken for Class A ratepayers and the impact the loan repayment has on each property for the next 3 years.

22. This can be compared to two other examples such as a typical large property with indirect benefit who would pay an additional $18.72 per year in addition to the existing targeted rate of $148.72. An average small property in Waipukurau would pay an additional $0.62 per year on a base targeted rate of $4.93. This demonstrates the wide range of contributions depending on relative benefit under the current rating policy.

23. Why doesn’t the Regional Council just rate each scheme participant an equal amount rather than Category A ratepayers contributing the most? The Local Government Act requires Council to follow robust processes when changing the rating methodology and there is a requirement to look at a number of matters including who the beneficiaries of the scheme are along with the overall impact for any changes to the rating policy. Council has committed to conducting a first principle rating review following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. The scheme rating for Upper Tukituki will be included as part of this review. Council could consider prioritising a rate’s review for Upper Tukituki. However, this could result in changes in consecutive years for scheme rate payers once the full rates review is completed. Staff’s preference is to review the Upper Tukituki rates as part of the full first principles rates review to ensure consistency and reduce likelihood of subsequent changes pending the outcome of the full review.

24. Have you considered ecological and environmental values? Yes, Council engaged an environmental and ecological scientist to be part of the project who will provide advice on minimising ecological impacts from the extraction programme.

25. How can we be assured you will not spread Chilean Needle grass? Council engaged a well-known plant pest scientist to assist with methodology and has worked with the biodiversity team to provide advice throughout. Only 46% of the material is in an area impacted by Chilean Needle Grass. The team is currently working through prioritising areas based on flood risk and this work will be completed during June 2021.

26. Why don’t you make room for the river as it is the modern approach? The costs of taking such a fundamentally different option to the management of flood risk in the Tukituki catchment are very high and timing is such that the Crown funding is not available for this approach. In addition, there is complexity with regards to land and infrastructure matters as a significant area of private farmland would be converted into floodplain and roads and bridges modified. A review the Upper Tukituki Scheme is planned (outside the next 3 years) with more advice, including the pros, cons and practicalities of this issue, will be presented in the near future. Leaving room for the rivers is a concept that will be explored in future scheme reviews for all schemes.

27. It’s important for flood protection: A number of submitters are very supportive the option to remove gravel from the river, to minimise future flooding and other issues related to gravel build up. It is a good opportunity to use the Central Government funding.

28. Maintenance of flood protection in the future: Many submitters expressed a view that if the Option 1 goes ahead, Council should have a plan in place to manage maintenance of gravel surplus to minimise the risk of dealing with a similar issue in later years. Council intends to address this through the administration of the global resource consent. This resource consent is scheduled to go to a hearing in July 2021.

29. Makes sense but do it environmentally sustainably: A number of submitters expressed support but felt that more planning with environmental and ecological values should be accounted for during the extraction (this includes life in the river and birds). Council will engage an ecologist to provide an Ecological Management Plan which will specifically reflect the risk and mitigation to protect wildlife and other ecological values.

30. The current scheme impacts my land through impacting land drainage: Some submitters asserted that rather than being ‘protected’ some land is being ‘impacted’ through the gravel aggradation impacting drainage. Council officers are aware that some landowners have had this taken into account by way of an amended QV assessment adjusting the value of their land holding and subsequently a reduction in rates. Where this has not occurred, staff are available and open to discussions with landowners to go through this process to ensure that the productivity of the land is fairly assessed by the land value.

31. This project has a big impact on Category A ratepayers, why hasn’t a rates review already been caried out? Some submitters are concerned that a rates review had already been promised and not delivered by the Council. A rates review commenced in 2016, however from both a technical perspective and concerns raised by some ratepayers this was never implemented. A major rates review is planned for the 2021-2024 period. It is possible, if the Council believed there was merit, to prioritise the Upper Tukituki rates’ review in the 2022-23 financial year; and implement the outcome during the next annual plan. It should be noted that the impact of a rates’ review on all Upper Tukituki Scheme ratepayers is not known at this point in time.

Climate Change Considerations

32. This proposal directly contributes to climate change adaptation by increasing capacity within the scheme to withstand heavier rainfall events. There is however concern regarding the carbon print from the extraction and transport of gravel to different parts of country. Council staff are looking at how to quantify and offset any negative impact during project planning.

Resident Survey

33. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated May 2021 for the proposal: Remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River to keep the community safe from floods. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

34. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic an average of 3.73; and of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the second highest in importance.

35. Around 59.4% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5). Importance for this topic was greater amongst Central Hawke’s Bay residents.

36. Other points of interest from the Resident’s Survey:

36.1. Flood control was one of the highest priorities for Hawke’s Bay residents

36.2. Older residents (65+) placed higher importance on ‘remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River’.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

37. In preparation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, interviews with tangata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and Māori Committee were undertaken to provide early feedback.

38. Tangata whenua were provided with 30 possible change proposals for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and asked how well they fit with their aspirations, scoring them on a scale of 0-5.

39. Upper Tukituki gravel was not a specific proposal in the initial change proposals, however aspects under two proposals; gravel management, flood protection and control works were further developed and refined into the Upper Tukituki Gravel consultation topic. Gravel management and flood protection and control works were both rated highly by tangata whenua at 4.11.

40. Some key points from interviews noted for the flood risk assessment and gravel management proposals were:

40.1. Gravel management needs to be reassessed

40.2. Flood protection and control requires a budget to engage local tangata whenua

40.3. Don’t support gravel extraction, impacts on the river

40.4. Flood protection: want a monitor for up stream.

41. No targeted tangata whenua consultation occurred for this project as this is part of the essential maintenance of the flood protection scheme.

Financial and Resource Implications

42. The financial impact of Option 1 is:

Option 1	Additional Spend
		Yr1	Yr2	Yr3	Over 10 years
Impact on rates		$31,000	$108,000	$152,000	$1.36 million
Impact on debt		$2.54 million in years 1 & 2
Total rating impact		0.1%	0.4%	0.4%

43. The alternative option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt. Under the status quo the gravel will still need to be removed to maintain the agreed standard of flood protection for the Upper Tukituki Scheme. However, this will occur much slower without funding support from Central Government and will be subject to demand from gravel extractors.

Decision Making Process

44. 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:

44.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

44.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Upper Tukituki Gravel” staff deliberations report.

3. Agrees to invest $2.54 million in years 1 and 2 to remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River and unlock a $4.51 million grant from Government as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

4. Does not agree to invest $2.54 million in years 1 and 2 to remove the gravel build-up from the upper Tukituki River and unlock a $4.51 million grant from Government as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Authored by:

Martina Groves

Manager Regional Assets

David Keracher

Manager Regional Projects

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Upper Tukituki Gravel Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Clive River Dredging

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions on the consultation topic related to Clive River dredging in 2030.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submissions points made related to the Clive River dredging 2030 consultation topic alongside the officers’ responses to enable an informed decision on the future dredging on Clive River.

Background

4. Clive River dredging in 2030 was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Three options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Timeline

Description automatically generated

Submissions received

6. A total of 724 submissions were received on this consultation topic. Of those submitters who specified an option, 63% supported Council’s preferred option (option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment.

7. The breakdown of submitters by overall region and location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area).

Key themes

8. A summary of key themes is below.

Option 1 (up to Marae)	Option 2 (up to rowing club)	Option 3 (status quo)
High priority as Clive River is an important asset		This doesn’t affect majority of ratepayers. Not happy to pay for this as not everyone uses Clive River.
Disposing to sea is polluting. We have to stop disposing silt into the sea. Pumping to sea creates problem in the sea		No benefit of paying more to discharge to land. More science before land disposal. The sediment would end up in the sea during a flood anyway.
Support the on-land disposal for all river. Deeper river better for life in the river	Option one would benefit only a few	Rates are already too high can’t afford this
Focus on the cause of the sediment build-up.	Ask the iwi/marae to contribute	Charge users
	Kohupātiki part could be done in the next period
Frequency of dredging (should be done more often)
Increase visual effects and go as far as you can

9. The most commonly raised theme in support was that this is a high priority for recreational, cultural and flood protection reasons. Submitter #174: “The Clive River needs to be cleaned up as it is an important recreational asset for the region.” The opposing view was that only those that use the Clive River benefit from this proposal and so object to paying for it. Submitter #47: “again this does not affect the majority of raterpayers, so why should we pay for this. NO!”

10. Some submitters supported the dredging and disposal to land but also wanted longer term solutions. Submitter #90: “address where it is all coming from further up the system and put in solutions there.” and Submitter #135: “Stop commercial/manufacturing/industry pollution contributing to the ongoing issue.”

11. Some submitters against the proposal expressed their concern about the impact on rates and if there is enough science behind the option to dispose to land. Submitter #13: “Given that the sediment would have eventually flushed out to the sea anyway, I see no benefit in paying more to disposed to land, more science is need it to understand impact of silt disposal to land.”

12. Some submitters would like to see dredging accrued all the way to Kohupātiki Marae but perhaps in stages. Submitter #38: “Whilst the full proposal would be nice, it is also important that we manage the additional cost, when the Kohupātiki part could be done in next period.” Some submitters would like an even higher level of service than proposed and more done to improve the whole river. Submitter #327: “Seems like a logical thing to do”

13. A number of submitters had practical suggestions such as dredging more often, maintenance and increasing visual effects. Submitter #90: “I think we should decrease the amount of time between dredging to enable us to deliver a far better solution for everyone.”

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

14. Why do we dredge the river anyway? The river is dredged to allow for recreational activities. This is in response to the diversion of the Ngaruroro in 1969 when previously the lower river was regularly flushed through high flows. Since the diversion, silt now collects in the Clive River and can only be removed via periodic dredging.

15. Does this improve the flooding risk? No, this does not directly improve the flooding risk. The dredging is not to improve flood protection capacity but to allow for recreational activity to improve the level of service for rowing, boating, kayaking and jetties.

16. Why can’t we discharge to sea anymore? There is community concern regarding the effect the dredging material can have on the ecology of marine life within the coastal margin. While the effect of this has not be quantified with precision, Council and national coastal science has identified sediment as a master stressor within the marine environment. Therefore, a precautionary approach has been proposed.

17. We should have enough money in the bank now to cover the dredging to Kohupātiki (due to current delay). The amount allocated for Clive River dredging is current $100,000 per year. The river was last dredged in in 2009. Dredging was planned to be undertaken in 2019 but due to the consenting process and investigation of land-based disposal, this has been delayed. There is currently insufficient funding in the reserve to fund dredging to land or to extend dredging to Kohupātiki.

18. Why don’t we dredge the river more frequently? Council surveys the river every 3 years and plan accordingly based on the silt build up and funding available. It appears that the 10 yearly frequency is appropriate considering the establishment of the dredge is a significant expense and so strikes the right balance.

19. What science was done for the land discharge option? Sampling of the sediment has been undertaken and a scientist engaged to advise on this matter. The recommendation was that the silt is suitable for land disposal. However, some land practices such as organic farming would require specific management plans and particularly management of the sediment is required to ensure it settles and is de-watered and therefore does not return to waterways.

20. Important for recreation: A number of submitters are of the opinion that the Clive River is valuable for keeping youth active, a significant asset for recreational activities and provides an opportunity for kayaking and rowing. Some submitters expressed that Council should not be basing its decision on the budget, rather determining the best solution for the environment.

21. No more discharge to sea: Many submissions were concerned that the silt discharge to sea may have too many contaminants which could have negative effects on the life within the coast. Through the consenting process the impact of disposal in the ocean has been assessed by experts as less than minor. Other submitters expressed the same concern but also express that cost is a key factor to consider.

22. Dredge the whole river and increase the maintenance: Many submitters expressed that dredging should go upstream all the way to Kohupātiki Marae in order to improve overall health of the river and waterflow. Again, some submitters have the same view but are concerned about the cost and rates affordability and asked if increasing the frequency of dredging would mitigate cost. The high establishment costs of a dredging operation are such that more frequent dredging would not reduce cost.

Climate Change Considerations

23. This proposal does not contribute to climate change adaptation/mitigation. The Clive river dredging value is for recreational use of river.

Resident Survey

24. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated May 2021 for the proposal: Dredge the Clive River and pump the sediment from this to nearby land. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

25. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic an average of 3.43; and of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the fourth highest in importance.

26. Around 48% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5).

27. Older residents (65+) placed higher importance on ‘dredge the Clive River’.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

28. Tangata whenua were consulted over three huis. The feedback received highlighted that dredging to sea was not supported. It was also highlighted that the issue of siltation in other areas was not adequately addressed. There was a strong desire for dredging to occur all the way to confluence with Karamu and Raupere.

Financial and Resource Implications

29. The financial impact of these options are:

Option 1	Additional Spend
	Yr2	Yr3	Yr4	Over 9 years
Impact on rates	$240,000	$246,000	$253,000	$2.8 million
Impact on debt	$2.5 million in Year 9
Total rating impact	0.8%	0.7%	0.7%

Option 2	Additional Spend
	Yr2	Yr3	Yr4	Over 9 years
Impact on rates	$240,000	$246,000	$253,000	$2.4 million
Impact on debt	Nil
Total rating impact	0.8%	0.7%	0.7%

30. The other option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt.

Decision Making Process

31. 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:

33.1 Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

33.2 The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Clive River Dredging staff deliberations report.

3. Agrees to fund the Clive River Dredging up to Kohupātiki Marae and pump sediment onto land as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” Consultation Document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

4. Agrees to fund the Clive River Dredging up to the rowing club and pump sediment onto land as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” Consultation Document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

5. Does not agree to fund the options as proposed and continues with the status quo

Authored by:

David Keracher

Manager Regional Projects

Martina Groves

Manager Regional Assets

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Clive River Dredging Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Ahuriri Regional Park

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of those submissions on the consultation topic related to Ahuriri Regional Park.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submission points made related to the Ahuriri Regional Park consultation topic alongside the officers’ responses to enable an informed decision on whether to fund the development as consulted on.

Background

4. Ahuriri Regional Park was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Two options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Submissions Received

6. A total of 708 submissions were received on this consultation topic.

7. Of those submitters who specified an option, 58% supported Council’s preferred option (option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment.

8. The breakdown of submitters by overall region and location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area).

Key themes

9. Themes were determined via analysis of the 233 written submissions on the topic. A summary of key themes is below.

Option 1 partnership with NCC)	Option 2 (status quo)
Support for the community and/or environmental benefits the proposal will bring (18%)	Not a priority and/or focus on other things (18%)
Action is needed (9%)	Don’t need it (10%)
Support for partnership approach (9%)	Who pays - A reluctance to pay if it wasn’t in their area/wouldn’t benefit. (3%)
Support with a condition e.g. has a focus on the environment such as waterways (11%)	Ratepayer affordability (11%)
Industry involvement as part of the solution (2%)	Enforcement (6%)
Support, but who pays? (2%)	Other (1%)

10. Support for the community and/or environmental benefits. Submitter #424: “A wonderful idea and one which will have long-term benefits for our future environment and citizens. If it becomes as good as Pekapeka etc...then the sooner the better.”

11. Action is needed. Submitter #38: “The Ahuriri estuary is an embarrassment with the lack of investment, and several Council owned roadside drains flowing directly into the estuary let alone everything else. That there are not more plantings protecting this important waterway is extremely poor. It would be nice to see this escalated up the priority list, even if it is planting the banks, etc as a start point.”

12. Support for partnership approach. Submitter #284: “This is the lung of the existing harbour, it needs a lot of work from all stakeholders.”:

12.1. Concerns with regards to the role of Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga given that it may not be formally constituted until after 2023.

12.2. The importance to work with Mana Whenua through all phases of the development.

12.3. Concern that Mana Whenua has not been comprehensively engaged to date.

12.4. A number of submissions pointed out that there had been no significant consultation with Te Papa Atawhai (Department of Conservation) and suggested that they should be a key partner in the project.

12.5. Support for the partnership approach between HBRC and NCC on this issue. Submitter # 498: “I think the outcome will be better if the two councils work together on this as a long term project.”

13. Supports with a condition for example with a focus on the environment such as waterways. Submitter #575: “Providing the primary purpose is to improve the environmental benefits such as cleaning up the Ahuriri estuary. It should not be primarily to provide walkways & cycleways. Approximately 26 submitters supported the proposal with conditions, these conditions included:

13.1. Prioritisation of habitat for kai, birds, cycles, walking, recreation, hunting or horse riding depending on submitter.

13.2. Exclusion of dogs/cyclists/people depending on the submitter.

13.3. More detail required on the exact scope of the Regional Park.

13.4. That bird strike hazard is an important consideration for the airport.

13.5. That there is additional regulation required in parallel to drive water quality improvements.

14. Industry involvement as part of the solution. A small number of submitters (4) felt that industry had a key role in the development of the Regional Park. Submitter #558: “Does the industrial (sic) area need to take responsibility for the contaminants they produce and pay something towards the work.”

15. Support, but who pays? Submitter #558: “This needs to be done but I don't see why is should be 100% general rates.”: Submitters suggested alternate funding arrangements such as:

15.1. Opportunity to leverage Crown funding

15.2. Only Napier residents fund the Regional Park.

16. Key themes expressed by submitters against the proposal (Status Quo) were:

16.1. Not a Priority and/or focus on other things. Submitter #156: “With all the challenges facing our district, I can not understand why this regional park development is even a consideration. Yes to increasing the water flow and content but the rest of the park should be left to all our other water issues are sorted. And even though another regional park might be a good idea it will only be enjoyed by a few.”

16.2. Don’t need it. Submitter #349: “Don't see the need for the Ahuriri Regional Park currently. Napier is well endowed with parks, beaches hills (Dolbel for etc) that can be accessed by one & all.”

16.3. A small number if submissions referred to an increase in investment for a Regional Park in Wairoa.

16.4. Status Quo, Who pays? Reluctance to pay if it wasn’t in their area. Submitter #153: “This is a Napier property and should be paid for solely by them since it would be their facility. It's unfair to burden ratepayers outside Napier…”

16.5. Ratepayer affordability. 24 Submissions outlined the Regional Park should not proceed on the grounds of affordability and that there should be more restraint is rates growth. Submitter #521: “Whilst this is a nice to have project, there are a lot of people who cannot afford any rate increases. I'm one of them...”

16.6. Enforcement. 14 Submissions did not support the Regional Park and suggested that water quality improvements could be delivered through regulation. Submitter #458: “Of critical importance is to both implement, monitor and enforce the current (or further enhanced) regulations. Until this is achieved to a consistently high standard & with strong penalties, it is premature to go ahead with a Regional Park.”

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

17. [General Support] It is noteworthy that there is a difference in the level of support of 57% in the total number of submissions compared to the support level of 51% for the more detailed submissions supported by written commentary. It was noted in a number of submissions that there was a lack of clarity on exactly what a Regional Park would deliver with comments ranging from a wildlife reserve to a recreational urban park. The presentation of the high-level concept only rather than a detailed plan may have influenced the overall level of support for the project. This was also evident from a number of questions during the LTP community meetings with regards to the relative priority of conservation, biodiversity, water quality improvement, cultural elements, recreation and the collection of traditional kai. Consideration could be made to re-brand the project with a more specific title such as “Conservation Reserve”.

18. [Action is Needed] There is clear understanding from a small percentage (6%) of supportive submitters of the current poor state of the estuary and the urgency in which a Regional Park could be an instrument to deal with these issues. Although a relatively small number of supporting submissions expressed their support for the urgency of the project, there were a larger segment who see the urgency of improving water quality without the associated Regional Park, many of these comments were reflected in the Status Quo option.

19. [Support with Partnership Approach] There was a good level of support for a partnership approach in delivering this significant project. However, overwhelmingly the feedback indicated that the project participants should be more extensive than just HBRC and NCC. Although the project, is on one hand, the conversion of farmland held by NCC into a Regional Park, the importance and scale drew excitement and a desire for involvement from many parties to ensure that the project delivered outcomes for all. This was tempered by a minority of comments that suggested it would be easier and more efficient if just one Council was involved. There was strong interest to partner in the project from Maungaharuru Tangitu, Te Taiwhenua o Whanganui a Orotu and Mana Ahuriri with submission #720 stating: “Any work will need to be managed by a Treaty partnership; ensuring from the outset, tangata whenua interests inform, determine, monitor and continue to design the project. A partnership approach is required to develop improved relationships between HBRC and Maori communities including a treaty framework; to ensure improved decision making for tangata whenua - from the outset of mutual activities, through 'real time' monitoring and progress; and to lead strategy setting and implementation:

20. [Supports with a Condition] It is evident from the submissions that there are wide ranging priorities for the primary and secondary purpose of the Regional Park. This will need to be carefully managed through the next project stages should the project proceed. It was evident from the submission that there will be potential conflicts between opportunities and management practices so careful management of these issues will be required.

21. [Support, but who pays] A further 2% of submitters supported the proposal but were not convinced that the general rate payer should fund the project. Views ranged from NCC should solely fund the project to a targeted rate for residents of the area to leveraging crown funding as an additional funding source. It should be noted that for HBRC all Regional Parks are general rate funded, often with funding assistance via grants or other community groups. A targeted rate for this park would call into question the current policy setting and provide funding challenges for future park concepts such as Wairoa Regional Park.

22. [Industry involvement as part of the solution] It was surprising to see that only 2% of submitters identified industry as being a key partner in this project. Perhaps there was a recognition that the heavy industry zone of Pandora is within a separate catchment and that a Regional Park was unlikely to contribute to improved discharge water quality for that area. With the Onekawa commercial precinct contributing to the water quality of the County and Plantation waterways there is certainly scope to bring industry in as key stakeholders to the project.

23. [Enforcement] There was a view from 6% of submitters that the water quality aspirations of a Regional Park could be delivered through better enforcement practices. While there may be some validity in this approach the broader improvements to the intertidal zone, biodiversity and cultural awareness will be missed.

24. [Submissions for the Status Quo] Overall the support for status quo was strong with 42% of total submissions and 49% of submissions with comprehensive comments. The overall thrust was that it wasn’t required, was not a priority and an expensive proposition that impacted on rates affordability. This could have been influenced by the presentation of a high-level concept of a Regional Park, without the detail of what it would entail. With Napier and Hastings having an abundance of public parks and spaces this has been recognised through the submissions process.

25. [Key Learning from the LTP Consultation Process] With a high level of interest from supportive submitters to participate in the Regional Park project it is recommended that should the project proceed then immediately following adoption of the LTP that a process to design the project architecture is commenced. The project design would need to emphasise early and wide engagement to build clarity around the project governance, strategic partnerships, stakeholders, requirements gathering and delivery team to ensure that the project is set up for success moving forward. It is likely that budgets will need to be revised following the community engagement and planning processes, and this could be consulted on further in a future Annual or Long Term Plan.

Climate Change Considerations

26. This proposal directly contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation by:

26.1. Mitigation:

26.1.1. Significant plantings contributing to a plant biomass for carbon sequestration with opportunity for specific plantings to be registered with the Emissions Trading Scheme

26.1.2. Creation of carbon sink through the creation of additional wetland, there has been some commentary that wetlands should be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme, however this is not currently the case.

26.2. Adaption:

26.2.1. Providing a greater intertidal zone and removal of stop bank impoundment of the estuary to allow for adaptation of both plants and animals to sea level rise thereby improving biodiversity

26.2.2. Providing a land use that is more resilient to rising sea levels being a natural wetland rather than a farming operation which requires dewatering of the land.

Resident Survey

27. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated May 2021 for the proposal: Develop a Regional Park with NCC in the upper Ahuriri Estuary. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

28. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic an average of 3.09 and of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the second lowest in importance. Importance for this topic was greater amongst Napier and Hastings resident.

29. Around 39.2% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5).

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

30. The Ahuriri Regional Park has a working group that has members from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council and Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga.

31. A number of submissions requested that additional discussions are held with Mana Whenua and a number of iwi entities being:

31.1. Te Taiwhenua o Whanganui a Orotu

31.2. Mana Ahuriri Trust

31.3. Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga (to a greater extent)

31.4. Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust

31.5. Appropriate Hapu and Marae which were not defined in the submissions.

Financial and Resource Implications

32. The financial impacts of Option 1 is:

Option 1 (preferred)		Additional Spend
	Yr3		Yrs 3-10
Impact on rates	$37,000		$2.52 million
Impact on debt	Nil		$10.16 million
Total rating impact	0.1%

33. The other option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt.

Decision Making Process

34. 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:

34.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

34.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Ahuriri Regional Park deliberations report.

3. Agrees to fund the Ahuriri Regional Park with Napier City Council as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” consultation document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

4. Does not agree to fund the investment, and instead lets Napier City Council develop the park and play a regulatory role only.

Authored by:

Russell Engelke

Team Leader Open Spaces

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Ahuriri Regional Park Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: On-demand Public Transport

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of those submissions on the consultation topic related to On-demand public transport.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that Councillors consider the submission points made related to the On-demand public transport consultation topic alongside the officers’ responses to enable an informed decision whether to proceed with the proposal as consulted on.

Background

4. On-demand public transport was one of the six consultation topics that the Council sought public submissions on through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the
2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5. Two options were presented in the consultation document, as shown in the following extract. Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Submissions Received

6. A total of 728 submissions were received on this consultation topic.

7. Of those submitters who specified an option, 51% supported Council’s preferred option (option 1). A number of submitters did not select an option but made a comment.

8. The breakdown of submitters by overall region and location is as follows (note that some submitters indicated they are in more than one area).

Key themes

9. A summary of the key themes is following.

Option 1 paid by targeted rates)	Option 2 status quo)
1. This option seen as an opportunity to make efficiencies and improve current system Submitter #310: “Public transport in HB is not fit for purpose as it stands. It needs to be better AND more efficient. Future proof it by moving away from fossil fuels too.”	Different operational suggestions e.g. run smaller buses Submitter #114: “Smaller buses could be used on many routes a lot of the time to reduce emissions and costs.”
2. Support with condition around cost. Who pays?	No need to change Submitter #345: “I use the bus often and am happy with the service. Most folk using the bus service include lots of pensioners and technology isn’t something that appeals to me anyway.”
More detail wanted about how the system would work Submitter #253: “You haven't explained enough about what this is clearly to make a decision on. Have no idea what you mean by a virtual bus stop…”	Concern about patrons’ accessibility to technology Submitter #175: “Would all your current users be able to access the technology needed for a technology-enabled service?”
Concern about accessibility of new proposed system e.g. concern for older people, those without smart phones or access to technology, those with mobility issues, and those who experience poverty Submitter #203: “…care needs to be taken not to leave behind those with less tech capability, including elderly and less well off.”	Ratepayer affordability Submitter #177: “The cost to rate payers is too great for an untried, experimental project.”
Support for environmental benefits Submitter #564: “I either drive or walk, as public transport doesn't meet my needs. A virtual, on demand, bus stop will be very useful...”	Public transport should be user pays Submitter #47: “Again, majority of ratepayers get no benefit whatsoever so why should we pay for it? NO!”
Worth a try Submitter # 425: “It would be worth a year trial to see if passenger numbers increase and reduce buses driving the circuits with little or no passengers. Why not offer the train between Napier and Hastings to reduce between city transport. I know students could be inclined to use this service when going between cities for school or sports events...”	More detail about the proposal needed Submitter #135: “Have not seen enough about option 1 to support it compared with any other options.”
Pilot results need to be considered carefully before progressing Submitter #38: “This trial may give an alternate option, but I would want to be sure that the early trials are clearly better before the longer-term investment continues.”	Not a priority Submitter #396: “I think the existing service is adequate at present. Other things seem more pressing.”

Option 1
paid by targeted rates)

Option 2
status quo)

1. This option seen as an opportunity to make efficiencies and improve current system

Submitter #310: “Public transport in HB is not fit for purpose as it stands. It needs to be better AND more efficient. Future proof it by moving away from fossil fuels too.”

Different operational suggestions e.g. run smaller buses

Submitter #114: “Smaller buses could be used on many routes a lot of the time to reduce emissions and costs.”

2. Support with condition around cost. Who pays?

No need to change

Submitter #345: “I use the bus often and am happy with the service. Most folk using the bus service include lots of pensioners and technology isn’t something that appeals to me anyway.”

More detail wanted about how the system would work

Submitter #253: “You haven't explained enough about what this is clearly to make a decision on. Have no idea what you mean by a virtual bus stop…”

Concern about patrons’ accessibility to technology

Submitter #175: “Would all your current users be able to access the technology needed for a technology-enabled service?”

Concern about accessibility of new proposed system e.g. concern for older people, those without smart phones or access to technology, those with mobility issues, and those who experience poverty

Submitter #203: “…care needs to be taken not to leave behind those with less tech capability, including elderly and less well off.”

Ratepayer affordability

Submitter #177: “The cost to rate payers is too great for an untried, experimental project.”

Support for environmental benefits

Submitter #564: “I either drive or walk, as public transport doesn't meet my needs. A virtual, on demand, bus stop will be very useful...”

Public transport should be user pays

Submitter #47: “Again, majority of ratepayers get no benefit whatsoever so why should we pay for it? NO!”

Worth a try

Submitter # 425: “It would be worth a year trial to see if passenger numbers increase and reduce buses driving the circuits with little or no passengers. Why not offer the train between Napier and Hastings to reduce between city transport. I know students could be inclined to use this service when going between cities for school or sports events...”

More detail about the proposal needed

Submitter #135: “Have not seen enough about option 1 to support it compared with any other options.”

Pilot results need to be considered carefully before progressing

Submitter #38: “This trial may give an alternate option, but I would want to be sure that the early trials are clearly better before the longer-term investment continues.”

Not a priority

Submitter #396: “I think the existing service is adequate at present. Other things seem more pressing.”

10. Slightly more than half of all submissions supported On-demand public transport (ODPT). Many of those not supporting ODPT however, raised similar concerns to those supporting the proposal; these are addressed following. A lot of the submitters referred to the need for the public transport service to better meet the needs of passengers. Many also referred to the benefits of a more attractive and well-patronised public transport service to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

11. The main themes addressed in submissions and discussed further below are:

11.1. Questions about what an on-demand public transport scheme means and how it would work, including:

11.1.1. Concerns about how it would impact on older people or those reliant on a fixed timetable

11.1.2. The uncertainty about any potential improvement to public transport services

11.1.3. Costs, who pays, affordability to ratepayers and who benefits

11.1.4. Service areas and potential for extension to other areas

11.1.5. Other suggested solutions, including smaller buses.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

12. How it will work:

12.1. A number of submissions query the untested nature of the new service and the associated costs.

12.2. It is clear that the current service is not meeting peoples’ and communities’ needs. The fixed timetables and large bus arrangement in suburban areas is resulting in reducing or consistently low patronage on some routes. The ODPT service will be supported by bigger buses on fixed busier routes to meet peak time demand. A simple swap of the bigger bus for a minibus will not address the low/falling patronage problem as suggested by a number of submitters.

12.3. The new service model enables a more targeted and flexible service that better serves the needs of the community. The potential for this new service is not just to meet the needs of the transport disadvantaged, but also enables a public transport service that is flexible and attractive and that will meet the needs of a much wider group of people.

12.4. A number of submitters asked questions about how it would work or made incorrect assumptions about the intended service. The use of the term ‘virtual bus stop’ particularly caused confusion. A number asked how some existing users, particularly the elderly, or those who didn’t have smart phones or ability to use new technology would be able to access the service. There was some support for the existing service.

12.5. It was reassuring that most of the key themes/concerns raised by submitters had already been identified or discussed through work that the transport team has done with Via and GoBus. The main concerns relate to whether it can be accessed via landlines and not just smart phones (it will be), support for the elderly to transition to the new system, the lack of certainty where previously routes were fixed and familiar, understanding what a virtual bus stop meant (not a fixed bus stop, but one that was more convenient to the user), security for vulnerable passengers and whether it was still available to super gold card holders (it is).

12.6. Some submitters are concerned about the apparent uncertainties without a fixed timetable. Submitter #167 explains as follows.

“Changes to the certainty of a bus timetable are of concern. Times of my appointments vary, and I try to plan them to coincide with bus times. Without a structured timetable this would be difficult. How can I be sure that a bus and driver would be available when I require them? Many of my fellow passengers share my problems as well as disability, age or lack of English. That is why I support the status quo option.”

12.7. The way public transport is delivered will change and it will mean some users may be challenged by change. ODPT will provide a more convenient service that allows passengers such as Submitter #167 to connect with vital services at times that suit them. The submissions indicate a need for a comprehensive engagement strategy in the development of the ODPT service to ensure it is suited to the communities needs, and a comprehensive communication strategy in advance of any roll out of the new ODPT service. A well-planned trial delivery will be a critical part of the successful delivery of the new service. Experience and feedback from Timaru indicates that a substantial effort is required for this part of the process

12.8. Trialling this new initiative on a small scale allows for refinement of the various operational aspects raised by submitters. It also allows for early identification of any major issues and testing implementation strategies, including the financial impact which will be monitored closely.

13. Costs, who pays, affordability

13.1. A number of submitters didn’t support ratepayer funding of any public transport, and several also stated they don’t and wouldn’t use public transport and therefore did not support paying rates for this service. They sought a more ‘user pays’ approach to public transport so that their rates would not increase. A few stated a 19% rate increase was too much and they were opposed to anything that contributed to the increase.

13.2. However, submitter #712 among many others, recognised the social, economic and well-being needs for a transport system that meets the needs of the transport disadvantaged, those without cars or the low income families and those dependent on public transport for connectivity to work, school and social needs, including for marae:

“Public transport is a link for our people without access to a car. When you focus on people without access to a car. It's about maintaining the health and wellbeing of our people which is directly linked to how serious you are when you take into consideration the social needs for all people in rural areas, marae zone areas and māori communities that have been disadvantage for many years with no public transport.”

13.3. Many submitters were concerned about the increase in ratepayer funding being required, or changes to their service and any potential increases in costs to the current public transport users. We note that the current low flat fare system is very popular with bus users.

13.4. The on-demand service model is not likely to be cheaper to deliver than the fixed timetable model as it still relies on bus drivers and vehicles to service the urban area. It will, however, be a more responsive and attractive service. It will provide the existing public transport users with a service that better meets their needs while attracting new users by providing a more flexible and responsive passenger transport system. The alternative is continuing reduction in patronage in some routes with the same or rising costs of delivery.

13.5. The service will only be available in those areas subject to the public transport rate and so is currently limited to Napier and Hastings urban areas. Ratepayer funding and Waka Kotahi (NZTA) contributions support delivery of the service in addition to the passenger fare. New objectives for fare recovery will need to be developed. Further work is required to determine the fare structure for the new service, including what users will be charged, whether the flat fare system will continue at the same or different amount and whether concession fares should be considered. The consideration will not just be in relation to fare recovery; it will also need to be in relation to the number of users of public transport and the impact this has on the rate of private car use.

13.6. The Council’s Regional Public Transport Plan is due for review and this will include review of fares and opportunities to improve the delivery of the wider public transport service, including to meet needs of people outside the urban areas.

14. Service areas and potential for extension to other areas

14.1. A number of submitters referred to the lack of public transport service, and the undesirable level of the existing service and either supported the ODPT proposal as a consequence or suggested changes to the existing service.

14.2. For example, smaller buses were supported as a more efficient delivery option than large empty buses on the fixed routes. This is the solution proposed by the ODPT service. It is not limited to a fix for the existing timetable service but is aimed at increasing the number of people who have access to the public transport service.

14.3. There is still work required to define the levels of service for the new ODPT. The projections are based on improving the existing levels of service in terms of wait times for buses and distance to walk to the bus stop. The service delivery will be on similar existing public transport service (hours and days operated). Some submitters suggest that the service should operate after hours and more in weekends as well. The extension beyond current levels of service will be subject to review of the pilot’s success and further consideration of costs and funding options.

14.4. One of the major benefits of this model of delivery is that it is flexible on both short- and long-term bases. It allows real time information and customer feedback to determine decisions to be made about service area and levels of service.

14.5. The successful delivery of the trial in Hastings will result in extending the service area to Napier as the next step, but ODPT has potential to meet needs in outlying rural townships, and provide better connections to places like Flaxmere, Clive, Havelock North, the airport and Bayview. However, any extension of the service will need to be subject to further funding considerations, including extending the rating area.

14.6. Other submitters consider the proposed ODPT service will better be able to meet the needs of people who have mobility issues. While the buses are intended to be wheelchair accessible, the service will not replace the Total Mobility scheme for people who cannot use a public bus as it is not a door-to-door service. However, the potential for the ODPT to provide a door-to-door service to Total Mobility card holders is something that can be considered in the future depending on costs of delivering this level of service.

14.7. The Hawke's Bay District Health Board (DHB) requests that the pilot is undertaken in areas where public transport accessibility is currently limited.

14.8. The DHB makes particular reference to ensuring people have access to healthcare and notes they have been working with the Council to subsidise transport to the hospital.

14.9. The DHB notes that in a survey of its staff and patients, 32% more would catch a bus if the service was available in their area. They request that as part of this pilot that we partner with the DHB transport team to identify how the pilot can best achieve the outcome of better connecting the community to health services in Hawke's Bay.

14.10. The DHB believes synergies can be found in working together and we agree. The trial has been targeted for the Hastings urban area where there are three currently under-utilised bus routes. We note the opportunities to work further together to extend support for rural areas, especially places like Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay. These wider service delivery initiatives are more usefully considered as part of the Regional Public Transport Plan review

14.11. At the same time as preparing for the trial of ODPT in Hastings, the Council is also about to review the Regional Public Transport Plan. This review will consider different delivery options for the bus service and the intention is to engage with stakeholders in developing more targeted, alternative solutions for delivery of public transport, including in relation to school bus transport. Some of the points made by submitters about public transport more generally can be addressed during this review.

15. Other solutions, other objectives

15.1. Increases in patronage are expected because of the improved accessibility, flexibility and attractiveness of public transport. This service model also has the potential to attract a wider range of people to public transport. This is especially in relation to the need to shift people out of private cars as a means to address greenhouse gas emissions.

15.2. Several submitters support the trial on this basis and make further suggestions in relation to active transport, including especially making active transport safe and connected. Others mention the need to invest also in passenger rail. These suggestions are outside the scope of the ODPT proposal but point to the need for an integrated approach to transport management especially when considering reducing emissions, making active transport safer and connected, and managing commuter and school demand for transport.

15.3. Many submitters supported the proposed ODPT and the use of smaller electric buses as being more efficient and flexible. One of the drivers for an efficient and attractive public transport service is that it will result in reducing use of private cars and a consequential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Change Considerations

16. This proposal directly contributes to climate change mitigation. It does this by altering the public transport service, so it is a more attractive and responsive means of transport. The improved attractiveness of public transport will increase the use of public transport, reduce the need for private vehicles and therefore contribute to a reduction in emissions and eventually a reduction in car ownership.

17. The provision of a more sustainable transport option will enable people to make more sustainable travel choices. It is expected that as people become more aware of the household impact on transport emissions, this will also drive more support for attractive and flexible public transport solutions.

Resident Survey

18. The following graph comes from the draft Resident’s Survey report dated May 2021 for the proposal: Introduce virtual bus stops. The scale importance: 1=totally unimportant, 2=somewhat unimportant 3=in the middle, 4=somewhat important, 5=very important.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

19. The graph shows that respondents rated this consultation topic an average of 2.96; and of the six consultation topics, this topic was ranked the lowest in importance.

20. Around 37.5% of respondents indicated that this consultation topic was somewhat/very important (i.e. they rated it as 4 or 5).

21. Importance for this topic was greater amongst Hastings (3.06) and Napier (2.99) residents compared to other areas. This was also more important for urban (3.04) compared to rural (2.54) residents.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

22. The option of replacing some public transport services with a more flexible attractive alternative is part of the Regional Land Transport Plan. This Plan was prepared with input by tangata whenua at various workshops including with the Māori Committee and through representation on the Regional Transport Committee

Financial and Resource Implications

23. The financial impacts of Option 1:

Option 1			Additional Spend
	Yr1	Yr2		Yr3	Over 10 years
Impact on rates	$361,000	$249,000		$838,000	$6.8 million
Impact on debt	Nil	Nil		Nil
Total rating impact	1.5%	0.8%		2.5%

24. The other option in the consultation document was the status quo, which had no additional spend or impact on rates or debt, although it was likely to result in continuing declining bus patronage.

Decision Making Process

25. 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:

25.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

25.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the consultation document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the On-demand Public Transport staff deliberations report.

3. Agrees to fund the pilot of On-demand Public Transport paid for through targeted rates to replace Hastings bus routes 16A, 16B and 17; and if successful introduce it to Napier.

4. Does not to agree to fund the pilot of On-demand Public Transport paid for through targeted rates to replace Hastings bus routes 16A, 16B and 17.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

On-demand Public Transport Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of those submissions on the consultation topic related to Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the verbal and written submissions related to Section 36 – Freshwater Science and Monitoring cost recovery alongside the officers’ analysis to enable a decision whether to amend the fee schedule or proceed as proposed.

Background

4. Feedback on Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges was captured through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021/31 Long Term Plan for Council to consider.

5. The proposed freshwater science charges were assessed for each current consent for ‘water takes’ and ‘discharge to land’ or ‘discharge to water’. This information was compiled and presented in a letter posted to each affected consent holder on 1 April 2021, along with a 4-page information sheet (see attachments). Letters totalling 1,787 relating to the freshwater science charge change proposal were mailed out; and a further 498 letters were posted to consent holders who are not charged freshwater science charges but will be affected by the proposed compliance monitoring charge administration fee changes.

6. Staff also identified applicants for ‘water take’ or ‘discharge consents’ whose applications are currently on hold due to the TANK plan change. These applicants were contacted directly via email to inform them of both the proposed fee changes and the consultation process.

7. Letters that were returned to the Council due to incorrect mailing addresses were resent after directly contacting the consent holder for updated contact details.

8. The consents team received numerous phone calls and emails from consent holders following the letter mail out, with queries including:

8.1. Clarification on the quantum of prior year’s freshwater science charges

8.2. Clarification on whether an exemption might apply to them

8.3. Further explanation for the rationale of the charges (e.g. why would ‘discharge to water’ consents receive a greater cost than ‘discharge to land’ consents)

8.4. Clarification of whether the charge would apply to them if they don’t use the consent anymore (e.g. if less water is taken then the consent allocation, or if stormwater discharges are no longer active)

8.5. Querying the process for transferring consents (i.e. our consultation letter alerted the recipient that the consent hadn’t been transferred after the property was sold).

Submissions Received

9. A total of 60 submissions were received on this consultation topic (see attached list of submissions).

10. Of those submissions, 27 were either neutral on the proposed fees or were commenting on aspects out of scope for the consultation on the freshwater science charges methodology. Of the submissions, 18 were supportive of the proposed fee changes, 7 were against and 8 suggested amendments.

11. A summary of the key themes expressed by submitters is below.

Supportive	Against	Amendments suggested
Scaling fair and appropriate	Charges for discharge to water too high	No tiered rate for water-take charges (flat rate only)
Provides transparency and certainty		Additional categories for discharge scale should be considered
Incentivising shift from discharge to water to land		Low flow restrictions taken into consideration for water take charges
		Discounts or exemptions for not-for-profit organisations, or for landowners investing in initiatives to improve waterway quality.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

Support

12. Of the 18 submissions supporting the proposed changes, the main theme in support was that the scaled approach and proportionality seems fairer; and the setting of fees in a schedule is more transparent and certain.

12.1. Submitter #554: “Agree with the basis for the changes based on scale and regional consistency. Seems fair and appropriate”

12.2. Submitter #310: “Agree with the scaled approach, it is fairer. The schedule is much more transparent & people will know/understand what they're paying for what”

12.3. Submitter #526: “Fairer proportionately & provide certainty”.

13. One submission was specifically supportive of the proposed amendment to the charge exemptions (Submitter #114), and one submission (below) was supportive of the shift of costs from ‘discharge to land’ consents to ‘discharge to water’.

13.1. Submitter #742: “We acknowledge and support the change to methodology in recovering freshwater monitoring and science charges, and in particular, applaud the incentive for wastewater discharge where you are clearly incentivising a shift from discharge to water to land.”

Against

14. [Charges for ‘discharge to water’ too high] Three submissions on the proposed charges being too high appear to have come from consent holders with ‘discharge to water’ consents specifically for drainage. These consent holders were in the relatively small group of consent holders where the proposed charges were a comparatively significant increase from the current charges. In the current methodology, the charges to ‘discharge to water’ consents have been distorted by zone and consent type cost allocations, and they have been significantly lower than charges for ‘discharge to land’ consents (i.e. ~$200-$300 for ‘discharge to water’ and $1,000-$1,800 for ‘discharge to land’).

15. The Revenue & Finance policy includes the principle of ‘user pays’; and consent holders of ‘water take’ and ‘discharge to land/water’ are considered greater users of the freshwater environmental monitoring and science:

15.1. These consent holder activities contribute to the need to undertake environmental monitoring (e.g. monitoring river water quality of a river which receives consented discharges to determine effects of those discharges); and

15.2. These consent holders benefit directly from the HBRC research and investigations (e.g. investigations into sustainable yield of an aquifer enabling water take consents to be granted).

16. A review of the proportion of costs for freshwater science that are recovered direct from consent holders (currently 35%) is expected to be undertaken as part of the upcoming rating review project and any change would come into effect in the next Long Term Plan.

17. One submission suggests that the weighting of cost more to discharge to water is not justified.

17.1. Submitter #761: “It appears drainage discharge to water fees have been dramatically increased v's discharge to land. The reason for this escapes me as the drainage to water is a reflection of soil moisture levels, ie rainfall, which has to pass through the soil profile to reach drains prior to streams, river, sea. The point somehow discharge of drainage water to water v's land is worse ignores the fact the water has already travelled through land prior to reaching the drains, so I submit the weighting change is not based on reality.”

18. The rationale for the freshwater science charges being greater for ‘discharge to water’ versus ‘discharge to land’ is based on consent holder causation. ‘Discharges direct to water’ have a greater potential adverse effect or additional stress than ‘discharges to land’ thereby occasioning or causing more monitoring and research.

19. The originally proposed ratio of weighting ‘discharges to water’ versus ‘discharges to land’ of 2:1 was based on the attenuation factor built into the pollution index score from the current charge methodology; and this is still considered an appropriate ratio. However, it is noted that the addition of more scale categories will relieve the cost burden on smaller discharges (see commentary in the next section).

Amend

20. [No tiered rate for water take charges] Three submissions suggested that ‘water take’ charges should be a single rate applied to all allocated volume rather than a ‘discounted rate’ on the largest volumes. It is not clear if the submitters understood that the proposed lower rates are only on a portion of the allocated volume.

21. The rationale for proposing a tiered rate was in consideration of the benefit the consent holder receives from freshwater science and monitoring in relation to the volume of take. It is considered that a flat charge rate on all ‘water take’ volume disproportionately burdens large water takes, as the perceived benefit or consumption of the science investigation and monitoring tails off at higher volumes (i.e. the relationship is considered exponential rather than linear). On this basis, the officer’s recommendation is to leave the tiered rate charge structure as proposed during consultation.

22. [Additional categories for discharge scale] Three submissions considered that 4 discharge scale categories (small, medium, large and extra-large) were not enough and the smaller consents within these bands are disadvantaged by having a greater cost.

22.1. Submitter #515: “Council should consider a sub-category that reduces the cost for small landholdings with little or no environmental impacts”

22.2. Submitter #665: “discharge to land/water concepts proposed small/medium/large/ extra large needs to be more scaled i.e. 1538/3075/6150/7688 need more small steps in-between”

23. After comparison to other councils’ annual science and monitoring schedules it is agreed that Council’s proposed 4 categories are too generalised.

23.1. Greater Wellington Regional Council has a matrix of 18 different fees for discharges, with separate schedules for discharges to water versus discharges to land

23.2. Bay of Plenty Regional Council has a matrix of 31 different fees for discharges (with discharge to water or land in the same schedule)

23.3. Horizons has 7 different scale categories with ‘discharge to land’ and ‘discharge to water’ having their own fee tables (ratio of 2:1 cost for water vs land).

24. A revised scaling for discharge consents has been modelled in response to the submissions received and includes the introduction of 5 additional bands. The resulting proposed fees (excluding GST) are presented in the table below; and the revised scale definitions are included in the attachments to this paper.

		Small			Medium			Large			Not scaled
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Not scaled
Discharge to water	Drainage, Sewage, Stormwater & wastewater	$877	$1,754	$2,631	$3,508	$4,385	$5,262	$6,138	$7,015	$7,892	N/a
	Solid Waste	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	$3,508
	Other	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	$1,754
Discharge to land	Drainage, Sewage, Stormwater & wastewater	$438	$877	$1,315	$1,754	$2,192	$2,631	$3,069	$3,508	$3,946	N/a
	Solid Waste	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	$1,752
	Other	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	N/a	$877

25. Compared to what was proposed during consultation, the revised scale fee schedule would result in 249 discharge consent holders receiving an increase in the total charge for their discharge consents and 178 discharge consent holders would see a decrease. The distribution of the changes for discharge consent holders only is presented in the graph following.

26. The original proposed fee structure saw twenty percent of ‘water take’ and ‘discharge’ consent holders receive an increase greater than $100 in their annual water science charges compared to the FY2019-20 fees invoiced. The revised scale changes to the charges for discharge consent holders does not affect the distribution of overall fee changes when compared to the FY2019-20 fees. The revised fee structure for discharge consents sees twenty percent of ‘water take’ and ‘discharge’ consent holders receiving an increase greater than $100, twenty percent would see a decrease greater than $100 and 60% would see a change plus/minus $100.

27. [Low flow restrictions consideration for water take charges] Surface water is allocated with limited reliability and, in some years, it may not be able to be taken all the time. There will be times when surface water users are restricted from taking water because the river has fallen to the restriction level. This should be anticipated and understood by all consent holders. The Regional Policy Statement addresses this and looks to provide a block of water to meet the crop water needs in a one-in-five-year drought (Policy 42). This limits the number of consent holders able to access surface water with this reliability and is a valuable privilege. To allow others some access to water, more water has been allocated with higher minimum flow conditions. These takes are more limited and usually take the water into storage for use when conditions are dryer.

28. The full amount of water that is consented is not always taken. Consent holders may take their weekly entitlement over one week, but not over the next because of rainfall. They may also be prevented from taking water because of the river restriction taking effect.

29. The current and proposed policy for the freshwater science charges for ‘surface water takes’ is based on consented or deemed weekly use and not actual use. One submitter has asked for a concession because they are not able to take all the water allocated to them all the time because of the low flow bans (submitter #168). The occurrence of low flow restrictions varies considerably seasonally and between river catchments. As discussed above there will always be variability in water availability from rivers. It is not appropriate to reflect this variability in the freshwater science charges.

30. [Additional discounts or exemptions] Two submissions related to consideration of discounts or exemptions to charges under the following circumstances:

30.1. Not- for-profit organisations:

30.1.1. Submitter #550: “The Athletic Rugby Football Club is a not for profit organisation, sports club, in the Wairoa District. I understand the need for increase in charges and recovering costs, but the only way our sports organisation can afford $1515 for discharge to water fees is to burden our members once again.” … “It seems ste[e]p. I believe HBRC at the very least should consider a discount for not for profit organisations”.

30.2. Recognition of landowner contributions to waterway ecological improvements:

30.2.1. Submitter #624: “I would like to see some sort of recognition or discount off Overseer for people who make contributions to the environment like Willie White's test dam for Carex and purificaton of water through riparian plantings and my son's buffer between the farm and the Tukipo river which is a kilometer long by 500 meter lake and wetland. There is no recognition for doing anything of this nature in costs pertaining to Overseer.”

31. Where there is not a legal or methodology-driven rationale for providing such discounts, the introduction of discounts or exemptions needs consideration from a political or policy position only. At Council workshops during the development phase of the charge methodology, further discounts and exemptions were considered. Discussion included how the exemptions would need to be funded; either by sharing the costs amongst the other consent holders or to the community via the general rate. It was concluded that while there is appreciation or merit in additional exemptions neither option to fund such discount was considered appropriate with respect to the overriding user pays principle.

32. The wetland mentioned in submission #624 has received significant funding from external sources. This activity will not be required to pay freshwater science charges as Council has provided for exemptions on consented activities that are primarily for the purpose of environmental enhancement. The effect of land use on water quality is an issue and rules have been introduced via the Tukituki Plan Change and also by Government via the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater (NESFW) that require improvements to water quality. Land use consents are not included in the freshwater science charges methodology. There is a cost for obtaining consent and/or for implementing Farm Environment Management Plan and monitoring nutrient loss using Overseer. Council has, and will, continue to advocate for good affordable tools to assist in achieving and monitoring improvements in land use that can lead to improvements to water quality.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

33. This change proposal was raised at the Māori Committee Workshop in February 2021 as part of the update on the 2021-30 Long Term Plan development. It was discussed that annual freshwater science charges may increase for Marae who hold consents. At a subsequent Council Long Term Plan workshop it was discussed that the scale impact on Marae could not be quantified accurately due to only a handful of Marae being identified as holding ‘water take’ or ‘discharge’ consents. Further, it was agreed by Council not to pursue an exemption for Marae from these charges at this time.

Financial and Resource Implications

34. There are no financial impacts on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan budget as the consultation was on the methodology of calculating fees for freshwater science cost recovery and not on the quantum of the budget.

Decision Making Process

35. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

35.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

35.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the consultation document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges deliberations report.

3. Agrees to the Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges as consulted on through the “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31” consultation document for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan

4. Agrees to amend the Section 36 Charges – Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery Charges in response to consultation submissions, in respect of:

4.1. Adding additional discharge consent scale categories to give 9 in total, consisting of 3 categories each within the groupings of small, medium and large.

Authored by:

Amy Allan

Management Accountant

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩	Section 36 Charges Submissions Feedback
2 ⇩	Revised Discharge Consent Scale Definitions for Annual Freshwater Science Charges
3 ⇨	Freshwater Science Charges flyer	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Submissions Requesting Financial Assistance / Grants

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with submissions requesting financial assistance and officers’ analysis of these requests.

2. Attached to this report are all the related submissions.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that Councillors consider the submissions requesting financial assistance alongside the officers’ responses to enable decisions to be made on the final 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Submissions Received

4. A total of 4 submissions were received requesting financial assistance or support; being:

4.1. Cranford Hospice

4.2. Enviroschools

4.3. Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust

4.4. Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Cranford Hospice (#690)

5. Council acknowledges the submission made by Cranford Hospice Foundation who has asked for $2 million towards a capital project to build a new facility. During the Cranford Hospice presentation at the Hearing, this was detailed as $500,000 over 4 years.

Additional Spend
Yr1	Yr2	Yr3	Yr4	Total
$500,000	$500,000	$500,000	$500,000	$2,000,000

6. Officers have sought advice on the significance of the request from Cranford Hospice and the ability of Council to approve the funding without prior consultation. The legal advice received is this would likely be significant based on the level of expenditure.

7. In 2018-28 Cranford Hospice requested $ 2 million and Council resolved not to fund the request of Cranford Hospice at that time.

8. Submitters suggested funding could be via the use of reserve funds, from additional investment income earned by Council or received via dividend from HBRIC.

9. Current policy dictates that investment funds over and above budget are to be allocated to the investment income equalisation reserve until it reaches its target. Further, much unpredictability still remains in a post-Covid global economy and there is no certainty around the performance of the financial markets over the next 3 years. Council remains reliant on its investment income and returns to fund core operational expenditure over this time.

10. Policies governing reserve funds do not allow for payment of the amount to Cranford Hospice without public consultation on the use of the funds outside of policies.

11. If Council wishes to support Cranford Hospice, officers recommend Council considers consulting on this potential donation in the FY22-23 Annual Plan. Funding would be determined at this time however officers recommend borrowing over 20 years would be an appropriate mechanism.

Enviroschools via Sonya Sedgwick (#626)

12. Council acknowledges this submission by Sonya Sedgwick for the Enviroschools programme. For the purpose of this report, it has been analysed as two key themes; funding support for increased reach into secondary schools and funding support for the Te Aho Tu Roa programme, which is a pathway for kura kaupapa to engage in environmental education.

13. The submitter notes that the current model provides good support in the primary and ECE sector, however, it does not have sufficient reach to engage with the secondary school sector with environmental education. The funding request is for field trips and resources.

14. Officers support the request for increased funding to improve the reach of Council’s Environmental Education framework. The 2021-31 Long Term Plan has significant investment in resources to scale up community engagement via the Climate Change Ambassador and Catchment Co-ordinators. Education is an equally important tool in the toolkit and complements the increased focus on engagement. The ability to engage and educate youth across the region will be greatly increased with this additional funding.

15. Due to the small size of the existing team, another staff member is required to realise these expectations and would make an immediate impact. A person in a 0.5 FTE position with the necessary education sector skills would be engaged. The cost to Council would be $40,000 – $50,000 per annum.

16. Officers recommend that Council funds additional resource to increase capacity and capability within the Enviroschools programme to achieve greater reach across secondary schools aged children.

17. Te Aho Tu Roa Programme: This programme is connected to the Toimata Foundation. Enviroschools is also part of this organisation. Should the above funding request be supported by this Council then the Council’s marketing and communications team would work with the Māori Partnerships team and others with a long term view to meet the needs of our community to play a positive role in this sector.

18. This funding request is supported by:

18.1. Submitter # 404: The Environmental Committee at Havelock North High School who submitted “Our Environmental Group would be grateful if more work could be done alongside schools through groups such as ours or with curriculum in science and social studies. The teacher does not have the resources or time to always set up projects but our students are often unaware of how they can get involved in the community ones or find it difficult to access them e.g. driving to locations etc”

18.2. Submitter # 584: Jennifer from Wairoa, who “after attending the Youth Climate Action Camp in April 2021 I came away with a strong sense of how empowered and influential youth can be towards positive action for our environment, with significant positive outcomes for our climate. There was a strong response from students to repeat the experience annually if possible! …”

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (#782)

19. Council acknowledges the submission made by the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT), which generally supports the initiatives in the consultation document. MTT has in their submission requested that Council ‘ring fence sufficient resources to enable tāngata whenua to meaningfully engage in the preparation of the Kotahi Plan over the next 3 years…’ of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. The amount requested over the next 3 years is $45,000 per year for a 0.5 FTE position and related costs; and a $60,000 per year for the contracting of independent expert advice per tangata whenua entity.

20. The consultation document has indicated that additional operational spend includes more planners to deliver the Kotahi Plan; and more staff in the Māori Partnerships team to support the plan development and Matauranga Māori.

21. What is not evident from the consultation document is the additional financial resourcing which has been earmarked to enable tangata whenua to be actively involved in the plan development and for capacity building. For Kotahi policy development there is an additional $400,000 sought per annum (for years 1-3) to actively involve tangata whenua in plan development. In addition to this there is $100,000 in year 1 and $200,000 for years 2 and 3 specifically to support tangata whenua capacity and capability in response to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and in support of Kotahi. The breakdown and allocation of funds for individual entities is yet to be determined. More information will be available once the 2021-31 Long Term Plan has been adopted.

22. Council recognises the need to support and resource tangata whenua to be a critical Kotahi plan partner with Council. In principle, Council supports the request from MTT. The nature, type and quantum of which is a discussion yet to be had between MTT and the Council planning team.

23. As a result of the submission received, officers do not recommend any changes are made to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. Council thanks MTT for a well-considered submission and look forward to working in partnership with MTT in the very near future on Kotahi.

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (#687)

24. At the hearing on 17 May 2021, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board raised the possibility of Council support for a Housing Foundation, similar to those in Auckland and Canterbury, in light of the severe housing shortage that Hawke’s Bay is experiencing at the moment. The Foundation builds affordable apartment style housing for the working poor who have difficulty entering the housing market.

25. This was not part of their written submission but is something the DHB raised at the hearing as a potential avenue for a joint approach to sustainable housing in addition to the Council’s Sustainable Homes Programme. The DHB also encouraged targeted implementation of the Sustainable Homes Programme for those households most in need.

26. No monetary amount was requested. It is understood that the DHB is submitting on this topic to both Hastings District and Napier City Councils.

27. The Sustainable Homes Programme is currently un-capped in order that funding is available to all applicants. Officers feel Council is not adequately resourced or has appropriate processes to apply means testing. Further, the scheme is cost recoverable and no funding is allocated to applying subsidisation to target those most in need/on low incomes.

28. Given the lack of information and time required to undertake due diligence, officers do not recommend any changes are made to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of the submission received. However, staff acknowledge and support the intent of the programmes discussed and are happy to engage and work closely with the DHB to achieve outcomes which support improving the quality of living conditions for all Hawke’s Bay residents.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

29. As noted above, legal advice has been received that the funding request for Cranford Hospice would likely be significant based on the level of expenditure, therefore the Council cannot approve the funding without prior consultation.

30. The funding request for Enviroschools is deemed insignificant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy. This is an existing level of service and the scale of the proposed increase in funding is small in relation to Council’s overall budget.

31. The funding request from Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust is likely to be significant based on the quantum across all tangata whenua entities.

32. As no dollar amount was requested by Hawke’s Bay District Health Board no assessment could be made.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

33. In preparation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, interviews with tangata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and Māori Committee were undertaken to provide early feedback on proposals and thereby directly influence the 10-year plan.

34. A resounding from the interviews is that tangata whenua representatives want more resources to be made available for the Māori organisations themselves.

34.1. Extract from Summary Report:

“Several respondents expressed support for the Māori Partnerships Group inside of HBRC but wanted more resources to be made available for the Māori organisations themselves. They believed that this would result in better quality input to any of the HBRC planning processes that required Māori opinion or feedback. The example quoted by a number of the respondents was that whenever HBRC requires expert input for any area of work, a consultant is engaged and their services paid for. Māori expertise should not be treated any differently.

In transitioning HBRC into a stronger Treaty of Waitangi relationship with tāngata whenua, both parties need guidance and expertise to ensure that planning the pathway forward and implementing it is a mana enhancing experience. The HBRC Māori unit should not be an optional entity up for grabs during strategic or LTP planning processes. It will play a pivotal role in ensuring that Treaty issues are not only understood by HBRC but also inculcated throughout the entire organisation.

Acknowledgement of the Treaty and good faith dealings with tāngata whenua start with an organisation’s ability to demonstrate that they not only support the Treaty through governance, management and organisational policies, but also lead it. The second part of the organisations commitment to the Treaty is the demonstration of partnership by ensuring that tāngata whenua have the resources to provide high quality policy input and well-researched responses to any matters that are raised. The seriousness with which HBRC champions this matter will demonstrate both leadership and courage at the governance level, together with wisdom and fortitude at the operational level.”

35. In response to this feedback, and greater demands through the NPSFM, Council is proposing that additional funding be earmarked to enable tangata whenua be actively involved in the Kotahi Plan development and for capacity building as noted above.

36. During the interviews, additional funding for Enviroschools scored highly with an average rating of 3.72 out of 5.

37. The other funding requests were not within the scope of the interviews.

Financial and Resource Implications

38. Based on the officers’ recommendations for the inclusion of the funding for Enviroschools, the table below highlights the impacts on budgets along with the rating impact.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
50,750	52,220	53,525	54,865	56,290	57,700	59,200	60,800	62,440	64,065
0.17%	0.15%	0.14%	0.13%	0.12%	0.11%	0.11%	0.11%	0.10%	0.10%

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:

39.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

39.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Submissions Requesting Financial Assistance / Grants deliberations report.

2. Agrees to consult on a donation to the Cranford Hospice as part of the FY22-23 Annual Plan, and make no change to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan in relation to the submission from Cranford Hospice (#690).

3. Agrees to fund additional resource to increase capacity and capability within the Enviroschools programme to achieve greater reach across secondary schools aged children and amends the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan accordingly.

4. Agrees that no changes be made to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan in relation to the submission from Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (#782).

5. Agrees that no changes be made to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan in relation to the submission from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (#687).

Authored by:

Ceri Edmonds

Manager Policy and Planning

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Pieri Munro

Te Pou Whakarae

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Funding Submissions

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Staff Internal Submission to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

Reason for Report

1. This report sets out a number of items that staff recommend for inclusion in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

2. These are items that have arisen since the draft Long Term Plan was adopted for consultation by Council in March 2021; being:

2.1. Representation Review

2.2. Election costs

2.3. GIS support for Policy

2.4. HB Biodiversity Trust

2.5. Provincial Development Unit feasibility study investment

2.6. Living Wage for Passenger Transport

2.7. S36 additional charges for Asset Management

2.8. Inflation on Works Group charges.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Officers recommend that councillors consider the items detailed in the staff submission and the officers’ responses to enable an informed decision on whether to fund the unbudgeted items included within the report.

Discussion

Representation Review

4. Council decided to establish Māori constituencies on 19 May 2021. As a result, the Representation Review that would normally have occurred in 2024 will need to be brought forward to 2022.

5. We accrue the costs for the Representation Review over six years to smooth the impacts on budgets. Costs include consultation, maps, survey and advertising.

6. Approximately $20,000 funding is required for the out of cycle Representation Review due to it being two years earlier than planned and a small increase to cover additional consultation with tangata whenua to determine the new constituency boundaries and names etc.

7. This has the following impact on the budgets.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
17,560	2,402

Election Costs

8. The District Health Board has previously contributed to local election costs, funding their candidates’ participation in the election campaign across the region.

9. With the District Health Board being disestablished, Council has been notified that the costs will need to be borne by the other participants in the elections.

10. The increased expense for the Council has been estimated as $100,000 before inflation for the election in October 2022 onwards. More accurate costs cannot be estimated until the cost calculator, provided by the Local Government Commission through the Department of Internal Affairs, is updated. The $100,000 is estimated based on the 2019 election costs. These costs are not discretionary.

11. This has the following impact on the budgets.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
50,750	52,220	35,683	36,577	37,527	38,467	39,467	40,533	41,627	42,710

GIS support for Policy

12. GIS technical expertise, consultancy and support services are required to support the Policy and Planning team in developing the Kotahi plan (RPS, Regional Plan and Coastal Plan) and the EPlan, both of which are statutory requirements under the RMA.

13. This funding was not included in draft Long Term Plan (via the prioritised IT Plan) as at the time it had been hoped that collaboration amongst regional councils in the IT/EPlan space (software and systems) would provide efficiencies, however this has not come to fruition in time for the commencement of Kotahi.

14. In addition to the EPlan software and systems further scoping has alerted us that we do not have appropriate levels of resourcing for the preparation of GIS mapping and gathering of spatial information to build the EPlan.

15. There are a number of tasks and responsibilities that would be assigned to the GIS expert, in general terms this would include (but is not limited to) developing web applications and online maps for informing tangata whenua and for community engagement purposes as well and supporting staff in policy development. This resource would scope software options for the EPlan, liaise with vendors and manage the contracts. In creating the EPlan they would collaborate with TLAs and other regional councils. The GIS expert would be required to work closely with the GIS and Policy and Planning teams as well as other sections of the organisation such as MarComms and Science.

16. This resource is needed for years 1 and 2 of the Long Term Plan prior to the EPlan capital project which has been included in the ICT capital budgets in year 3.

17. This has the following impact on the budgets.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
36,189	37,237

HB Biodiversity Trust

18. In the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, the Council consulted on, and subsequentially resolved to fund Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Trust for four years. This included $200,000 per annum for four years to “kickstart the endowment fund” held by the Trust.

19. During the Council workshops to develop the 2021-31 Long Term Plan, the Council confirmed its intention to honour the fourth and final year of the funding. Unfortunately, the funding was removed early during the budget entry process in error.

20. It is proposed to correct this error and reinstate the rate funding of $200,000.

21. This has the following impact on the budgets:

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
200,000

Provincial Development Unit feasibility study investment

22. The Provincial Development Unit (PDU) has allocated a grant of $1.3 million for a feasibility study on developing a lowland stream flow maintenance scheme at Bridge Pa.

23. The feasibility study is being fully funded by the PDU and does not require any co-funding from Council.

24. This impacts the budget equally over the two years however has no funding requirement from Council.

Living Wage for Passenger Transport

25. All public transport purchasing authorities (PTAs) have received advice from Waka Kotahi (WK) about the Government’s support for increasing bus driver base pay rates.

26. Bus driver pay has been a significant issue in Hawke's Bay and in other regions with low pay rates causing pay equity issues and difficulties in recruiting and retaining bus drivers.

27. The Regional Transport Committee has previously discussed this issue with support generally being expressed for better wages for bus drivers. Resolution of the issue at a national level was expected.

28. Waka Kotahi now state that they strongly encourage all PTAs to support bus operators in their region currently paying drivers base rates lower than the Living Wage, to increase these rates to the Living Wage. The current Living Wage hourly rate is $22.10, and from 1 September 2021 it increases to $22.75.

29. Waka Kotahi will support the Government’s expectation by providing additional funding to help meet the direct additional costs of increasing the base pay rate of bus drivers to a minimum base rate equivalent to the 2021 Living Wage. The additional funding required is to be met by normal Council and WK funding arrangements for public transport and will be provided at the normal Funding Assistance Rate of 51%.

30. The Regional Council would need to make provision for the additional funding through its planning process. The agency acknowledges that the Council is close to completing the Long Term Plan, however it asks that the Council work with the bus operator to implement this change as soon as possible.

31. An in-depth analysis has not yet been undertaken, but the approximate total cost of an increase to $22.10 has been calculated in consultation with GoBus to be in the region of $150,000, with a further $45,000 for the increase to $22.75.

32. This has the following impact on the budgets.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
218,160	224,479	230,089	235,849	241,975	248,036	254,484	261,362	268,412	275,397

33. With the NZTA funding 51% of the passenger transport, Council will fund:

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
106,898	109,995	112,744	115,566	118,568	121,538	124,697	128,067	131,522	134,945

S36 additional charges for Asset Management

34. The new methodology for Freshwater Science Charges removes the exemption that had been previously applied to Council’s Asset Management resource consents on the basis that targeted ratepayers of drainage schemes should be paying their share of the science charges and this will therefore come through scheme rates.

35. If this exemption is removed as part of the S36 LTP deliberations then the charges will need to be added to the budget.

36. This has the following impact on the budgets:

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
42,630	43,865	44,961	46,087	47,284	48,468	49,728	51,072	52,450	53,815

Inflation on Works Group charges

37. When budgeting for Work Group Charges in the Activities budgets, inflation was not applied in error.

38. This has the following impact on the budgets

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
54,775	171,413	258,077	404,832	460,511	563,742	673,561	790,703	948,092	1,071,939

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

39. The items included in this report are deemed to be insignificant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy. As these are immaterial to the draft Long Term Plan as consulted on, the Council can make these decisions without further consulting the community.

Financial and Resource Implications

40. Following is the summary of the budget changes included in the report that have a funding impact with the rates % impact below.

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
508,802	417,132	451,464	603,062	663,889	772,214	887,453	1,010,375	1,173,690	1,303,408
1.73%	1.23%	1.16%	1.41%	1.40%	1.51%	1.63%	1.77%	1.96%	2.11%

41. As part of the Financial Strategy and Funding Policies deliberations report, consideration will be given to how the additional budget changes will be funded if the decision of Council is to include the items within the LTP budgets.

Decision Making Process

42. 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:

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

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

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

42.4. 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 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Staff Internal Submissions to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan 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 to the inclusion of funding as proposed by staff for:

3.1. Representation review

3.2. Election costs

3.3. GIS support for Policy

3.4. HB Biodiversity Trust

3.5. Provincial Development Unit feasibility study investment

3.6. Living Wage for Passenger Transport

3.7. S36 additional charges for Asset Management

3.8. Inflation on Works Group charges.

4. Does not agree to the inclusion of the funding as proposed by staff for:

4.1. Representation review

4.2. Election costs

4.3. GIS support for Policy

4.4. HB Biodiversity Trust

4.5. Provincial Development Unit feasibility study investment

4.6. Living Wage for Passenger Transport

4.7. S36 additional charges for Asset Management

4.8. Inflation on Works Group charges.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Strategy and Governance Manager

Ceri Edmonds

Manager Policy and Planning

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

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 26 May 2021

Subject: 30-year Infrastructure Strategy and the Asset Management Group of Activities

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions on the topic related to 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy and the Asset Management Group of Activities.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that Council considers bringing forward funding for the Wairoa Regional Park from Year 5 to Year 3 and adopts the 30-year Infrastructure Strategy as consulted on, with the change to the funding for Wairoa Regional Park.

Background /Discussion

4. Feedback on 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy and the Asset Management Group of Activities was captured through Time to Act, Kia Rite! consultation document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan for Council to consider.

5. The feedback on the Infrastructure Strategy covered a wide range of topics and a small number of unrelated items. The above graph indicates the summary tag count of items by consultation topic (dark green). Where applicable the activity area (Schemes/Open Spaces) the submission related to (Light blue/Light green) is indicated.

6. Please note, some submissions on the 30-year Infrastructure Strategy are covered in greater detail in other topic consultation deliberation reports.

Submissions Received

7. A total of 48 submissions were received on this topic.

8. Submissions were variable in scope and detail provided, with single submissions often covering multiple consultation topics, general feedback on Council operations, and in some cases on items outside the scope of Council and the current consultation.

Key themes

9. Key themes expressed by submitters included:

9.1. Water Security: Submissions expressed concerns about security of water supply, water allocation, and prioritising the area of work for the future. This included specific mention of Central Hawke’s Bay water storage, shallow bore sources, water efficiency and sustainability of water for current activity. Option 1 favoured.

9.2. Upper Tukituki Gravel: General support for Upper Tukituki gravels (option 1) with tension on affordability (some option 2). Discussion on “giving the rivers room”. Recognition of the practical difficulty of actioning this approach.

9.3. Clive River Dredging: Generally supportive of the activity with land-based disposal options preferred (not specific on option 1 or 2) and some further option work suggested.

9.4. Ahuriri Regional Park: General support with concern on affordability and/or timing in the current rating environment, the need to do better in terms of water quality for kia moana and “swimmability” (option 1), and concern on the extent of potential recreational activity on ecological aspects of the estuary area.

9.5. Wairoa Regional Park: Positive support and concern on the delayed timing in year five.

9.6. Te Karamu Enhancement: Water quality was identified as a problem (compliance/quality issue) in an otherwise good enhancement.

9.7. Coastal Strategy: A range of general and specific submissions supportive of coastal management and future climate impact. Approach to coastal strategy (“give the coast room” versus “engineered”) raised.

9.8. Cycleways: General strong support and compliments, with some additions suggested.

9.9. Schemes: Keep drains clean and keep stock out of waterways. Maintain vegetation and tree stock in berm areas. Numerous operational feedback items. Need to prepare for future climate change and maintain investment in stopbank infrastructure. Discussion of “giving the rivers room” versus engineered flood management. Concerns to ensure accounting for long term climate change impact in schemes. Fish passage promoted in scheme planning.

9.10. Open Spaces: Good support for parks, compliments for cycleways and Waitangi Regional Park; and Pakowhai dog park.

9.11. General

9.11.1. Recognition of climate change as an issue for now and the future.

9.11.2. Support for Right Tree Right Place Option 1 (Non-infrastructure)

9.11.3. Encouragement for Hawke’s Bay councils to work together on water issues, coastal management and Clive River.

9.11.4. Some very detailed and well-presented submission materials received.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

Water Security

10. This topic is covered specifically in the Future water use deliberations report.

11. Strong submission support for current and future work on water security, the allocation of water resources, and options to sustain in the face of climate change (ID#174, ID#359, ID#415, ID#436, ID#728, ID#672). Climate change impact identified in many submissions and specific to drinking water supply and the need to plan for future impacts for water security (ID#742, ID#744, ID#684)

12. Concerns raised on sustainability of current allocations, general efficient use of water resources in reticulated and rural environments. The finite nature of water resources, the impact of intensive land use long term, and the need to plan for water storage and aquifer recharge for long term security.

13. Drinking water quality and availability was referenced for Central Hawke’s Bay and shallow water bores in the Heretaunga plains.

14. Clear need to maintain our understanding of the environmental changes by continued monitoring programmes and climate science.

Clive River Dredging

15. This topic is covered specifically in the Clive River Dredging deliberations report.

16. Submissions were supportive of the proposal for land-based disposal (ID#687) but suggested additional options might be investigated for the process and final use of dredged material. No distinction between option 1 and 2 was indicated.

17. Further work on disposal options and the process of managing and utilising dredged material identified as may help with identifying a local land disposal site or alternative use for dredge material (ID#684).

18. Discussion on the impact of post-earthquake river channel changes on the Clive and Ngaruroro Rivers was received in the “give the river room” submissions which challenge the “heavy” engineering control of river channels to the extent that many river channels are contained. This is also a theme with gravel management submissions (ID#684). No specific recommendation.

Gravel Management

19. This topic is covered specifically in the Upper Tukituki Gravel deliberations report.

20. General support for Upper Tukituki gravels (option 1) (ID#233, ID#684; ID#742) with tension on affordability (some option 2).

21. Discussion on “giving the rivers room” was proposed by several submissions (ID#684). This is a view that the current engineered control of river channels might need review, and some rebalance to less constrained channels. Recognition of the practical difficulty of actioning this approach was also expressed given the adjacent investment and development that has gone into the land area around the current river channels. Any significant response in practical terms would require major planning and consultation. Consideration of potential areas adjacent to existing channels channel expansion could be made in scheme reviews; and would need to be well planned.

22. Gravel management is a focus for the Upper Tukituki catchment in particular and resources for modelling of gravel management and river grade control and future resource management are part of long term planning. Council is taking a bigger role in gravel management to provide a more consistent approach to resource allocation and control. Project resource has been added to the projects group for this purpose in addition to current river schemes staff.

Ahuriri Regional Park

23. This topic is covered specifically in the Ahuriri Regional Park deliberations report.

24. General support for option 1, but concern on affordability and priority in the current rating environment. Submissions support the project but recognise the pressures on rating in the current economic setting that this proposal could add relative to other priorities in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (ID#733).

25. Submissions strongly identified the need to do better in the Ahuriri Estuary in terms of water quality for kia moana, ecological health, and recreation (option 1). This is a strongly supported theme independent of the regional park proposal (ID#684). The park proposal is consistent with recognised need to improve discharge water quality and provide a safe environment for ecology and recreational provision. This is consistent with the TANK programme target to improve overall environmental quality in the Ahuriri catchment.

26. The extent of potential recreational activity benefits on ecological aspects of the estuary area was raised as a concern. The unique nature of the environment was recognised, and adequate recognition and planning is required to ensure balance is maintained in park planning.

27. The proposal has dependency on Napier City Council Long Term Plan approval and resourcing in addition to Council science and asset management inputs. The project will engage a wide range of other stakeholders and interest groups which will take time to bring together into a defined scope.

Wairoa Regional Park

28. Positive support was expressed for this from Wairoa submitters.

29. Concern about the timing in year 5 of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan was raised. The original park proposal was delayed by co-funding availability (c.2017), and some mistakenly thought it had been stopped.

30. Submissions expressed concerns about regional equity relative to other regional park options.

31. Staff recognise that there has been a desire to fund a Regional Park in Wairoa for many years and concept designs were undertaken more than five years ago. The benefits of the proposal for river, ecological and recreation benefits of the original proposal remain valid.

32. The 2021-2031 Long Term Plan as consulted on includes a specific line item for $580,000 of capital funding over 3 years starting in Year 5. The funding was included in year 5 cognisant of the significant timebound Crown-funded projects in the first two years of the Plan. It should be noted that the Regional Council supported a joint PGF application including a regional park and further, applied for significant open spaces funding from the Crown that was not successful.

33. Officers recommend that Council considers bringing forward the funding in the Long Term Plan from Year 5 to Year 3, in light of submissions. An important first step would be to determine the working arrangements between Wairoa District Council, the Matangirau Reserves Board and HBRC. The Matangirau Reserves Board was established as part of settlement with Crown to manage 5 reserves; two Crown and three Council-owned reserves in and around the Wairoa River Mouth.

Te Karamu Enhancement

34. Water quality was identified as a specific compliance issue for the Karamu stream. The Karamu Enhancement project objectives include pest management, biodiversity, amenity and connectivity. It does not specifically address water quality, however this is a secondary deliverable.

35. Submissions were very supportive of the work done on the river enhancement but identified poor water quality as a strong negative requiring improvement. The Council has a number of water quality and flow sites throughout the broader Karamu catchment for routine monitoring, and undertakes investigations when issues are identified. For example, faecal source tracking is currently being undertaken to identify the sources of high E. coli levels. A major focus of the TANK plan change has been improving water quality, which introduces stronger policies, methods and rules that place new obligations on consent holders, land users and the Hastings District Council for stormwater management.

Coastal Strategy

36. A range of general and specific submissions supportive of coastal management and research on managing future climate impact.

37. Consideration of the “give the coast room” and “engineered” options raised in submissions with both options supported in a range of approaches. Submissions also had views on rating cost allocation, benefits of protection, and development planning for the future. Clear direction and policy are needed, and progression of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 is the most likely method to achieve this across the range of council controlled coastal areas.

38. The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy has a well-developed base of science and engineering work and cooperative work between territorial authorities (NCC/HDC/HBRC). Current review of the governance of the future work, built on the existing body of research, will clarify the future management and funding of the work. Resolution and progression of the Coastal Hazards Strategy programme will address most of the issues raised in submissions.

Cycleways

39. Cycleways received very positive submission feedback and several compliments. They are recognised as a regional asset, and maintaining and developing them is strongly supported (ID#69, ID#202, ID#655).

40. Some suggestions for additions where proposed and they have a broad match for Hawke’s Bay Trails current ‘future connections options’ (ID#69). Funding is already included in this Long Term Plan to complete the already committed additions to the network.

41. Co-ordination value of managing the Hawke’s Bay Trails consistently across the council organisations, and maintaining quality and user experience is showing value in the nature of the cycleway feedback.

Schemes

42. The importance of maintaining waterways and drainage channels was encouraged in several submissions (ID#433, ID#735, ID#201). This included some specific site recommendations and more general encouragement (ID#264, ID#684).

43. Submissions also mentioned some concern on maintaining flood management capability and capacity to meet current and future climate change related impacts (ID#433, ID#679, ID#684). This is a key part of planning for schemes and infrastructure. The technical assumptions for climate change on flood and drainage management will feed asset and scheme review and be built into asset planning forecasts. Common understanding of climate change impacts on our region needs to be communicated, with discussion on level of service and affordability with affected stakeholders as the technical assessments come to hand.

44. The “give rivers room” concept expressed in several submissions represents a major conceptual change approach to river management from the engineered approach in current river control schemes (ID#684). Recognition was given that consideration would be a significant and very difficult change but should be considered in future climate change approaches. Environmental monitoring of climate and flow data needs to be sustained to evidence the information base to determine the adequacy of river channel management for future decision making.

45. Submissions identified the practical reality of maintaining engineered protection in the long term may become more difficult to manage bigger flood conditions (ID#684). Flood modelling allows a range of flood scenarios to be run and potential mitigation and management options to be considered. As climate assumptions are revised these parameters will be able to be run in current hydraulic modelling.

46. One submission raised concern with stock access to rivers. Scheme management is changing away from grazing leases, which have been traditionally used for vegetation management, and Council is encouraging removing stock from waterways generally. For scheme areas the reduced grazing will require alternative mechanical vegetation control options which may increase management costs for river berm and stopbank areas.

Open Spaces

47. Good support for parks and cycleways. General encouragement for green spaces and recreational access. This is encouraging for the current approach in the Open Spaces area and reflects the changing level of service required by increased public access to traditional river, flood and drainage scheme areas as being recognised as benefiting the wider community. Additional planning to engage with community are recognised in the positive feedback in item 18.2.

48. Increased public access is being planned in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan with additional FTEs for ranger and catchment advisor resources for HBRC managed areas.

49. Specific compliments for Cycleways (item 17) and Waitangi Regional Park (ID#463), and Pakowhai dog park (ID#567). This feedback is consistent with observation of the uptake of these facilities.

Climate Change Considerations

50. Council’s work in this area directly contributes to climate change adaptation by:

50.1. Promoting recognition of climate change impacts on Council schemes and encouraging the active consideration of options to plan and manage our infrastructure response.

50.2. Submissions clearly identify the current and future impact of climate change on coastal areas, and the need to have consistent planning and projects to accommodate coastal hazard impact.

50.3. Encouraging an informed, risk-based and consistent approach from Hawke’s Bay councils for future climate change planning and response.

Decision Making Process

51. 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:

51.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

51.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Infrastructure Strategy and Asset Management Group of Activities deliberations report.

3. Agrees to the officer’s recommendation to bring forward the funding for the Wairoa Regional Park to commence in Year 3.

4. Adopts the 30-year Infrastructure Strategy as consulted on in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan subject to any changes made as part of deliberations.

Authored by:

Ken Mitchell

Asset Management Engineer

Martina Groves

Manager Regional Assets

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

30yr Infrastructure Strategy and Asset Management Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Integrated Catchment Management

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions on topics related to Integrated Catchment Management.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on this topic.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the verbal and written submissions related to the Integrated Catchment Management group of activities alongside the officers’ analysis.

Background

4. Feedback on Integrated Catchment Management was captured through Time to Act, Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan for Council to consider.

Submissions Received

5. A total of 21 submissions were received on this topic.

Key themes

6. Key themes expressed by submitters included:

6.1. Biosecurity: General support expressed for continued pest management. Concerns were raised that we are not doing enough to control some specific pest plants.

6.2. Biodiversity: Several submissions supported the proposed programme and increase level of resourcing. There was a concern with the lack of reference to the upcoming National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) (submitter #689 Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay).

6.3. A request to apply flexibility to the allocation of biodiversity funds to recognise that there are sites with indigenous biodiversity value worthy of funding that have not met the Council’s Ecosystem Prioritisation (EP) criteria. (submitter #688 QEII National Trust).

6.4. Catchment Management: General support was expressed for the Protection and Enhancement projects, Catchment Groups, and the ongoing Farm Environment Management Plan (FEMP) work. Concern with the use of FEMPs for managing environmental impacts rather than rules and limits.

6.5. Request from QEII National Trust (submitter #688) for catchment staff to engage with them automatically when an area of native vegetation is part of an Erosion Control Plan or Farm Environment Management Plan.

6.6. Request for an update on Lake Whatumā as part of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (submitter #742 Central Hawke’s Bay District Council).

6.7. Environmental Science: Support was shown for environmental data collection and 3D aquifer mapping (publicly available data should soon address allocation issues). Concerns with seasonal fluctuations on groundwater levels (submitter #721) and bench making water quality standards against pre-human sediment loads (submitter #728).

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

Biosecurity

7. Over half of the Hawkes Bay region (all land north of State Highway 5) is included in the Progressive Containment programme for Old Man’s Beard. This area includes the Poutiri Ao ō Tāne project, many QEII National Trust blocks, a large number of DOC reserves and protects Te Urewera Ranges from infestation. There is also a large buffer programme running along the Kaweka and Ruahine Ranges preventing the spread of Old Man’s Beard into the ranges. There are significant infestations of Old Man’s Beard outside these control areas. Council is focussing its resources to eradicating Old Man’s Beard from within the control areas.

8. Moth plant is distributed across most urban areas in Hawke’s Bay, including Napier, Hastings, Havelock North and Wairoa. Given its current distribution, mode of dispersal (wind) and difficulty of control in urban environments, staff do not believe eradication is feasible. Staff currently run an awareness programme and provide advice on how to control moth plant.

9. Gorse and blackberry are included in the Boundary Control Pest Plant programme which sits within the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan. These weeds are too widespread to eradicate but boundary rules apply. Council assists land occupiers in undertaking predator control and runs three large-scale predator control programmes which include mustelids.

10. Rabbit control is land occupier responsibility. Land occupiers with rabbit issues can contact Council for a free-of-charge site visit from a professional contractor where an assessment will be undertaken and appropriate control tools recommended.

11. Pampas is widespread across the region and would require significant resources if it was to be actively managed. Staff believe eradication is currently not feasible. Council is currently controlling pampas in areas of high conservation value, predominantly wetlands and some coastal areas.

12. Council’s approach to management of the impact of feral cats is through a Predator Control Area programme (section 6.4.5 pg. 63) and Site-led programme (6.5 pg. 77) within the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan. These programmes are designed to manage feral cat impacts on wildlife and primary production. Staff believe that establishing, managing and enforcing a domestic cat programme should sit with local authorities as dog control does.

Biodiversity

13. Staff acknowledge and appreciate the support for the proposed additional resourcing.

14. Council cannot solve the biodiversity crisis alone. It is essential that our organisation works in partnership with key stakeholders and private landowners in protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

15. Current and future policy, such as the National Biodiversity Strategy and National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity will continue to strengthen HBRC’s role and responsibilities in the biodiversity space.

16. Council is currently reviewing its policy for biodiversity protection and enhancement work, including Ecosystem Prioritisation funding and covenanting requirements.

Catchment Management

17. The submissions support aspects of the programme and expresses concerns for the need of catchment limits and rules rather than relying on farm plans, which have been a long-established activity of regional councils across Aotearoa. The difference in the Tukituki is that farm plans are no longer a voluntary activity. There are also established limits and rules to manage nitrogen in the catchment. FEMPs address the management of other nutrients and contaminants which cannot be quantified and managed by rules at the farm level. Rules are in place to require FEMPs to identify and address issues at the farm scale.

18. Staff currently promote the QEII National Trust (QEII) to landowners as appropriate. Where Catchment Delivery staff identify high-value biodiversity sites, they work with the council’s Biodiversity team to discuss biodiversity value(s) of that site and relay this information to the landowner and QEIIs regional representative, where that is deemed appropriate.

19. Lake Whatumā continues to remain a priority for funding through the Protection and Enhancement Fund (formally 'hot spot' fund). Discussions have been progressed with the Whatumā Management Group (WMG) on how Council can assist with the development of a long-term management plan and provide support/funding for on-ground restoration outcomes and water quality improvements.

Environmental Science

20. In response to concerns with seasonal fluctuations on groundwater levels (submitter #721) Council is currently in the process of developing next generation groundwater models that will provide data to have a better understanding of the groundwater system and enable environmental decision support. This work is budgeted in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

21. In response to submitter #728 “the standards for water clarity and nutrient load should be assessed and relative in terms of pre-human loads. In our area the Wairoa river plains. The HBRC should work under this premise.” The sediment attributes provided by MfE in the NPSFM 2020 National Objectives Framework (NOF) are structured according to four different sediment classes. These classes attempt to accommodate the natural variability in erosion and sediment state that can be expected based on geology/climate etc., so NOF should already be accommodating the sedimentary nature of the Wairoa area. It is also worth noting that evidence from lake cores shows the amount of sedimentation in landscapes that are also subject to high rates of erosion (e.g. the Tūtira and Rotonuiaha Lakes catchments) showed a sharp increase in erosion following Māori colonisation, as well as a much sharper increase in erosion following European colonisation. Much of the anecdotal evidence of highly eroded landscapes from early European times reflect a landscape that was recovering from the widespread damage caused from early burning by Māori. A pre-human load would thus need to reflect the pre-Māori period, rather than the pre-European period^{^[1]}.

22. Staff are not proposing any changes resulting from submissions to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

23. 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:

23.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a 2021-31 Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

23.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the consultation document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Integrated Catchment Management Group of Activities deliberations report.

3. Receives the submissions related to Integrated Catchment Management Group of Activities and makes no change to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Authored by:

Jolene Townshend

Senior Advisor Integrated Catchment Management

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Integrated Catchment Management GOA Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Other Matters

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides Council with a summary of submissions and officers’ analysis of submissions related to Other Matters or those submission points not covered elsewhere.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on Other Matters.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submissions related to Other Matters alongside the officers’ analysis to enable decisions to be made on the final 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Background

4. Other Matters refers to topics/issues that were not topics consulted through Time to Act, Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan but raised in other areas during the submissions process.

Submissions Received

5. A total of 118 submissions have been categorised as “Other Matters” and are attached to this report. Several of these submissions are out of scope and refer to functions outside Council’s area of influence.

6. For the purpose of this report, Other Matters have been collated and responded to under:

6.1. Significance and Engagement Policy

6.2. Transport

6.3. Air Quality

6.4. Water Quality and Water Quantity

6.5. Wastewater

6.6. Regulation

6.7. Forestry on Productive Land

6.8. Water Safety

6.9. Climate Change

6.10. Governance and Democracy.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

Significance and Engagement Policy

7. Under the Local Government Act 2002, all councils must have a Significance and Engagement Policy, which can be amended at any time subject to consultation. According to our own Policy we must review it every five years and involve community engagement. To meet this requirement, Council chose to consult concurrently with the Long Term Plan on the Policy and a small number of minor changes.

8. The following text is an extract from the Statement of Proposal on the revised Significance and Engagement Policy that was included in the supporting information for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation document.

9. A dedicated space was provided in the submission form for the public to comment on the Significance and Engagement Policy. A total of 48 submissions were received.

10. Of those submissions:

10.1. Seven were “no comment” or “no opinion” or “don’t understand”.

10.2. Twelve were out of scope with some submitters commenting on topics that they thought were significant but unrelated to the Policy. One submitter prioritised the six consultation topics in order of significance.

10.3. Three (ID# 113, 565, 757) supported the proposed changes to the Policy.

10.4. Three (ID# 207, 321, 601) supported the inclusion of climate change criteria as proposed.

10.5. Three (ID# 321, 626, 634) recommended the addition of criteria related to ecological impacts or “enhancement of biodiversity & conservation value”.

10.6. Six commented in a general sense about consultation with tangata whenua. One submission (ID# 223) did not agree with emphasis on Māori and specific consultation and committees. The remaining five submissions (ID# 474, 626, 706, 712, 747, 757) were supportive of increased significance to be placed on Māori involvement in Council affairs/decisions or mana whenua involvement in all resource consents. Two submitters emphasised the role of Māori as a Treaty partner. Submitter #626 queried why there is no reference to the Treaty “it seems a very significant policy around engagement and process. Should it be included?”

10.7. Nine (ID# 25, 116, 230, 459, 596, 601, 624, 635, 673) commented on the methods used to engage with a particular focus on this Long Term Plan consultation. “Ratepayers can only hope that council take into consideration the diversity of the community and what that diversity has to offer. Authentic engagement will only come from being in the community and also empowering those without voice to speak, and again I question the tools and techniques that will be in place to gain engagement.” (ID#25).

10.8. Two submitters (ID#653, 675) wanted better engagement with affected landowners as significant ratepayers “Lack of engagement with affected landowners promotes MISTRUST” (ID#675).

11. Staff consider that the recommendation from some submitters to add a new criteria for significance related to ecological impact is unnecessary as it is sufficiently covered by the existing criteria “how much a decision or action promoted community outcomes or other Council priorities”.

12. The Council’s community outcomes match the vision statement from the Council’s Strategic Plan, which is “healthy environment, resilient and prosperous communities.”

13. Staff recommend that Council consider including additional criteria for significance in the Policy related to the Council’s responsibility, on behalf of the Crown to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as required by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LG Act).

14. The new criteria being proposed by staff is shown in red below and matches the wording from s4 of the LG Act. The climate change criteria, also in red, was proposed in the draft for consultation.

15. Criteria for Significance:

15.1. “When looking at the significance of a matter, issue, decision or proposal, elected members will assess:

15.1.1. The likely level of community interest

15.1.2. The likely impact or consequences for affected individuals and groups in the region

15.1.3. How much a decision impacts on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and maintains and improves opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes

15.1.4. How much a decision or action promotes community outcomes or other Council priorities

15.1.5. The impact on levels of service identified in the current Long Term Plan

15.1.6. The likely impact of climate change factors in the region

15.1.7. The impact on rates or debt levels

15.1.8. The cost and financial implications of the decision to ratepayers

15.1.9. The involvement of a strategic asset.”

16. Subject to the inclusion of a criteria related to the Treaty of Waitangi, staff recommend that the Council adopts the revised Significance and Engagement Policy as consulted on concurrently with the Consultation Document for the 2021-20312 Long Term Plan.

Transport

17. Submitters supported a reduction in private vehicle use and highlighted concern about the impact of transport emissions on climate change (ID# 728, 685). The Hawke’s Bay Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) has recently been consulted on (submissions closed 28 February 2021). The community were asked for their views of what they wanted to see for our transport in the future and where to invest for better outcomes for Hawkes Bay. One of the three major outcomes the plan focused on was making the transport system more sustainable to create a healthier community. Proposed Objective 3 of the RLTP is for ‘A transport system that contributes to a carbon neutral Hawke’s Bay’, this is also supported by a number policies in the plan. Council received 67 submissions on the RLTP.

18. A key theme of the submissions was managing emissions and support for active public transport.

19. Staff do not propose any changes to the RLTP as a result of submissions on this topic.

Air Quality

20. Submitters were polarised regarding air quality. Concerns were raised regarding air pollution and conversely those not wanting restrictions on outdoor burning (ID# 498, 337). The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) sets out the objectives, policies and rules with regards to the management of discharges to air. Discharges to air can result in adverse effects on human health, property and the environment. The issues can range from offensive odour, discharge of particulate matter, smoke, dust, etc.

21. The RRMP is currently being reviewed through Kotahi (combined Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan and Regional Coastal Plan). Kotahi will be the resource management plan for the region and will manage environmental issues including discharges to air and air quality.

22. Earlier this year the Government consulted on proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ), Council made a joint submission with Hastings District Council (HDC), Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (CHBDC) and Napier City Council (NCC) in July 2021. The councils largely supported the direction of the NESAQ as it was consistent with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s strategic plan which aims to have air quality across the region meet World Health Organisation guidelines by 2025.

23. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Water Quantity and Water Quantity

24. Submitters indicated concern with water consents, water bottling, inefficient use of the water, and the water quality of the region’s rivers (ID# 651, 46, 261).

25. Water quantity and water quality is managed through the RRMP. The Regional Policy Statement (which is a section within the RRMP) identifies Integrated Land Use and Freshwater Management as a regionally significant issue. The RRMP provides a number of objectives, policies and rules to manage land, surface water quantity and quality, ground water quality and quantity and the Beds of Rivers and Lakes. The rules of the RRMP determine whether consent is required before carrying out an activity. The environmental impacts of the activities are controlled through the consent.

26. The Council has a regulatory compliance function. There are three key parts to this work, compliance monitoring of resource consents, responding to environmental incidents and enforcing compliance. The Council’s pollution complaints response team should be contacted when there are suspected breaches of consent conditions in relation to air, water, land and coastal pollution.

27. The Kotahi plan will align with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) 2020. The NPSFM provides direction to Council on how freshwater should be managed. The Plan will need to manage freshwater in a way that gives effect to Te Mana o te Wai and improve degraded water bodies, and maintain or improve all others.

28. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Wastewater

29. Submitters requested that there is more investment in wastewater treatment and a halt to wastewater discharges to sea (ID# 468, 369).

30. The wastewater treatment plants are owned by HDC and NCC. Both of these facilities must meet the conditions set in the Wastewater Discharge resource consents. Both consents entitle the councils to discharge wastewater from the treatment facilities into the coastal environment for the duration of the consent.

31. HDC and NCC are required to consider improvements and alternatives to their wastewater discharges as part of their conditions of consent. The cost of improvements are met by the Napier and Hastings ratepayers.

32. Both the Napier and Hastings councils are consulting on their 2021-31 Long Term Plans so there is an opportunity for ratepayers to make submissions on these issues.

33. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Regulation

34. Submitters indicated objection to the level of regulation from Council requesting funds be directed to people who need support and requesting that Council advocates for the ratepayers when Government imposes new regulations.

35. In addition to its regulatory function, Council also has a statutory advocacy role. Council acts to advocate to Central Government where it can and will submit on matters where the process allows. Once National Policy Statements (NPS) and other national regulations are enacted Council is obliged to implement them. Many of the Government’s changes are intended to achieve environmental improvements so are consistent with Council functions and purposes.

36. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Forestry on Productive Land

37. Submitters have objected to forestry on productive land in particular in Wairoa (ID#374, 741, 743).

38. The Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries are currently reviewing the NPS-Highly Productive Land. It is anticipated that final decisions on the proposed NPS-HPL will be made by ministers and Cabinet in the second half of 2021. The overall purpose of the proposed NPS is to improve the way highly productive land is managed to maintain its availability for primary production for future generations. Once enacted it is expected that the NPS-HPL will provide guidance to regional councils and requirements around policy development to meet the objectives of the NPS.

39. These ‘other matters’ should also be read in conjunction with the submissions relating to Right Tree Right Place.

40. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Water Safety

41. A verbal submission was received from Water Safety New Zealand (ID#764), a leadership agency for the water safety sector aiming to reduce the number of preventable drownings in the region and across the country, seeking a continued close relationship with Council to achieve these aims.

42. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of this submission.

Climate Change

43. Several submissions relate to climate change. Three (ID#187, 659, 707) were not convinced a Climate Change Ambassador was necessary stating that “fluffy statements and utterances is not what we need to mitigate climate change” and that “all Councillors should contribute to raising awareness of the expected impacts of Climate Change, as should council communications.”

44. Other submitters (ID# 187, 623, 642, 659, 687, 707, 715) stressed the priority and urgency to act on climate change. “It is imperative that HBRC continues to make climate change its top priority in all its decisions.” (ID# 642)

45. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board submitted “Factors that contribute to our health and wellbeing - air and water quality, infectious disease events, access to food and housing and community and mental wellbeing - are threatened by climate change. We know that the impact of climate change on these factors will not be spread evenly across the population and will inevitably exacerbate existing inequities. Locally, we are already seeing these impacts, but we also recognise the health and equity co-benefits of addressing climate change. Hawke's Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) considers the Hawke's Bay Regional Council (HBRC) to be a key strategic partner in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on human health and existing health inequities.” (ID# 687)

46. Two submitters (ID# 187, 715) wanted dedicated strategies and plans “A Climate Change Plan & Policy Document should be developed that leads service reviews, not that is considered as part of the proposed levels of service…This plan should include key deliverables to meet Climate Change Challenges across the HBRC Long Term Plan and include support for grass roots climate action groups to get the most benefit for ratepayer spending.” (ID# 715)

47. Submitters (ID# 508, 531) promote the use of electric vehicles in Council’s fleet and incentivising use by providing more and cheaper EV charging stations.

48. A new Climate Change Ambassador on a three-year fixed term, funded from carbon credits is proposed within the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. It is intended that this role will coordinate and promote a community wide response to reduce the region’s carbon emissions. It will have an internal and external focus. It will make sure we have our own house in order as well as building awareness, educating and advocating for change externally. A key element of the role will be to connect and leverage off other similar roles within and outside of Council, such as the proposed Urban Catchment Coordinators for Ahuriri and Karamu, Enviroschools and the HB Biodiversity Strategy Facilitator.

49. Staff believe that this resource will be able to address many of the submission points received on this matter, therefore do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Governance and democracy

50. Seven submitters (ID# 21, 25, 298, 349, 392, 618, 723) made comment on the consultation process. Three were sceptical that their feedback would make a difference. Three had trouble accessing information. One was concerned that the tick box style submission form limits understanding and fuller feedback.

51. Three submitters (ID# 303, 307, 396) appreciated the opportunity to contribute.

52. Three submitters (ID# 316, 518, 624) could not see anything that benefited Central Hawke’s Bay or Wairoa i.e. the “furtherest regions”.

53. Five submitters (ID# 207, 357, 391, 725, 782) stressed the priority for Māori representation and genuine partnership with hapū and iwi. Two (ID# 465, 747) wanted the “contribution and feedback” from discussions with iwi to be accessible. One submitter wanted “Reo rua. Dual signage please. Internal, external letterheads, signage.” (ID# 724)

54. Several submissions stressed the importance of a healthy environment and Council “remembering its core values.” (ID# 441)

54.1. “My concern in all things is protecting our beautiful environment for future generations in diversity of cultures and celebration of the differences between.” (ID# 25)

54.2. “Soil health, water quality, ecological diversity and enhancement must remain the main focus for the Regional Council.” (ID# 291)

54.3. “By protection, I mean an equivalent of Q.E II for NOT FARMS. That large gardens providing for flora and fauna be out of reach to developers and slashers in perpetuity…” (ID# 420)

54.4. “Please keep our water, air, soils, and seas clean. Reward businesses doing the right thing… Reward home owners with options to reduce their footprint…” (ID# 425)

54.5. “Building industrial areas on the BEST land in NZ is so wrong. Allowing Port of Napier to intend to have a container dump at Whakatu is criminally irresponsible. STOP IT.” (ID# 643)

55. Staff do not propose any changes to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan as a result of submissions on this topic.

Decision Making Process

56. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

56.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

56.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Other Matters” staff deliberations report.

2. Agrees that a decision be made to amend the Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council has adequately consulted with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Agrees (or does not agree) to include an additional criteria for significance in the Significance and Engagement Policy related to “How much a decision impacts on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and maintains and improves opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes”.

4. Adopts the revised Significance and Engagement Policy as consulted on concurrently with the 2021-20312 Long Term Plan subject to any changes agreed at the meeting.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Strategy and Governance Manager

Ceri Edmonds

Manager Policy and Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Other Matters Submission Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Financial Strategy and Funding Policies

Reason for Report

1. This deliberations report provides the Council with a summary of submissions and officer’s analysis of submissions related to the Financial Strategy and Funding Policies.

2. Attached to this report is a complete list of all the submissions received on these topics.

Officers’ Recommendations

3. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submissions points made related to the Financial Strategy and Funding Policies alongside the officers’ responses to enable a decision whether to adopt the Financial Strategy, Fees and Charges Schedule and Revenue and Financing Policy without amendments or amend based on submissions.

Background /Discussion

4. As required under section 101A if the Local Government Act, the purpose of the Financial Strategy is to facilitate prudent financial management by providing a guide for Council to consider proposals for funding and expenditure against.

5. Council sought public feedback on the Finance Strategy. A summary was provided on pages 31-32 of Time to Act, Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan; and supporting documents providing further information on financial matters was available on the Council’s website.

6. In addition, Council sought public feedback on Fees & Charges and the Revenue & Financing Policy through Time to Act, Kia Rite! Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. Below is a snippit from page 33.

Submissions Received

7. A total of 175 submissions were received on the topics of Financial Strategy, Fees & Charges and Revenue & Finance Policy. For the purpose of analysis, staff have grouped submission points as follows:

7.1. 132 submission points were in response to the Financial Strategy for Council

7.2. 36 submission points were in response to the Fees and Charges

7.3. 13 submission points were in response to the Revenue & Financing Policy

7.4. The remaining submissions were in response to services delivered by the Territorial Authorities rather than HBRC or were comments of a miscellaneous nature.

Finance Strategy

Key themes

8. Key themes expressed by submitters included:

8.1. Agreement with the direction of Council, the need to deliver the levels of services described in the Consultation Document and Supporting Information and support of the required increase in funding by approximately 30% of submission points:

8.1.1. Submitter #32: “I have no problem with accepting that rates have to rise to achieve these goals”

8.1.2. Submitter #397: “All preferred options have sensible and solutions to these areas which new action now not only to remedy problems but to take care of our environment with cultural sensitivity.”

8.2. Concerns about the affordability across the region particularly for farmers, businesses, fixed income and single income households.

8.2.1. Submitter #32: “I have no problem with accepting that rates have to rise to achieve these goal.”

8.2.2. Submitter #136 “I have said it..... constantly increasing rates greater than inflation CPR increases means fixed income earners are constantly impacted”

8.2.3. Submitter #466: “Rate increases should be minimal to match little or no increases in wages/salaries etc”

8.2.4. Submitter #568: “In regards to rates charged to ratepayers, it would be beneficial to see a small discount as a single income low-mid household. I realise there is cap/scale and help available but the set limit for this is way too low. Low to middle income earners are struggling too and with rates rising and wages stagnant, this impacts hugely on households particularly those on a fixed/single income. Thanks for your consideration.”

8.3. Council should reduce its costs to bring the rates increase down to an acceptable level with some submitters suggesting it should be no more than CPI. This may include a more staged approach for capital and operational projects and reducing the number of additional staff included in the budgets.

8.3.1. Submitter #78: “The Council appears to decide to increase rates at an exorbitant level each year without considering the ability of all ratepayers to pay. Increases in excess of inflation are excessive. There needs to be a stop on increased spending.”

8.3.2. Submitter #223: “Time to down size the Council operation. It us too expensive and the 19.5% rate increase proposal is completely unacceptable.”

8.4. Concentrate on the core role of Council and reduce the “nice to have” options within the budgets:

8.4.1. Submitter #402: “I believe that the Regional Council should be concentrating purely on their core jobs - any and all "vanity" projects should be halted and total concentration should be on environmental issues”

8.4.2. Submitter #595: ”Focus on most important issues - 'not' the nice to have IF we can afford. Minimise rates rises - enough hardship post covid.”

8.5. Council should look to Central Government for funding when the roles Council is to perform is dictated from Central Government:

8.5.1. Submitter #402: “I object to the level of rate increases that are being proposed. If the central government has put all these requirements on councils, then the govt should also be funding the council to do these things. It feels like we are paying twice, once through taxes and again through regional council rates”

8.6. Council should not use borrowing to cover costs and should look to “live within our means”:

8.6.1. Submitter #183: “Live within our means, and no more borrowing. Borrowing tends to lead to more borrowing and puts the problems on to future generations. If we can't afford it now, then don't do it! I’ve seen it all over my lifetime... borrow a little bit here and a little bit there until eventually one is hopelessly in debt to the money lenders, and to get back out of the debt is a real problem. Focus more on maintaining what we have now, and do the improvements as and when we can afford it.”

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

9. It is encouraging to see that Council has received submissions supporting the rates increases indicated in the Consultation Document and Council’s recognition of the community’s expectation to deliver on its Strategic Plan.

10. Affordability has been carefully considered by Council during the development of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. Analysis to understand how HBRC rates compared with other Councils against Hawke’s Bay economic environment was undertaken. As part of the Investment Strategy report workshopped with Council on 21 August 2020, PwC presented a report which demonstrated that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s rates were in line with other Councils based on the Region’s GDP per capita and Median Disposable income for previous years.

11. There is no one straightforward measure to assess affordability, however for the FY2018-19 Council rates per rateable unit was 0.7% of Regional GDP. For the FY21-22 this has been estimated as 0.8% of Regional GDP. This demonstrates a slight increase, but officers have assessed that rates has increased relative to the Regional GDP and within previous levels.

12. Further, Council has also committed to a first principles rating review following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. This will include a full review of how the services of Council are funded and the use of General Rates, Targeted Rates, Fees and Charges and any other mechanism available to Council. The Remissions and Postponement policies will be reviewed as part of the rating review.

13. Submitters have expressed concerns that the costs are too high and should be reduced and that urgent needs are addressed before the “nice to haves” are undertaken. This was the premise that the 2021-31 Long Term Plan was constructed and budgets were developed using a ‘bottom up’ approach. All new expenditure was considered firstly by staff and then Council through a robust review process including analysis and prioritisation against set criteria. Only expenditure required to deliver the levels of services expected by the community were included. Where there was an element of choice for the Council to deliver the services, Council have included these as the six consultation items being specifically consulted on within the Consultation Document.

14. Section 17a of the Local Government Act requires “A local authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.” Council is required to complete the reviews of its structures, staffing and cost bases to ensure cost effectiveness is achieved. This requirement has been built into the Internal Assurance Framework of Council, developed as part of the Risk Management work programme.

15. The increase in borrowing across the 10 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan comes from two main areas: borrowing for operational costs to smooth rate increases and to fund capital and large environmental projects that have an intergenerational benefit to the community. As part of the affordability discussion when developing the Long Term Plan, Council recognised that the rates increases needed to be smoothed over the life of the Long Term Plan. The borrowings for funding operational costs occurs in the first 4 years of the Long Term Plan and is repaid by the end of the 10 years of the Long Term Plan. Council believed this balanced the requirement to deliver the level of services of Council and the affordability for ratepayers. Borrowing for intergenerational projects apportions the cost to those who benefit from the expenditure, both ratepayers of today and of the future.

Fees & Charges

Key themes

16. Key themes expressed by submitters included:

16.1. That the “User Pays” principle is continued by the Council:

16.1.1. Submitter #187: “Sectors who use the services pay on a users pay basis”

16.1.2. Submitter #671: “User pays.”

16.2. Submitters expressed concerns that the fees were too high and affordability was an issue:

16.2.1. Submitter #198: “Whilst I accept that cost will go up please keep as low as possible, life is expensive at the moment”

16.2.2. Submitter #314: “Reduce these. Many ratepayers have reducing incomes.”

16.3. A number of submitters feel that the resource consent fees discourage development and should be reduced or the processes improved to allow for housing and economic development in general.

16.3.1. Submitter #449: “Please reduce any fees that impinge on the costs of development of residential and commercial property. Play your part in encouragement of house building and boosting the local business economy.”

16.4. One submitter suggested the fees and charges for consents should be increased to allow for the consent to be assessed against industry best practice:

16.4.1. Submitter #321: “Applications for ALL consents should consider if the consent is in the industry best practice. Council should increase fees for this to be undertaken.”

16.5. Five submitters considered the Fees and Charges of Council reasonable and one submitted felt they should be higher to fund monitoring and research:

16.5.1. Submitter #758: “Charges look to be fair. This will presumably be overhauled with replacement act for the RMA. User pays I agree with.”

16.6. One submitter considered the Fees for Napier Port to be inappropriate and that a flat fee structure should be utilised.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

17. Council develops the Fees and Charges Schedule to recover the costs of Council that ensure the requirements of the Revenue and Financing policy are met. The Fees and Charges Schedule was reviewed during the 2021-31 Long Term Plan development to ensure that they were in line with the costs required to deliver the services, and that this would achieve the public/private split detailed in the draft Revenue & Financing Policy for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

18. Previously Council has developed the costs recovery from Fees and Charges on a User Pays principle. Council has committed to a first principles rating review following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and this will include the use of Fees and Charges and the submissions received from the LTP will inform Council during this review process.

19. There were no submissions received opposing the new Fees & Charges included in the Proposal for the following:

19.1. annual consent administration fee

19.2. issuing an abatement notice

19.3. late submission of data and information returns; and

19.4. separate gravel extraction charges for independent consent holders and those that extract gravel under Council’s global consent.

20. Note: that the Fees and Charges for the Freshwater Science and Monitoring Cost Recovery are being considered in a separate deliberation report.

Napier Port Submission on Harbour Master Fees

21. Napier Port has submitted in opposition to the proposed charges for Napier Port for the management of navigational safety.

22. The proposed charges to Napier Port represent 60% of the cost of Harbourmaster functions representing the direct benefit of these services received, with the other 40% funded through other fees and charges and general rates representing the public benefit of these services.

23. Napier Port submitted that the funding split of 60% private benefit to the Port and 40% public benefit is appropriate but questioned the use of Gross Tonnage (GT) as a means of charging for these costs. In developing the proposed charges, Officer’s reviewed other ports similar to Napier Port. In doing so, two options were identified for raising a charge for Napier Port; a fixed charge for the Port to pay the private benefit components of the Harbourmaster function, or alternatively charging based on the activity levels of the Port (via a charge per gross tonnage of vessels using Breakwater Harbour). Officers determined that charges relating to activity levels were more appropriate, as the charge is then related to activity levels of the Harbourmaster. That is, as activity increases or decreases, so too, does the work of the Harbourmaster at the port.

24. Napier Port noted concern that the proposed HBRC charge of 3c per GT (for those ships over 1,000 GT) was greater than other ports whom have similar charges. Officers understand that Bay of Plenty Regional Council currently charge $11.65 per 1,000 GT, which is the equivalent of ~1.2c per GT, compared to the HBRC proposed charge of 3c per GT (not 11c compared to $3 as mentioned during Napier Port’s verbal submission).

25. In addition to the concern from Napier Port regarding the amount of the charge, the Port submitted that they were currently providing a number of activities relating to Navigation and Safety within the harbour. Further, weather and navigation information are being provided to the community that would reasonably be the responsibility of Council, but that it makes practical sense for the Port to provide these. One of these activities mentioned was the removal of logs from waters in and around the port including the inner harbour and breakwater harbour. While the Port may on occasion undertake to retrieve logs from these waters, officer’s note that the usual practice is for the Harbourmaster to receive notice that a log is in the water and engages a contractor to remove those logs at HBRC expense. This is a common activity for the Harbourmaster at present.

26. Officers have not had sufficient time to review and respond to the complete list of services and funding provided by the Port prior to deliberations given this content was received during the verbal hearing only and was not provided within the formal written submission. However, officers suggest this be incorporated into the Memorandum of Understanding between HBRC and Napier Port that describes and sets out the navigational safety responsibilities and agreed activities of each organisation within the Napier Pilotage Area.

27. On the basis of Napier Port’s submission received, officers recommend amending the charge approach for the Port to an annual fixed fee. This would mean that Napier Port is charged 60% of the budgeted cost of Harbourmaster functions, amended year on year through the Annual Plan and notified to Napier Port as part of the Annual Plan process.

28. There were no other submissions received opposing the new fees and charges included in the Proposal for the following:

28.1. New compliance fees for annual consent administration costs, issuing of abatement notices, and the late submission of data and information returns

28.2. Increases to some fixed fee deposits for consent applications and applications for regional plan preparation/changes

28.3. Increases to the annual water meter administration and low flows monitoring charges

28.4. Separate gravel extraction charges for independent consent holders and those who apply for permissions to extract gravel under Regional Council-held consents.

Revenue and Financing Policy

Key themes

29. Key themes expressed by submitters included:

29.1. That the “User Pays” principle is continued by the Council.

29.2. Submitters expressed using appropriate funding from ratepayers based on the relative benefit derived for each service

29.2.1. Submitter #529: “Make sure that any and all additional investment required is sourced from ratepayers strictly pro rata based on relative benefit derived for each rate payer group”

29.3. A submitter has recommended using the maximum of 30% of the General Rate to be derived from the Uniform Annual General Charge

29.4. A submitter has recommended fully funding the Governance and Partnerships Group of Activities by the UAGC, as there is no link between how much your property is worth and how much representation or leadership you receive

29.5. A submitter has recommended that the public/private allocation for Regional Water Security should be amended to Medium Public Good and High Private Good

29.6. A submitter has recommended that Gravel Management has a public benefit as well as private benefit and that 15% of the costs of Gravel Management should be funded from General Rates.

Officers’ Analysis of Submissions

30. Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to follow a robust process to determine the appropriate funding for each activity. Following the review of each activity, the overall impact of the allocation for liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community needs to be assessed. During the development of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan, minor amendments were made to the Revenue and Financing Policy to reflect the changes in the Group of Activities and Activity structure. These amendments were consistent with the previous Revenue and Financing Policy.

31. As previously noted, Council has also committed to a first principles rating review following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

32. Current, rates revenue sought on a uniform basis is 21.4% of the total rates revenue vs a maximum of 30% per Section 21 of Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. If Council was to increase the Uniform Annual General Charge for Council to be at the maximum of 30%, the UAGC would move from $59.18 to $98.69. Based on balancing the overall impact of this allocation, officers consider this would make the rates unaffordable for a large section of the community based on the Median Disposal Income. As Governance and Partnerships is fully funded by General Funding this would have the same effect.

33. The public/private allocation for Regional Water Security of High Public Good and Medium Private Good is based on the level of services currently being delivered within the Activity which is primarily around the development of an intergenerational action plan. Any changes to the levels of service will require a review of the Revenue and Financing Policy for this activity and may alter the public/private allocation at this time. Therefore, officers consider the public/private allocation is correct for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Additional Funding Requests and Staff Submissions

34. As part of the submissions process, requests for additional funding have been received. Further, there are additional funding requirements from staff submissions for items that have been identified or arisen following the Consultation Document development.

35. During deliberations, Finance will be recording the decisions of Council and will provide an update on funding requirements during the Council meeting, to assess the rating impact of any decision(s).

36. If all of the additional funding requests are agreed to, and the items within the staff submissions are included, additional funding requirements as below would be required:

21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29	29-30	30-31
559,552	469,352	504,989	657,927	720,179	829,914	946,653	1,071,175	1,236,130	1,367,473
1.90%	1.39%	1.30%	1.54%	1.51%	1.63%	1.74%	1.87%	2.07%	2.21%

37. Based on decisions made during deliberations, a decision will be required on how to fund the additional funding requirements. Options available to Council are:

37.1. Hold rates at the level consulted on for the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and increase borrowing to smooth rates based on requirements, to be repaid by the end of the 10 years of the plan, or

37.2. Hold borrowing at the level consulted on for the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and increase rates based on funding requirements, or

37.3. A combination of the above

Table: Rates Increases included in the Consultation Document

Decision Making Process

38. 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:

38.1. Section 93(A) of the Act provides for the use of a special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption of a Long Term Plan as prepared under section 93 of the Act.

38.2. The issues to be considered in this agenda item are those issues raised by members of the community that have submitted to the Council on the Consultation Document “Time to Act – Kia Rite! 2021-31”. All submissions are an integral part of the special consultative processes set out in Section 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Financial Strategy and Funding Policies deliberations report.

3. Receives the submissions related to Financial Strategy and Funding Policies and makes no change to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

4. Receives the submissions related to the Fees and Charges Schedule and amends the Fees for Napier Port to a flat fee structure to be 60% of the budgeted cost of Harbourmaster functions, amended year on year through the Annual Plan and notified to Napier Port as part of the Annual Plan process.

5. Holds rates at the level consulted on for the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and increases borrowing to smooth rates based on requirements, to be repaid by the end of the 10 years of the plan.

6. Holds borrowing at the level consulted on for the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and increases rates based on funding requirements.

7. A combination of 5 and 6 above.

Authored by:

Amy Allan

Management Accountant

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Revenue and Financing Policy and Fees and Charges Submissions Feedback

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Affixing of the 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

Staff Warrants

1.1.1 C. White

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991 (Section 34A(1) and 38(1); Local Government Act 2002 (section 177); Building Act 2004 (Section 371B); and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (Clauses 32(1) and 32B Schedule 7))

1.1.2 T. Jones

(Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

1.1.3 R. Johnson

T. Cowan

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

1.1.4 S. Ali

(Delegations under the Maritime Transport Amendment Act 1994 (Sections 33D, 33G and 318(1); Section 38 of the Resource Management Act 1991; Sections 171, 172 and 174 of the Local Government Act 2002)

4451

4450

4452

4453

4449

10 May 2021

6 May 2021

11 May 2021

29 April 2021

2. The Common Seal is used during a Leasehold Land Sale on the Sale and Purchase Agreement.

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

3.1. Nil cross lease properties were sold, with 79 remaining on Council’s books

3.2. 3 single leasehold property was sold, with 66 remaining on Council’s books.

Decision Making Criteria

4. 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:

4.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply

4.2 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

4.3 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 Hawke’s Bay Regional 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Authored by:

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Geoff Howes

Treasury & Funding Accountant

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Report and Recommendations from the 12 May 2021 Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee Meeting

Reason for Report

1. This item presents matters considered by the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee (EICC) meeting on 12 May 2021 for Council’s consideration alongside any additional commentary the Committee Chair, Councillor Hinewai Ormsby, wishes to offer.

Agenda Items

2. The Review and Recommendations of the Hawke’s Bay Possum Control Area (PCA) Programme sought the Committee’s endorsement of the proposed response to key recommendations from the independent review of the PCA programme. Staff recommended that the Committee support a move to a contractor-based model requiring preparation of a detailed proposal for later consideration and potential adoption for public consultation. The Committee agreed with the staff recommendation, resolving:

2.1. The Environment and Integrated Catchments committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council instructs staff to develop a proposal, under section 70 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, that includes an analysis of the costs, benefits, performance monitoring and funding models for a contractor-based model (option 1) for possum management in Hawke’s Bay for consideration and potential adoption for public consultation.

3. The OSPRI update on Hawke’s Bay TB Response provided an update on matters relating to the recent TB outbreak in the region.

4. The Proposed Environmental Projects Overview Tool item introduced and demonstrated a GIS web tool that aims to provide Councillors and staff with an overview of the totality of Council’s on-ground works.

5. The Erosion Control Scheme (ECS) – Update on Systems and Forecasts updated the Committee on the ECS work programme and system improvements implemented as well as on progress made to ensure more accurate financial tracking and forecasting of the delivery of the ECS.

6. The Napier Open Waterways Water Quality item was presented by Napier City Council, and summarised the results to date of the Napier Urban Waterway Investigation project.

7. The Update on IRG Flood Control Resilience Funded Projects provided an update on the four projects approved for the funding, highlighting:

7.1. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme (HPFCS) Levels of Service - 39 sites identified across HPFCS to be subjected to a prioritisation process based on modelling outputs, freeboard levels, consequence of failure, condition assessment and investigation outputs; FY 2020-21 planned investigation works estimated at $800,000 include geotechnical assessment, geophysical testing and topographical survey of 8 sites in order to facilitate optioneering and scope for detailed design to increase climate change resilience of HBRC assets

7.2. Upper Tukituki Gravel Extraction Flood Control Scheme - Survey data has been used to quantify the total volume of available gravel in the UTT scheme area, this has been coupled with establishment of hydraulic grade lines for Manaonuku, Makaretu and Tukipo rivers to determine excavation depths and resultant volume of available material. It is estimated that approximately 3,100,000 m³ of gravel is available for extraction within the UTT scheme. Engineering staff are currently undertaking a modelling assessment of the 5 rivers to prioritise key areas to undertake extraction.

7.3. Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme SH50/Waipawa Erosion - Works Group has completed the installation of 75 precast concrete akmon units on the left bank of the Waipawa river. Earthworks to cut and fill gravel to form the new river channel have been completed, this included excavation, carting and shaping approximately 70,000m³ of gravel. Works Group nearing completion of installation of 3,166 lineal metres of rail irons 8,100 lineal metres of wire rope to form permeable groynes on left and right banks. An independent ecological impact assessment was undertaken at the site which has concluded that the completed project shall result in an overall net positive effect on biodiversity, as a result of the physical works. Site preparation was undertaken in April to commence planting of 4,700 trees in the berm area.

7.4. Wairoa River, River Parade Erosion - Geotechnical investigations, design optioneering and preliminary design of the proposed sheet pile wall have been completed and the construction contract has been drafted. Detailed design for the project is due to be undertaken in May 2021 and the physical works contractor is due to procure steel sheet piles thereafter, with expected lead time of 4 months.

8. The Water Efficiency Update provided an overview of the work programme to deliver improvements in water efficiency for Hawke’s Bay and outlined the work done to date, the drivers for this work and the proposed priorities.

9. The Whakakī Catchment Pilot Project Case Studies and Findings item provided the key findings of the Whakakī Catchment Pilot Project which concluded in February 2021.

10. The Urban Biodiversity Presentation by Dr Bruce Clarkson discussed Urban Biodiversity decline and a People, Cities and Nature multi-disciplinary programme leading urban ecological restoration research in New Zealand as well as what can be achieved in a Hawke’s Bay climate.

11. The Ahuriri Estuary Stocktake reported on the progress made to compile a stocktake of work undertaken by statutory agencies across the area of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga to better align and coordinate work towards shared outcomes for the estuary.

Decision Making Process

12. The above items were specifically considered by the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee on 12 May 2021, with the following recommendations proposed for Council decision.

Recommendations

The Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Report and Recommendations from the 12 May 2021 Environment and Integrated Catchments 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.

Review and Recommendations of the Hawke’s Bay Possum Control Area Programme

3. Instructs staff to develop a proposal, under section 70 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, that includes an analysis of the costs, benefits, performance monitoring and funding models for a contractor-based model for possum management in Hawke’s Bay for consideration and potential adoption for public consultation.

Reports Received

4. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

4.1. OSPRI update on Hawke’s Bay TB Response

4.2. Proposed Environmental Projects Overview Tool

4.3. Erosion Control Scheme – Update on Systems and Forecasts

4.4. Napier Open Waterways Water Quality

4.5. Update on IRG Flood Control Resilience Funded Projects

4.6. Water Efficiency Update

4.7. Whakakī Catchment Pilot Project Case Studies and Findings

4.8. Urban Biodiversity Presentation by Dr Bruce Clarkson

4.9. Ahuriri Estuary Stocktake.

Authored by:

Annelie Roets

Governance Advisor

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Subject: Report and Recommendations from 19 May 2021 Corporate and Strategic Committee Meeting

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee (C&S) meeting on 19 May 2021 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 5 May 2021 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. The Risk Maturity Update item advised a draft Risk Appetite Statement will be presented to the August FARS meeting for adoption.

2.2. The Internal Assurance Framework Update item provided the draft Internal Assurance Framework and the Internal Assurance Implementation Plan for the Sub-committee’s endorsement and recommendation to the C&S to further recommend to Council for adoption. The Framework and Implementation Plan are attached for Council’s adoption in accordance with the Sub-committee’s resolution:

2.2.1. Recommends that the Corporate and Strategic Committee approves the draft Internal Assurance Framework and the Internal Assurance Implementation Plan as proposed and recommends the adoption of both to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

2.3. The Data Analytics Internal Audit Report item provided the report on the fourth consecutive Data Analytics Audit of payables, payroll and transactional data for the financial year conducted by Crowe. No significant issues were raised by the Audit.

2.4. The Quarterly Treasury Report for 1 January - 31 March 2021 item provided an update on the performance of Council’s investment portfolio for the third quarter of the 2020-21 financial year, highlighting an expectation that returns will continue to equalise over the next quarter and that full year performance will be around $8.0m ahead of budget

2.5. The Independent Member Resignation item formally received the resignation of Rebekah Dinwoodie, and (as presented in a separate C&S agenda item) resolved:

2.5.1. Recommends that the Corporate and Strategic Committee determines and recommends to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council an appropriate recruitment and appointment process to replace the Independent Member of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee.

3. The Appointment of an Independent Member to the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee item provided the means for the Committee to determine and recommend an appointment process to the Council, for replacement of Rebekah Dinwoodie who resigned earlier this year. The Committee resolved:

3.1. The C&S recommends that HBRC Initiates the process following for the recruitment and appointment of an Independent member of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee

3.1.1. Chief Executive to seek expressions of interest from suitably qualified candidates

3.1.2. FARS councillor members to assess Expressions of Interest received and determine a shortlist of candidates for interview

3.1.3. FARS Chair, The Chair of Corporate and Strategic Committee, Te Pou Whakarae and GM Corporate Services undertake interviews of the shortlisted candidates, after which the FARS recommends the appointment of the preferred candidate to Council.

4. The HBRC Investment Strategy and Treasury Policy item provided the draft updated Policy and newly development Strategy, reflecting Council’s approach to managing its investment assets in line with the principles agreed upon with councillors as part of the development of the Financial Strategy for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (LTP) for feedback and recommendation to Council for adoption. The amendments agreed by the Committee will be incorporated into the updated documents in line with the resolution made:

4.1. The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopts the HBRC Investment Strategy and Treasury Policy (attached) as amended to incorporate feedback provided by the Corporate & Strategic Committee on 19 May 2021.

5. The 2020-21 Quarter 3 (1 January - 31 March 2021) Financial Report provided the Committee with financial results for the 2020-21 financial year for the 9 months to 31 March 2021 and highlighted the overall favourable HBRC operational income position.

6. The Organisational Performance and Financial reports for Period 3, 1 January to 31 March 2021 provided third quarter results for the 2020-21 financial year, with highlights including further demonstration of the PowerBI dashboard.

7. The LTP IT Work Programme Delivery item highlighted key initiatives in progress to improve Council’s digital systems and updated the Committee on the planned programme for delivery, including $30m capital spend.

8. The HBRIC Ltd Quarterly Update item provided Council with a quarterly update on the affairs of the CCO including financial statements for the 9 months to 31 March 2021 and advice that the Board has commenced the development of a clearer capital structure and investment mandate to support the growth of the company, as well as an overview of potential investment opportunities.

9. And finally, the HB Tourism Six Monthly Update item provided an update and presentation on their achievements against key performance indicators as required by their Funding Agreement with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Decision Making Process

10. These items were specifically considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on 19 May 2021 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 19 May 2021 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.

Report & Recommendations from the 5 May 2021 Finance Audit and Risk Sub-Committee Meeting

3. Adopts the Internal Assurance Framework and the Internal Assurance Implementation Plan (attached) as proposed.

Appointment of the Independent Member of the FARS

4. Initiates the process following for the recruitment and appointment of an Independent member of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee:

4.1. Chief Executive to seek expressions of interest from suitably qualified candidates

4.2. FARS councillor members to assess Expressions of Interest received and determine a shortlist of candidates for interview

4.3. FARS Chair, the Chair of Corporate & Strategic Committee, Te Pou Whakarae and GM Corporate Services to undertake interviews of the shortlisted candidates, after which the FARS will recommend the appointment of the preferred candidate to Council.

Reports Received

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

5.1. HBRC Investment Strategy and Treasury Policy (to 30 June HBRC for adoption)

5.2. 2020-21 Quarter 3 (1 January - 31 March 2021) Financial Report

5.3. Organisational Performance Report for period 1 January to 31 March 2021

5.4. LTP IT Work Programme Delivery

5.5. HBRIC Quarterly Update

5.6. Hawke's Bay Tourism Six-monthly Update.

Authored by:

Olivia Giraud-Burrell

Business Analyst

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1 ⇩	Internal Assurance Framework Implementation Plan
2 ⇨	Internal Assurance Framework		Under Separate Cover

[1] Janet M. Wilmshurst (1997) The impact of human settlement on vegetation and soil stability in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Botany.

Topic	Raised by