Agenda of Strategic Planning and Finance Committee

Top 10 Risks

Attachment 1

Risk Issue 1

Investment portfolio

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React
Mitigate		Investment portfolio
Opportunity			By 2015

Current situation and risk

· Council reliant on income from investments to meet operational costs

· Some restriction on expenditure of income through Hawke’s Bay Endowment Land Act.

· Investment balance sheet seen as “lazy”.

· Investments continually challenged by TLA’s and potentially at risk

Risk mitigation approach

· The policy on the evaluation of investment opportunities has been completed and implementation of recommendations being actioned.

· Proposal has been put forward to place investments into a holding company, the establishment of which is subject to a special consultative process to be carried out in 2011.

· A number of Investment opportunities have been approved that align to Council goals and for the benefit of the regional economy.

Change since April 2010

· Provision of costs of the proposed Holding Company have been included in the draft Annual Plan 2010/11.

· Council considered the governance options, risks and benefits of establishment at meetings in March 2010 through to June 2010.

· Establishment of a number of investment opportunities progressed.

· There is increasing pressure on the investment portfolio for development of infrastructure within Hawke’s Bay.

Assessment –risk to Council has the potential to increase as a result of increasing pressure on the portfolio.

Risk Issue 2

Water Quality

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React	Water quality
Mitigate
Opportunity		By 2012

Current situation and risk

· Water quality declining in a number of waterways; especially noticeable during periods of low flow.

· Little recognition by water users of value of water

· Climate change and land use intensification will increase pressure on water resource and water quality.

· Collaboration with CHBDC and Wairoa DC to improve Mahia Beach, Waipawa and Waipukurau sewage treatment

· Public perception from some sectors that new irrigation dams will result in poorer water quality due to change to more intensive land use

· Urban runoff adversely impacting on water quality, particularly on Heretaunga Plains.

· Mohaka/Taharua land use/water quality project underway

· Assessment of water quality trends in Hawke’s Bay being provided at a national level by NIWA with little or no input from this Council.

· Riparian fencing and planting being encouraged through Council’s Regional Landcare Scheme and Fonterra’s Clean Streams Accord.

Risk mitigation approach

· Development of a regional water strategy

· Adaptive management approach to be taken in sensitive catchments and water short areas involving water users, their industry groups, environmental lobby, Iwi, Council

· Science input appropriately targeted to sensitive catchments and risk areas and possible development of new policy

· Continue to collaborate with CHBDC and Wairoa DC and celebrate achievements

· More holistic approach to Council involvement with primary sector being taken by Council with objective of reducing impact of sector on water quality.

· Establishment of web portal through which regional councils can communicate water quality trends.

Change since April 2010

· Dam feasibility studies for CHB dams continued. These studies include management of intensification of land use such that the risk to water quality is addressed.

· Development of a water strategy ongoing.

· Work continues in Taharua catchment to reduce farming impact on water quality.

· Waste water projects for CHB and Mahia Beach progressed.

· Web portal establishment progressed.

· Land and water symposium being proposed.

Assessment – no change in risk to Council since last assessment. Is receiving ongoing attention.

Risk Issue 3

Co- Governance of Natural Resources

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React
Mitigate	Co-management
Opportunity			Co- Governance

Current situation and risk

· Management of natural resources is key area for cultural redress for Treaty Claimant groups in Hawke’s Bay

· It is a strategic goal of Council to improve relationships with tangata whenua and local Maori.

· Treaty settlements have potential to make Iwi significant players in Hawke’s Bay economy in the future.

· Cabinet has endorsed a Joint Regional Planning Committee as its preferred co-governance model for Hawke’s Bay (July 2010) to be discussed with the Treaty claimant groups.

· As claimant groups are at various stages of the Treaty negotiation process with the Crown, transitional arrangements for Committee membership may need to be considered for the next triennium.

· Risk of non-implementation of joint committee is low but it success or otherwise will potentially have a high impact on long-term relationships between local government and tangata whenua in Hawke’s Bay.

Risk mitigation approach

Improve relationship with tangata whenua and local Maori through range of involvement:

· Co governance – joint Committee of Council

o Involving each Treaty claimant Grouping

o Focussed on Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan development

· Regular meetings Treaty Claim Groups

o Agreement on Annual programmes of work

o Operational programmes and issues

o Understanding of values important to tangata whenua.

· Capability and Capacity

o Hapu, rohe specific

o Understanding role of RC

o Water quality and other monitoring and reporting

o other resource monitoring

o Involvement in specific projects

· Immediate initiatives

o Discussions with Crown and treaty claimant groups on details of a Joint Regional Planning Committee

o Recommendations to incoming Council on Committee structure to include Joint Regional Planning Committee

o Financial support for Community Development Unit

o Support for hapu management plans

o Proactive encouragement of hapu involvement in water quality monitoring and data recording through Council website.

o Specific support to Ngati Pahauwera

i. Rawhiti Station Farm management plan

ii. Gravel co-management MOU

Change since April 2010

· Direction given by Crown as to its preferred model for co-governance, enabling discussions to occur with and between Treaty claimant groups, leading towards a working model for the next triennium

Assessment – further significant reduction in risk.

Risk Issue 4

Climate change

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React		Climate Change
Mitigate			Climate change
Opportunity

Current situation and risk

· Climate change generally accepted as having a future impact on Hawke’s Bay

· Predicted impacts;

o Sea level rise by 0.8m by 2100

o Reduced rainfall

o Increased intensity of storms

o Average temperature rising.

· Hazard lines associated with coastal erosion established and incorporated into regional plans.

· Response factored into specific work programmes for asset management (Council infrastructure assets), land management (resilience of region’s primary productive sector), community (healthy homes), and water (water strategy and water harvesting); and into other Council programmes.

· Council assessing and managing its corporate carbon footprint.

Risk mitigation approach

· Continue to take a leadership role on the issue and to factor the potential impact of climate change into work programmes, to position the community to adapt to the changing climate and benefit from opportunities arising from its impacts.

· Undertake an energy audit on Council buildings and pump stations and implement an action plan to reduce energy use.

· Awaiting receipt of sea level rise National Environmental standard to define planning levels.

· Clarity on HBRC role in issue to be developed

Change since April 2010

· Energy audit on Council buildings completed and recommendations implemented.

· Assessment of carbon sequestration potential through plantings on Council owned land progressed

Assessment – no change in risk to Council

Risk Issue 5

Land use intensification

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React	Land use intensification
Mitigate			Land use intensification
Opportunity

Current situation and risk

· Media comment questions Council’s effectiveness in managing land use because of impacts of land use on water quality in parts of region

· Land use intensification is resulting in reduced water quality in region’s rivers. This is shown through Council’s SOE monitoring and reporting programme.

· Current RRMP focussed on point source discharges and some members of the public believe Council should regulate land use to deal with non point source discharges.

· Council land management staff able to influence land use practices through relationship and RLS subsidy.

· Council agree to a combined regulatory and collaborative approach using an adaptive management philosophy is most effective in achieving best practice approach by land owners.

· Council implementing science programme designed to understand actual risk and trends associated with land use intensification.

Risk mitigation approach

· Continue to work with primary sector industry groups and groups of farmers to encourage the use of best practice. Council recognises that it must be the champion of the challenge to accommodate land use intensification while protecting water quality.

· Council to identify sensitive catchments and work with communities associated with those catchments to achieve an adaptive management approach.

· Regulation to be developed associated with adaptive management approach, with standards agreed with community.

· Science input appropriately targeted to sensitive catchments and risk areas

· Planning commenced to use Ruataniwha water storage project to raise profile of intensification issues

Change since April 2010

· Dairy liaison group continue to meet.

· Review of land management objectives and measures progressing

· Work with Taharua and Huatokitoki communities progressing

· Research on irrigation efficiency funded by RLS progressing.

· Development of land strategy being considered.

· Land and water symposium being proposed

Assessment – no change in risk to Council, however remains a focus area of work.

Risk Issue 6

Local government reform

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React
Mitigate
Opportunity		LG Reform	LG reform

Current situation and approach

· Regional councils widely criticised for failing in role as managers of NZ’s resources.

· Formation of Auckland “supercity” being progressed

· Local government amalgamation being proposed for local government in Hawke’s Bay.

· Low level of public understanding of Regional council role.

· Regional councils as a group weak on coordination or collaboration.

Risk mitigation approach

· Focus on effectively undertaking regional council role.

· Greater collaboration and coordination between regional councils being considered (promoted).

· Points of difference between Regional and territorial authorities being highlighted to national and local politicians and the public.

· Council to lead a well planned and effective effort to achieve collaboration between local authorities in specific areas.

· Gather information on the effectiveness of unitary authority organisations in implementing regional council role.

Change since April 2010

· Chair and Chief Executive have been active in working with Central Government agencies and politicians to communicate the regional council value proposition in resource management, including environmental, cultural, economic and social aspects.

· HBRC continue to develop very good profile – Senior Government CEs, MAF, MfE, DoC etc. There is now a much greater awareness of the value of regional councils by central government

· Substantial improvement across regional council sector in collaboration and coordination.

· Focus on shared services between Council’s. Now appears to be little ongoing debate re amalgamation.

· Feedback from Auckland is indicating that amalgamation is a difficult and expensive process, with positive outcomes yet to be proven

Assessment – further significant reduction to risk in Council

Risk Issue 7

Air quality

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React	Air quality
Mitigate
Opportunity			Air quality

Current situation and risk

· NES for air quality to be complied with.

· Review of NES Standards has lead to proposed amendments to compliance date from 212 to 2018.

· Healthy homes Programme implemented to maximise opportunities for improvement of housing stock utilising government grants, with position established within Council.

· Decisions issued on Regional Plan change for air quality to meet Council obligation associated with NES

Risk mitigation approach

· Continue monitoring air standards, especially PM10, within the region to determine trends towards compliance.

· Continue to proactively implement healthy homes initiatives, including funding assistance.

Change since April 2010

· Announcement of findings of Review of NES for Air Quality, aligns with phase out dates in Regional Plan change.

· Council success in proactively implementing healthy homes initiative being reflected by increased demand for Council resource and advice.

· Council decision on change to air quality section of Regional Resource Management Plan change issued.

Assessment – significant reduction in risk to Council. The removal of this risk from the Top 10 Council risks will be considered at the next review.

Risk Issue 8

Water quantity

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React	Water quantity
Mitigate
Opportunity		Water quantity

Current situation and risk

· Surface water/ground water fully allocated in parts of region. (see map attached)

· Considerable investment in science required in future to underpin water allocation and RMA based approach

· NES for measurement of water takes, and ecological flows and water levels being developed by government.

· Process of assessing minimum river flows based on robust instream assessments and allocation limits to be reviewed for surface water and ground water.

· Water Initiatives Group established within Council to focus on water issues.

· Regional Plan change to meet Council obligation associated with NES initiated.

· Current water allocation process will become increasingly confrontational and litigious and adaptive management philosophy required.

Risk mitigation approach

· Development of a regional water strategy

· Council led initiative to investigate water harvesting opportunities, water metering and water use efficiency through rationing and rostering.

· Complete review of minimum river flows and allocation limits for ground water and surface water.

· Science input appropriately targeted to sensitive catchments and risk areas

Change since April 2010

· Considerable science work now ongoing with outputs due between May 2010 and June 2012

Assessment – no further reduction in risk to Council

Risk Issue 9

Hazardous activity industry list (HAIL)

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React
Mitigate	HAIL
Opportunity

Current situation and risk

· List prepared in 1996 and assessments and actions programmed on basis of risk

· List required to be made public following decision of Ombudsman 12 October

· Residential and commercial sites on list but which have not been addressed as priorities to date advised

· Some sites are high priority due to potential public health risks.

Risk mitigation approach

· Respond to property owner concerns

· Implement programme of work to establish degree (if any) of contamination on site

· Focus on high priority site work programs in conjunction with TLAs

· New Contaminated level draft NES clarifies principle role is with TLA.

Change since April 2010

· Continuing investigations of high priority sites

· Formation of a Hawke’s Bay regional database in collaboration with TLAs progressing

· Continuing to work on unverified HAIL sites.

· Liaison with Napier City Council continuing regarding Onekawa landfill issues.

Assessment – no further reduction in risk to Council since September 2009.

Risk Issue 10

Operational risks

Current and planned future position

	Immediate	Mid term	Long term
React
Mitigate	Operational risks
Opportunity

Current situation and risk

· Natural hazard impacts considered in infrastructure and asset design

· Business continuity plan regularly updated

· Financial controls in place and audited

· Integrity of infrastructure assets audited

· Disaster reserves and insurance provisions in place with robust overarching policy.

· Technical reports peer reviewed and systems reviewed

Risk mitigation approach

· Continuation of controls and systems for management of operational risks

· Financial issues regarding VHB have been well publicised over the past weeks.

· Implementation of new finance system, replacing 25 year old system complete

· Review of Finance team’s capacity and resourcing underway noting we may be under resourced on management accounting support particularly given increased operational activity

Change since April 2010

· No Change

Assessment – remains a risk area for Council with management continuously monitored.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Strategic Planning and Finance Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2010

SUBJECT: Public Transport - Further Update

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. At the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee meeting held on 21 July 2010 an update was provided to the Committee on public transport. At that meeting further information was requested to be brought back to this meeting, this paper covers those matters.

2. SuperGold Card Review

2.1 As identified to the Committee in July the Ministry of Transport have completed the review of the SuperGold Card (SGC) scheme and propose changes to the scheme for the 2010/11 year. The Chief Executive has now received formal notification from the Ministry of Transport on changes to the scheme. A copy of this letter is attached, for the Committee’s information.

2.2 The impact to this Council of the proposed changes is the reduction in the reimbursement rate from 75% to 65% of the average adult fare, with this revenue reduction to be borne by this Council, as it operates a gross contract. The second impact is that Councils can no longer make any claim for costs for administering the scheme; in the 2009/10 year $10,000 was paid to HBRC for this. The financial shortfall of both these funding reductions will be approximately $25,000 for the 2010/11 year.

2.3 As requested by this Committee, the Chief Executive discussed the proposed changes to the SGC scheme at the Regional CEO’s meeting held in August and there was no support from any Regional Council for the changes proposed by the Ministry of Transport to the scheme. It is therefore suggested that following this meeting a letter be sent from the Chief Executive to the Ministry of Transport stating Council will not accept the changes to the scheme and the subsequent resulting loss of revenue.

2.4 At the September meeting the Committee asked for an indication of the marginal cost to Council for the SGC scheme. Prior to the introduction of the SGC scheme, approximately 3400 “senior” passengers were carried monthly; this number has increased to approximately 6000 per month, which results in an annual increase of approximately 31,200. It is useful to remember that the SuperGold Scheme operates in the off-peak period (9am to 3pm Monday to Friday and Saturdays) to eliminate pressure on key services and avoid Councils having to put on extra buses and services to meet this demand. It was identified late last year that Saturday services were being put under pressure on Council’s main routes and Council agreed to increase services on Saturdays to assist with this, but because of the limited detailed information from Council’s ticketing system it is difficult to say this was as a direct result of the SCG Scheme. The enhancements to the Saturday services were done within current funding allocations.

3. Patronage and Financial Trends

3.1 The Committee also asked for further detail on the revenue and passenger numbers. The following graph shows the total number of passengers and the total revenue received from fares for the period of 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.

3.2 The graph below shows a comparison of passenger numbers for February to August 2009 and the same period during 2010. This graph indicates that passenger numbers have consistently increased since the same period last year.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

4. Council is required to make a 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 the following:

a) Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

b) Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

d) Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

e) 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 having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Strategic Planning and Finance Committee recommend that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided

2. Notes the information contained in this report;

3. Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Ministry of Transport stating that Council will not accept the changes to the SuperGold Card scheme and the subsequent loss of revenue resulting from their review of the scheme.

Carol Gilbertson

governance and public transport Manager

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Letter to Chief Executive from Ministry of Transport

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Strategic Planning and Finance Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2010

SUBJECT: Proposal to new Council for the Committee structure for next triennial term

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. The Local Government Act (2002) empowers Council to appoint the committees, sub-committees and other subordinate decision-making bodes that it considers appropriate. It is standard practice at Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for the outgoing Council to review its committee structure and terms of reference and make recommendations for the incoming Council.

2. This paper considers the current committee structure and seeks Council comment and consideration of issues raised by staff.

Background

3. The Council currently operates with the following committees –

Points for Discussion

New Joint Committee for Regional Planning

4. The Crown has expressed a desire to obtain just and durable settlements for all Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. In their Treaty settlements, claimants are increasingly looking for the opportunity to work in partnership with the Crown in ensuring the health of natural resources, particularly waterways, and have a strong desire to be involved in resource management decision making.

5. This has led to Cabinet agreeing to the Crown working with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to discuss with local iwi the establishment of a Regional Council Planning Committee as part of Treaty settlement negotiations in Hawke’s Bay

6. Detailed Terms of Reference for a joint Regional Planning Committee are yet to be worked through between all the parties but the underlying principles of the Committee would be:

6.1 The Committee would be created through legislation, either as part of settlement legislation or as separate legislation.

6.2 The Committee would be made up of equal representation of elected Councillors and representatives of the Treaty claimant groups.

6.3 The Committee would make all relevant decisions under the RMA regarding the content of new Plans, Policy Statements, Plan changes and Variations.

6.4 The Committee would act within the constraints of the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act.

6.5 The legislation would not remove the rights of any person to submit on proposed plan provisions and if dissatisfied with Council decisions to appeal those to the Environment Court.

7. There is a large work load in terms of changes to the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans in the next triennium. Council will be undertaking significant policy development and will need to begin its work programme soon after the elections. The process by which the representation of non-Councillor Committee members is determined is unlikely to be finalised in accordance with Council’s plan development needs and interim measures are needed.

8. Of the nine Treaty claimant groups with interests within Hawke’s Bay, six of the groups have been mandated. A mandate is the process by which the claimant group mandates a representative group and gives them the authority, or mandate to enter into discussions and agreements with the Crown on their behalf. It is expected that by December 2010 seven, and possibly eight, of the groups will have been mandated.

9. In order to accommodate both the Crown’s preferred intent and Council’s programme it is suggested that Treaty claimant groups be offered a place on the Committee upon mandating, and that any interim membership requirements be filled by members of the Maori Committee until a trigger point is reached at which point the Regional Planning Committee would become a full joint Committee as envisaged by Cabinet, and the Crown would be requested to introduce legislation to formally establish the joint Committee.

10. During the transition period, at least, the committee would be chaired by the Chair of Council. It would also be appropriate for there to be an alternate Chair appointed during this time in the event that the Council Chair is unable to attend a meeting of the joint Committee. It is suggested that this should be the Chair of the Committee which oversees environmental management activities

11. Up to the end of August initial discussions had occurred with all Treaty claimant groups with interests in Hawke’s Bay on the concept of a joint Regional Planning Committee. All claimant groups have expressed support for continuing to discuss the proposal.

12. Details of the Terms of Reference will be discussed by all parties over the next two-three months.

Governance of Venture Hawke’s Bay

13. During the present triennium Venture Hawke’s Bay (VHB) has become a business unit of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and is funded from regional council rates. The present Advisory Board governance structure reflects the funding arrangement which existed in 2007 and therefore includes representatives from the Napier City and Hastings District Councils, as well as representatives from local tourism and business sectors.

14. In the 2010-13 period there are two options for governance of VHB, contingent upon the breadth of activities which VHB carries out:

14.1 Assuming that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the primary funder of the tourism sector component of VHB the VHB is treated as one of the operating units of Council, reporting to an Executive Manager, and with budget approval and performance monitoring carried out by Council through the Strategy and Finance Committee.

Under this scenario industry-reference groups would be formally established and have ongoing input into both the regional tourism and economic development activities of VHB.

14.2 If the Hawke’s Bay tourism sector produces a coherent and sustainable proposition to substantially fund a significant proportion of the tourism promotion activities then Council may actively explore the splitting of the regional tourism organisation (RTO) functions from VHB. The economic development activity (EDA) of VHB would remain as an operating activity of Council.

Under this scenario the RTO would be governed through industry-chaired and led Board arrangement with regional council representation on the Board.

15. Under both scenarios the staff employment, financial management, accounting and reporting responsibilities would be delivered through and monitored by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Under the first scenario it would be recommended that the Council review, ahead of its finalisation of the Annual Plan 2011/12 its ongoing financial contribution via rates to the tourism sector taking into account the level of constructive engagement with that sector.

Organisational Evolution

16. In this triennium Council established a Strategy and Finance Committee to oversee the strategic direction for Council, and to manage financial and risk issues and Council’s investment portfolio. This committee has carried out a significant workload over the past triennium, given Council’s desire to operate at a more strategic level in its leadership role, in its stakeholder relationships and in the breadth of its activities. It is recommended that this Committee continue. It is intended that as some strategic issues are implemented and become more operational such should functions shift to the more appropriate operational committees. An example might be further refinement of the Council’s overall water strategy governed by this committee but ultimately implantation aspects migrate to the other committees

17. Council is required by statute to have a Regional Transport Committee.

18. If the Council accepts that a joint Committee should undertake its RMA regional planning functions this has implications for the Environmental Management Committee (EMC). Currently the EMC has five meetings a year. With the removal of policy development the EMC’s functions would comprise environmental regulation, environmental monitoring and statutory advocacy and also science information that informs plan policy making.

19. Council is also engaged in a substantial service business in areas ranging from asset protection services through to land management and river engineering services. This work is represented at a committee level by the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee (AMBS). The AMBS meets four times a year, usually for less than half a day.

20. The recommendation is to retain both the committees with meetings being run on consecutive days either three or four times a year. This also ensures that the Council utilizes the Chairs of these two committees to maintain a relationship with constituents on what are relatively intensive areas of Council interaction with public.

21. The Maori Committee is made up of representatives of the four taiwhenua within Hawke’s Bay and makes recommendations to the Council on matters of relevance affecting the tangata whenua of the region. Over the past three years the Committee has worked well and helped fulfil the Maori consultative requirements of the Council particularly with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Local Government Act 2002. Despite the potential establishment of a joint Committee to undertake all resource management policy development there are still significant substantive issues for the Maori Committee to deal with, and it is recommended that this committee be re-established at the start of the new triennium but with a review in twelve months.

22. Council had previously resolved in July 2007 not to discharge the Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee. This decision was endorsed by the four territorial authorities at that time, and remains in place for the upcoming election period.

23. Other committees cover specific issues such as selection of tenders (Tenders Committee), and resource consent hearings (Hearings Committee). These committees both meet when required. The Tenders Committee replaced the former Executive Committee, which comprised four councillors. In past Council terms the Executive Committee, consisting the chair, deputy chair and two other Councillors considered predominantly tender issues but also met to review the Chief Executive’s (CE) performance, and initial assessment of external appointments to Boards, such as the Port of Napier Director appointments. In the past term all Councillors have met to review the CE’s performance and the Council as a whole has considered and appointed Directors, through on occasion delegating an issue to a specific sub-committee to undertake some of the process work.

24. Council in past terms has established a number of industry and community leadership and liaison groups including the Ruataniwha Water Storage Leadership Group, Ruataniwha Stakeholders Group and the Dairy Liaison Group. The Council also provides a representative to the Animal Health Board and Hawke’s Bay TB Free Committee. It is recommended that Council continues with all these groups.

Council representation on Holding Company

25. In the next triennium Council will be considering the proposed establishment of a Holding Company and may need to consider representation on the Board of the Holding Company.

26. The scheduling of meetings for 2011 will depend to some extent on the decisions made by the incoming Council on the Committee structure. Meeting scheduling has a significant impact on the workload for both councillors and staff. It was noted during previous discussions on meeting scheduling that it is important for there to be gaps in the schedule especially to give provisions for longer Hearings to be completed.

27. The following meeting frequency is therefore proposed:

	Suggested meeting frequency 2011
Regional Council	Monthly
Joint Regional Planning	As required
Strategic Planning and Finance	Two-monthly
Environmental Management & Asset Management and Biosecurity	Three-monthly on consecutive days
Maori	Three-monthly
Regional Transport	Three-monthly
Tenders	As required
Hearings	As required
VHB Advisory Board	N/A
CDEM Joint Committee	Twice yearly

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

28. Any decisions will be presented to the new Council as proposals only, as it is the new Council which will make the ultimate decision. Consequently, no decision making process assessment is required at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Committee recommends to Council that:

1. The Council propose to the incoming Council for the triennial term October 2010 to September 2013 to:

1.1 Establish a new joint Committee for Regional Planning, with membership comprising equal representation of Councillors, and non-Councillors from the Treaty claimant groups.

1.2 Retain the Environmental Management and Asset Management and Biosecurity Committees.

1.3 Incorporate the reporting structures of Venture Hawke’s Bay directly into Council, via the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee but establish industry advisory mechanisms to assist with direction setting.

1.4 Or, subject to the Tourism Sector demonstrating a genuine multi-year financial commitment to Tourism promotion, splitting the Tourism component from Venture Hawke’s Bay and governing this activity through an industry led Board, noting however the following caveats; Regional Council would retain financial control via its finance function; and the staff would remain Regional Council employees.

1.5 Noting 1.3, review the performance and operation of Tourism sector activities specifically to establish what, if any, funding continues in the 2011/12 financial year.

1.6 Re-establish the Maori Committee, with a review of its role in twelve months.

1.7 Continue the other current committees of Council into the next term.

1.8 Continue with established industry and community groups including the Ruataniwha Water Storage Leadership Group, the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group and the Dairy Liaison Group.

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Action items from Council Meeting	Provide Committee with an update on refreshing Council’s website	EL/DB	July 10	Update on this agenda, with final costings to be presented in October.
2.	Business innovation awards	What criteria is used to choose the judges?	DB	Sept 10	This information will be supplied to Councillors via email.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASONS FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION
Minutes of Meeting from 21 July 2010 - Treaty Settlements – Crown Update	7(2)(i) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.